Since my last write-up on the Internet of Things (IoT), three (1) (2) (3) more companies have released “open” IoT frameworks. If you still don’t believe we’re headed towards a standards war, hang tight.

I’ve wondered about how everyone is trying to capitalize on IoT yet nobody was talking about the value to consumers. Listening to executives promote IoT might make you wonder about the kind of future they are selling. During Huawei’s recent LiteOS announcement, their stage announcement had this gem.

“(You can) record how often and how effectively you brush your teeth, and could tell you when to do it and how to do it better.”

A toothbrush, is what they chose to promote when selling the value of IoT. Dentists around the world will rejoice at the plaque fighting speech, while the rest of us scratch our collective heads wondering — why does this matter?

If you read between the lines, you find why IoT is a big deal. From the Financial Times (paywall), Xu, head of global strategy at Huawei states, “We want to provide the connections, not the devices.” Why connections? Making sense of IoT data is the value companies are fighting for, not the hardware, not the altruism of being an open platform. It’s about not finding yourself stuck on the outside.

I think part of the confusion around IoT value is that vendors want to own the entire experience but can’t seem to figure out a way to do so without promoting Apple and Google’s own initiatives. That would require us to move away from our smartphones, but then doing so would require proprietary operating systems nobody cares about. Is IoT disruptive enough to consumer behavior to pry the smartphone away from us?

We Need The Smartphone (Today)

IoT has a lot riding on the smartphone. This is not a new idea. What is interesting to consider, is whether any vendor will be able to move us away from the smartphone. All IoT devices will require an interaction model and I can’t imagine that value being found on your wall, on your fridge, or in your toothbrush. Value will be on what we all carry around from the moment we wake up, to the moment we fall asleep, and today, that is our iPhone or Android device.

The smartphone has all we need from an IoT interaction model. Portability, all-day battery, always-on internet, and integration to our lives (apps and context). Apps are critical since any IoT interaction model will fail if it is unable to gather context from our lives. At least today, that context is only accessible through apps on your smartphone.

Any missing context is a barrier to IoT’s perceived value. Imagine a user having to enter social accounts into every competing IoT device. Smartphones already have that data. Something as simple as linking app notifications into the cloud, is a huge advantage for Google and Apple that IoT competitors might never fully have. A good case study, is The Verge’s Pebble smartwatch review (skip to 1:49) and how limited in functionality it is on iOS, and how reliant it is on Android and iOS APIs, to blossom.

IDC’s February 2015 Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker puts Android market share at 81%, iOS at 15% — together, 96% total market share. If your goal is getting an IoT interaction model in front of the user, you have a long road ahead to user adoption. Sure, you could build an app, but that user experience is hardly cohesive. Apple and Google will only be extending their existing relationship as the primary way we access the cloud and apps today.

Wearables And Their Extensions

All modern wearables need the smartphone. Wearables have shown that we have a ways to go before our lives are “all-in” to the cloud. Limitations on battery life, usability, speed, make the dream more like a tethered reality. Reviews of both Apple Watch and Android Wear, show our connected dreams are pretty bare without our apps. Consider that both wearables operate on WiFi independently of the phone with limited use cases.

So why are Apple and Google investing if the technology doesn’t seem ready? I think it’s because these extensions are a play for our identity. The insight gained from devices in the hands of customers, development kits in the hands of developers, provide valuable data.

Wearables aren’t the only area where investments are happening. Extensions like Android Auto and CarPlay aim to achieve the same low-barrier of entry, in places where consumers spend a lot of time. The Economist writes that Americans are spending more time in vehicles than ever before. A car, is a second home to many Americans and is a natural (if undesired) extension to our home.

Expansion into any new market will not come without companies defending their turf. Toyota and Ford seem wise to the greater strategy, as reported by Bloomberg, they are looking to partner on Ford’s AppLink solution. The question, is whether Toyota and Ford will be able to create apps compelling enough for people to see value or if people will simply buy from another manufacturer that supports Apple and Google’s solutions. The latter seems more likely.

One bet that isn’t getting much press is Apple’s ResearchKit which at least to me, is similarly about IoT — using the iPhone’s data context from our lives, to extend into Health. Re/Code reported in an 2015 interview with Apple COO, Jeff Williams.

One area with growing potential is ResearchKit, software that allows Apple’s iPhone to be used as a tool for medical research. Williams said the technology already is being used to aid the study of Parkinson’s Disease, heart health, breast cancer and asthma. “Usually it takes a year-plus to see results, we’re seeing (it) in weeks and months,”

Although wearables today need a smartphone, tomorrow, they most likely will not. Convincing consumers to invest in the wearable, car, TV or home IoT ecosystem is a great strategy to expand how the smartphone affects our lives without changing the smartphone itself. You can easily imagine, 5 years later, someone may flip a switch and say the cloud is your new device that connects to everything, and your smartphone is now dumb.

IoT’s Future Is Likely About Identity

Smartphones represent the interaction model to our identity in the cloud — mostly because the technology for our identity to fully exist in the cloud, has yet to realize.

Let’s consider what’s on my phone. Social (Facebook), interests (Instagram), news (NYT Now), e-mail (Outlook), conversations (WhatsApp) and fifty more. If you’re thinking you don’t use some of the apps I use— that is the point. Our uniqueness can be represented through the apps we keep on our smartphones. It is itself, a form of identity.

But the future of IoT isn’t about any one device, it’s about who will own all the context gained by these connections to any device. Imagine being able to carry your identity and apps to every device, because your identity just needs to be downloaded from the cloud to a dumbphone.

Let me propose the dream. Imagine 5 years from today, you buy a new house, and the home supports Apple’s HomeKit. You walk in, the house is on reset mode so it recognizes a new owner. Your phone asks to confirm ownership, so you tap your device to the console, TouchID authenticate, and it confirms ownership. After all, ApplePay can tell by your bank transactions that the mortgage went through.

Now, just like setting up a new iPhone today, tomorrow, HomeKit sets up your entire house. The locks on your door get assigned to your iCloud family. Your temperature profile for the home is set. Your lighting scenes in the bedroom and TV room are brought over to your new home. The home senses your CarPlay enabled vehicle is nearby and asks if you’d like to transfer the garage opener access to it. Hell yes. This all relies on one connected ecosystem.

“Honey, does this house support Apple? No? Let’s look at another one.”