It’s interesting, that of all the ‘smart’ devices that companies like Apple, Google, etc. could make, they’ve chosen those that they have. It’s not necessarily ‘bad,’ per say, but there have been unusual choices in this context compared to what could be chosen, and in some cases, should.

What’s fascinating is that neither company’s step into wearable technology, took into consideration lots of things in terms of visual approach and position. Surely if each had, things would be different. Granted, it could be that these are just early ‘prototypes’ or ideas in a sense, intended to evolve, but in the game and world of adaption and adoption, every bit to move the user (and hopefully many, many users) is key. It’s interesting to see that no only the products chosen in wearable technology — and the larger smart/internet of things technology market — by the companies, but the approach taken too.

What’s unfortunate for devices, and this includes all devices, is that device business has always been and will always be a commodity business. What that means is that eventually, even with the big early start and early position, the market will ultimately shift to commodity as that is what device business does. It then becomes important, if not critical, that other components exist with the device, and while Apple has some position for this, Google currently has very little.

Which brings up another fascinating element. If in a new and emerging market such as wearable technology and the larger market of internet of things/smart technology overall, why would a company choose a known commodity business to take a position in? The answer, of course, is that the idea is to get in, and make your money at the early stage, before the market shifts to the commodity stage. So then it becomes not a question of what Google or Apple are doing today with their move into wearable technology and internet of things/smart concepts, but what their next moves will be as these will likely be the moves that make all the difference in the future ahead.

What’s fascinating, is the very little amount of startups in the arena above to date. Could this be from a broader lack of understanding of what’s ahead? Higher barrier of entry as hardware/physical product business of any kind? Latency to the market? It’s an early market with no clear defined winner. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next no less.