With the recent acquisition of Fitbit by Google (for $2.1 billion!), in order to break into the highly lucrative “wearables” market, I thought it might be interesting to explore this topic a bit here. However, since we’re talking about Google attempting to compete directly with Apple, Xiaomi, Garmin, Huawei, and Samsung, this is a tough nut to crack. Here are some quick stats* from Statista: Connected wearables worldwide (2019): 722 million Wristband wearables (2020): 67.7 million Marketshare of wearables (Q3, 2020): Apple 33.1%, Xiaomi 13.6%, Fitbit 2%, Hauwei 11%, Samsung 9% (Other, such as Garmin 28.2%) Apple and Samsung hold the highest percentage of most recognizable smartwatches (2020): 47.9% and 13% respectively Wearables, from fitness trackers (like the Fitbit Charge 4) to smartwatches, are no longer the stuff of science‐fiction. They have evolved even quicker than smartphones. Up until 2006 when the LG Prada first appeared on the market (followed by the iPhone in 2007) there was virtually nothing like modern wearables available. Though it took a confluence of technologies from touchscreens, 3G/4G/LTE cellular service, and Bluetooth to name a scant few to make wearables a reality, they quickly evolved into what we are seeing today. And these are not only connected extensions of our smartphones on our wrists or other parts of the body (e.g. Google Glass for Enterprise AR), but also as stand alone devices that house whole operating systems, UIs, and bio‐feedback sensors on their own. The Apple Watch is obviously the go‐to example but more and more diverse devices are beginning to flood the market. Devices such as: implantables (from biosensors, super small pacemakers, to birth‐control), smart jewelry (to discreetly take calls and texts, or track menstrual cycles), smart clothing (with sensors that monitor everything from footfalls for runners to providing haptic feedback for yoga poses),...
access
-
-
April 20, 2017Mobile communications such as text messaging, Facebook Messenger, Twitter Direct Messaging, SnapChat, Skype, and FaceTime are all seeking to supplant Email these days as the preferred form of digital communications. Not so for business or for professionals where Email still reigns supreme. Email access essentially comes in two forms: Email Software, or Client-based Email – E.g. Microsoft Outlook (costly subscription fees), Mac Mail (comes with Mac OS X), and Thunderbird (free open-source download) to name a few. Cloud Email – E.g. Google Mail (GMail), Yahoo Email, or AOL Email (yes, it still exists)—all free and accessible via a web browser Let’s delve into the key differences between them with an eye on how each form manages Email in their own unique ways. It should be noted that regardless of what method of accessing your Email is used, all Email actually sits on a server somewhere in “The Cloud” and simply waits for you to get it one way or another. Email Software Client-based (meaning: on your computer) Email still has many years of unparalleled usefulness that other services can’t match—the main advantage being security. Say you’re an employee at Company X and check your email like everyone else does everyday. You can rest assured that the Email sitting behind your company’s firewall is as secure as it gets. Even when logging in from home, you are usually using a VPN (Virtual Private Network) to establish a secure connection between your laptop and your company’s Email servers. There’s very little chance of your Email being hijacked as you send your messages to your fellow employees or out to your clients. Microsoft Outlook allows a massive amount of Email filtering features, rich text (like HTML) messages, Email organization into shared and group folders across the entire organization, remote Email access via a Web-Outlook interface, and comes in cross-platform versions for Mac OS X and Windows (all versions). And the final advantage is group organization capabilities like employee calendars, scheduling...