An article regarding the state of the smart home appeared in the 14 June 2016 issue of Business Insider. Entitled “The US smart home market has been struggling — here’s how and why the market will take off,” the article explained some thoughts on smart home adoption and the reasons growth hasn’t met expectations—and how it will catch up.

Putting aside the solutions, the reasons discussed in the article as to why the smart home market hasn’t exploded are worth noting. According to the writer, John Greenough, “At its current state, we believe the smart home market is stuck in the ‘chasm’ of the technology adoption curve, in which it is struggling to surpass the early-adopter phase and move to the mass-market phase of adoption.”

The article goes on to address several factors causing this “chasm,” including the high cost of devices, limited consumer demand, and long device replacement cycles. However, the writer puts the biggest share of the blame on the “technological fragmentation of the smart home ecosystem, in which consumers need multiple networking devices, apps and more to build and run their smart home.” He goes on to say, “Currently, there are many networks, standards, and devices being used to connect the smart home, creating interoperability problems and making it confusing for the consumer to set up and control multiple devices. Until interoperability is solved, consumers will have difficulty choosing smart home devices and systems.”

At first glance it may appear that there is a compatibility problem in the smart home arena, but as a device manufacturer, I see it as a compatibility strength. Sure, there is limited overlap in the wireless standards available for smart home platforms, but most have features that make them better suited for different applications. Let’s first look at a few protocols that are in use today.

Bluetooth

Bluetooth was originally created to wirelessly link devices over very short distances (e.g., within a room). Bluetooth quickly became the de facto standard for wirelessly connecting headphones, speakers, and car stereos. With virtually every phone using Bluetooth, it’s perfect for providing wireless access to a device through your phone. But, Bluetooth does not currently support mesh and its range is not sufficient for the devices spread throughout a home.

• Good for: Phone-to-device communication, short distance streaming of audio and video.
• Bad for: Device-to-device communication, no direct route to Internet.

WiFi
WiFi is built into virtually every smartphone, laptop, and tablet on the market. It has high bandwidth capacity for transmitting large amounts of data (streaming audio, video, and data-hogging applications) and typically has sufficient range for the home. In addition, most home routers include WiFi support, making it the easiest route to the internet. However, the large amount of power required to operate a WiFi radio, lack of mesh networking, and its need to be “always on” makes it a poor choice for battery-powered smart home devices.

• Good for: Streaming high-quality audio and video over medium-distance ranges, direct route to Internet, universally supported.
• Bad for: Battery-powered devices, systems that rely on mesh networking.

ZigBee and Z-Wave
ZigBee and Z-Wave are both standards that were designed from the ground up to link small devices in a mesh network. They use low-power radios that enable devices to operate for several years on a single battery.

• Good for: Device-to-device communication, battery powered devices, mesh networking.
• Bad for: Streaming of audio or video, device-to-phone communication, no direct access to Internet connection.

Many consumers (and technology analysts) see the multitude of standards and protocols as a barrier for adoption. I couldn’t disagree more. With the exception of a few competing technologies that offer similar features (e.g., ZigBee and Z-Wave), the market has simply provided different technologies for different applications. Most smart home hubs on the market already support ZigBee, Z-Wave, Bluetooth, and WiFi access. The consumer is the real winner with this structure. But, as manufacturers, we must do a better job of proving it.

However, there is another reason for the slower adoption—it’s not very complicated, and it doesn’t require any insider information or knowledge. Quite simply, consumers haven’t been exposed to smart home technology in meaningful ways. When TVs entered homes, your entire neighborhood wanted to visit and experience it. When smartphones appeared, we saw them in public and were amazed at the functionality. But smart home technology is an entirely different animal.

Most smart home early-adopters have only implemented simple solutions like a smart thermostat or a few lamps that are controlled by a smartphone. While useful, they don’t have much of a “wow factor.” When consumers think of a “smart home,” most envision it as a luxury, solely intended for million-dollar homes. Even with the simpler and more affordable systems, consumers aren’t comfortable with them. They’re a mystery to most, and intimidating to all.

When will smart homes be embraced by the “mainstream?” Manufacturers have largely solved the cost barrier as devices are getting far less expensive. The technology barrier of multiple protocols really isn’t an issue for most platforms. Most can understand pretty quickly that automated thermostats and lighting save money, while other options add convenience. But, people don’t want it, and won’t buy it, until they can’t live without it.

The smart home revolution is here, but the waves have only began to swell. The explosive growth of the energy-saving, convenience, and security markets is just around the bend.