MARKETING WEARABLE COMPUTERS TO CONSUMERS: AN EXAMINATION OF EARLY ADOPTER CONSUMERS' FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD WEARABLE COMPUTERS

i MARKETING WEARABLE COMPUTERS TO CONSUMERS: AN EXAMINATION OF EARLY
ADOPTER CONSUMERS' FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD WEARABLE COMPUTERS A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts By Katherine Watier Washington, DC April 19, 2003

i I would like to thank the entire staff of
Youth Service America for their support and understanding during my thesis process. Many thanks to the professionals in the industry who helped me with my research: Xybernaut Corporation, Tim Shea at Venture Development Corporation and Greg Jenkins at MicroOptical. My mom and second mom (Judy) deserve a huge amount of thanks for editing various pieces of this thesis and for providing emotional support. Finally, my friends and family deserve more praise that I can give for being there through my ups and downs. I could not have made it through without their support. Many thanks to all, Katherine Watier

i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................IX INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1: WEARABLE COMPUTERS OVERVIEW ........................................ 6 1.1 Wearable Computer Definition 6 1.1.1 Fully-functioning Computers 8 1.1.2 Head Mounted Displays 8 1.1.3 Input Devices 12 1.1.4 Always-On Functionality 14 1.1.5 Power supply 16 1.2 The History of Wearable Computing 17 1.3 Wearable Computing Industry & Consumer Products 21 1.4 Current Consumer Wearable Computing Applications 23 1.5 Future Applications and Features 24 1.5.1 Sharing Experiences via Video 25 1.5.2 Remembrance Agents 26 1.5.3 GPS Driven Information 28 1.5.4 Intersection with Smart Fabrics 29 1.5.5 Intersection with NanoTechnology 33

ii CHAPTER 2: PRODUCT ADOPTION THEORY.....................................................35 2 PRODUCT ADOPTION AND
DIFFUSION THEORIES ................................................... 36 2.1 The Purchasing Decision Process 36 2.1.1 Stages of Decision Making 38 2.2 Categories of Adopters 39 2.2.1 Innovators 41 2.2.2 Early Adopters 41 2.2.3 Early Majority 41 2.2.4 Late Majority 42 2.2.5 Laggards 42 2.2.6 Early Market vs. Mainstream Market 42 2.3 Factors that Impact Rate of Adoption 45 2.3.1 Relative Advantage 45 2.3.2 Compatibility 45 2.3.3 Complexity 46 2.3.4 Trialability 46 2.3.5 Observability 46 2.3.6 Consumer Valued Attributes 47 2.4 Criticism of Adoption and Diffusion Models 48 2.5 Theories of Consumer Behavior 49

iii 2.5.1 Motivation 50 2.5.2 Perception 54 2.6 Predicting Markets
for New Technology 57 2.6.1 Bass Model for Predicting Adoption 59 2.6.2 Criticisms of the Bass Model 61 2.6.3 Delphi Method for Predicting Adoption 64 2.6.4 Other Models 65 2.7 Use of Product Prediction Theories in this Analysis 67 CHAPTER 3: DATA COLLECTION STUDIES.......................................................68 3 DATA PRESENTATION ............................................................................................. 69 3.1 First Web Survey 70 3.1.1 Determining Early Adopters 73 3.1.2 Demographics 74 3.1.3 Daily Technology Use 79 3.2 Second Email Survey 83 3.2.1 Determining Early Adopters 86 3.2.2 Second Survey Demographics 87 3.3 Poma Focus Group 88 3.3.1 Focus Group Demographics 89 3.3.2 Written Responses 90

iv 3.4 Daily Poma Use 91 3.4.1 Daily Use Demographics
92 3.5 Data Analysis: Common Themes of Issues and Concerns 93 3.6 Expectations & Pop Culture Associations 94 3.6.1 Focus Group 94 3.6.2 Daily Use 97 3.6.3 Survey 98 3.7 Concerns about Impact on Social Reactions 104 3.7.1 Focus Group 104 3.7.2 Daily Use 105 3.7.3 Surveys 105 3.8 Concerns about Being Always Connected 107 3.8.1 User Interface 108 3.9 Mobility 121 3.9.1 Focus Group 121 3.9.2 Surveys 123 3.9.3 Daily Use 123 3.10 “Always-On” VS. “On-by-Command” 124 3.10.1 Focus Group 124 3.10.2 Daily Use 126

v 3.10.3 Surveys 126 3.11 Integration with Smart Clothing 127
3.11.1 Focus Group 127 3.11.2 Surveys 128 3.12 Potential Applications 132 3.12.1 Focus Group 134 3.12.2 Daily Use 142 3.12.3 Surveys 142 3.13 Interest in Purchasing 145 3.13.1 Focus Group 146 3.13.2 Surveys 147 3.14 Data Analysis Conclusions 152 3.14.1 Not Interested in 24/7 Full Mobile Computing 152 3.14.2 Concerned about Social Impact 153 3.14.3 Issues with Product Interface and Features 154 3.14.4 Disinterest in Smart Clothing with Embedded Wearables 154 3.14.5 Cultural 155 3.15 Impact of Findings on Wearable Computers Adoption 156 CHAPTER 4: LIMITATIONS TO MOBILE INTERNET .....................................158 4 WIRELESS DATA NETWORKS INTRODUCTION......................................................159

vi 4.1.1 Network Effects 160 4.1.2 Economies of Scale 161
4.1.3 Standards 162 4.2 Mechanics of Wireless Data Transmission 164 4.3 Wireless Evolution and History 165 4.3.1 WiFi – Standards 167 4.3.2 WiFi - Structure 168 4.3.3 Other Wireless Data Standards 170 4.4 WiFi – Deployment Issues 170 4.4.1 Usability Issues 171 4.4.2 Security Issues 172 4.4.3 Future Deployment - Subscription 173 4.4.4 Future Growth 174 4.5 Cellular Evolution and History 176 4.6 Generations of Standards 177 4.6.1 1G- First Generation 178 4.6.2 2G - Second Generation 179 4.6.3 2.5G – 2.5 Generation 183 4.6.4 3G - Third Generation 184 4.6.5 SDMA 184

vii 4.6.6 4-G Future of US Cellular 186 4.7 Impact
of Current Wireless Internet Infrastructure on this Research 188 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................191 5 THE KILLER APPLICATION – WIRELESS INTERNET APPLICATIONS......................192 5.1 Wireless Infrastructure Limitations 193 5.2 Predicting Consumer Interest for Wearable Computers 194 5.3 Product Improvement Suggestions 197 5.4 Cultural Influences over Consumer’s Decisions 198 5.5 Social & Fashion influences 198 5.6 Disinterested in an “Always-on” Product 199 5.7 Wearable Devices that Consumers Want 200 5.7.1 Interest in Head Mounted Displays 201 5.8 Market Conditions 201 5.9 Accelerators and Inhibitors 202 5.10 Challenges and Opportunities 202 5.11 Opportunities for Non-Technical Services Using Wearable Computers 202 5.12 Marketing Suggestions 203 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................205 APPENDIX B..................................................................................................................215 APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................224

viii APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................226 APPENDIX E..................................................................................................................227 APPENDIX F..................................................................................................................230 BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................232

ix List of Figures Number Page Figure 1.1. MicroOptical’s SVC
Display with CharmIt 9 Figure 1.2 Xybernaut’s Poma Image #1 10 Figure 1.3 Xybernaut’s Poma Image #2 10 Figure 1.4 MicroOptical Display Image #1 11 Figure 1.5 MicroOptical Display Image #2 12 Figure 1.6 The “Twiddler” 13 Figure 2.1 The Adoption-Diffusion Curve 41 Figure 2.2 Chasm Between Early Adopters and Mainstream Market 44 Figure 2.3 Innovation Adoption Curve 60 Figure 2.4 Early Subscriber Growth for Select Telecomm. Services 62 Figure 3.1 Survey #1: Mobile Device Ownership 77 Figure 3.2 Survey #1: Daily Technology Use 79 Figure 3.3 Survey #1: Interest in Daily Technology Use While Mobile 80 Figure 3.4 Focus Group: Mobile Device Ownership 90 Figure 3.6 Survey #1: Emotional Reaction to Wearable Computers 103 Figure 3.7 Survey #1: Friend's Potential Reaction to Wearable Computer 106 Figure 3.7 Survey #2: Display Preferences 113 Figure 3.8 Survey #2: Purchasing Wearable Computers in Clothing 129

x Figure 3.9 Survey #2: Interest in Smart Fabric Products
129 Figure 3.10 Survey #2: Preference for Wearable Computers in Clothing 132 Figure 3.11 Survey #1: Most Interesting Wearable Computing Feature 145 Figure 3.12 Survey #1: Issues Which Would Prevent Purchase 148

1 Introduction New technology development often takes inspiration from science
fiction and stretches the established social concept of what is possible. Wearable computers have followed that type of technology development pattern for over 20 years while simultaneously envisioning and implementing real solutions for defense, commercial and retail uses. Within those arenas, having a fully-functioning computer that allows for hands-free access to data and the ability to complete computational functions while mobile provides measurable benefits. Forays into the consumer market for wearable computers have only just begun. Two companies have introduced the wearable computer to the consumer market. Xybernaut Corporation’s Poma and Charmed Technology’s CharmIt product have been developed for the consumers market. Neither firm has conducted a thorough analysis of the consumer market beyond the first-to-adopt section of consumers. In addition, the wearable computing industry has yet to conduct an analysis of consumer interest in this technology. Are early adopter consumers interested in wearable computers? Or, is the technology so beyond their realm of interest or comprehension that addressing this market segment is a waste of wearable computer firms’ marketing resources? Cutting- edge technologies like wearable devices could evoke negative associations with consumers. Brad King wrote for the WIRED article “The Computer Looks Great on You” that, “The idea of the wearable computer evokes scary thoughts of sci-fi super-

2 soldiers, intelligent cyborgs and an always-on government tracking its
citizens.”1 Is this type of negative association with wearable computers a universal issue for consumers? This thesis will address these issues by gathering input from early adopter consumers about what type of features they are most interested in, which functionality would entice them to purchase a wearable computing product, and what issues and pre- existing attitudes consumers have about wearable computers that will hinder its adoption. This thesis examines the early consumer market’s potential adoption of wearable computers by determining which wearable computer features and applications would appeal to consumers, by outlining whether the network infrastructure exists to truly support mass mobile computing, and by examining which pre-existing consumer attitudes and reactions to wearable computers will influence the product’s adoption. This thesis will employ a variety of research strategies (which include literature reviews, market analysis and the collection of feedback from consumers) to highlight the issues influencing wearable computer’s successful adoption by the early adopter consumer market. The research for this thesis is divided into three types of strategies (literature review, infrastructure analysis and consumer feedback) formulated over four chapters. 1 Brad King, "That Computer Looks Great on You," WIRED, March 12 2002.

3 The first chapter explores the history, development, features, and
applications of wearable computers and the state of current consumer wearable computing products. It presents a discussion of wearable computers’ influential inventors, current market presence, and industry focus. This chapter also outlines the consumer products’ various functionality and applications. The second chapter examines a multitude of theories that shed insight into how to present a new technology to the early adopter consumer market. This chapter outlines the academic study of product adoption and new product market prediction as well as the study of consumer behavior. Various methods and theories from these academic fields are reviewed and their direct application to early adopter consumers’ interest and potential purchase of wearable computers is explored. The third chapter presents the findings from the direct data collection conducted for this thesis. The three data collection efforts consisted of two web surveys driven by email invitations, one focus group, and one daily use trial of Xybernaut Corporation's Poma product by a member of the target market. The Poma product was chosen as the wearable computing example because it was more extensively marketed to consumers than the CharmIt product, and its price ($1,200 vs. $3,500) is more suited to this market. The first data collection effort used two email-driven/web-based surveys that asked early adopter consumers different sets of questions about their feelings and associations with wearable computers, wearable computer displays, and their integration with smart

4 clothing.2 The second type of data collection was a
focus group where selected respondents from the surveys were invited to use Xybernaut Corporation’s Poma and provide feedback. Finally, a test subject was selected out of the focus group to use the Poma on a daily basis and he recorded his social interactions and comments about product usability.3 Based on clear indications from consumers in this study that being able to access full page Internet content while mobile is the application that will fuel adoption of wearable computers, the fourth chapter outlines the evolution and current state of the two wide-range standards for wireless data transmission within the US – WiFi and cellular.4 An overview of network economic theories is discussed to assist in examining how current wireless network limitations will impede the adoption of wearable computers by early adopting consumers. 2 The full set of questions used for the two surveys are located in the Appendixes. 3Usability is defined in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer’s Standard Computer Dictionary as: the ease with which a user can learn to operate, prepare inputs for, and interpret outputs of a system or component. 4 This is instead of the clipped and abbreviated web content that is now displayed on mobile devices.

5 This thesis concludes with an outline of the current
challenges and opportunities presented by the network infrastructure, consumer attitudes toward wearable computers, and product feedback. Product enhancement suggestions and messaging points are presented for use by wearable computing firms in their marketing of the next generation wearable computers to this market. Finally, this thesis presents a prediction for the potential adoption of wearable computers by early adopting consumers.

6 Chapter 1: Wearable Computers Overview Why should you care
about the wearable computer? Not because it is some dangerous new bugaboo with the potential to destroy all life on the planet with the flip of a switch, but for precisely the opposite reason: Because it is everywhere, as ubiquitous as it is invisible, capable of changing the everyday minutiae of how we go about our lives, permeating our consciousness, altering fears, desires, and ways of being. You should care because the wearable computer is at once strange and familiar; alien and domestic, a dangerous foe and your new best friend. You should care because, unlike the doomsday-opening scenario you might have been expecting, soon our lives will be dramatically changed by the wearable computer. But the world will look pretty much the same - and most of us won’t even notice.5 1.1 WEARABLE COMPUTER DEFINITION The development of a formal definition for a particular piece of technology often emerges after a customer group has used the product in an established market, and wearable computers are no exception. Generally, a wearable computer can be described as a fully functional, self-powered, self-contained computer that is worn on the body, providing access to and interaction with information anywhere and at anytime.6 Physically, the apparatus consists of a battery-powered, wearable Internet- connected computer system with a miniature eyeglass-mounted screen and the appropriate optics to form a virtual image equivalent to an ordinary desktop 5 Hal Niedzviecki Steve Mann, Cyborg: Digital Destiny and Human Possibility in the Age of the Wearable Computer (Toronto: DoubleDay Canada, 2002). 6 T. Mann Starner, S. Rhodes, B. Levine, J. Healy, J.Kirsch, D. PicardR, and Pentland, A., "Augmented Reality through Wearable Computing. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments," in Fundamentals of Wearable Computing (1997).pp. 6.

7 multimedia computer before the user’s field of vision. Because
the device is tetherless, it travels with the user, presenting a computer screen that either appears superimposed on top of the real world, or represents the real world as a video image.7 Different product models take on different shapes, but the majority of the models consist of a central processing unit (CPU) the size of a paperback book worn clipped to a belt around the waist with a pair of eyeglasses, or a band around the head that has a screen over one eye to render the display. Models also have some sort of an input device usually either an optical mouse, embedded keyboard, chording device (a device which requires keys being pressed simultaneously for each character typed - like playing a chord on a piano or guitar) or voice recognition technology. Wearable computers differ from traditional handheld devices in a variety of ways. First, they are fully-functioning computers with all of the computing power of a desktop system. Secondly, they often use Head Mounted Displays (HMD) to render the display.8 Thirdly, different products use a variety of input devices to enter data into the system that are not keyboard based and include: optical mice, voice recognition and chording. Fouthly, the human interaction with the system is different due to its 8 In this instance, a fully-functioning computer refers to a computing device that can run various software applications and can provide users with the same range of office support, entertainment and communication that they can expect from a desktop computer.

8 “always-on” state. Finally, due to their constant use while
mobile their battery power needs are different from other mobile devices. 1.1.1 Fully-functioning Computers The first feature that distinguishes wearable computers from other mobile devices is the strength of its computing power. Often compared to handheld devices such as personal digital assistants (PDA), wearable computers take mobile computing one step further.9, 10 Thus, wearable computers, unlike traditional handhelds, are fully functional computers that can offer as much computing power as a desktop computer. For instance, wearable computer applications used by the military feature full color schematics overlaid on maps of the battlefield. These types of features are far more sophisticated than Palm Pilot’s Pocket Word program. 1.1.2 Head Mounted Displays The second unique features used by wearable computers is their use of HMDs. One of the most visually distinguishing factors unique to wearable computers is their use of a HMDs instead of a small screen embedded in the device. There are two major designs for HMDs. The first consists of eyeglasses with a small LCD display attached to (or 9 PDAs within this thesis is loosely defined as computers that can conveniently be stored in a pocket (of sufficient size) and used while the user is holding it 10 whatis?com, Handheld [website] (December 23, 2002 2002 [cited February 25 2003]).

9 embedded into) the lens which works by casting a
floating display three feet in front of the wearer's eyes (like MicroOptical’s SVC display used with the CharmIt– see Figure 1.1).11 MicroOptical’s SVC Display with CharmIt Figure 1.1 Courtesy of Charmed Technologies The second display used in consumer products consists of a band around the forehead with a small screen that hangs in front of the user’s right or left eye (like the Poma – See Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3)

10 Xybernaut’s Poma Image #1 Figure 1.2 Courtesy of Xybernaut
Corporation Xybernaut’s Poma Image #2 Figure 1.3 Courtesy of Xybernaut Corporation Video-Based Systems Vs. Optical Systems The type of HMD used determines how the image is displayed for the user and how the user is able to view reality while wearing the system. There are two options: one, an optical based system or two, a video based system. With optical based systems, the user is able to view the real world directly with one or both eyes and the system overlays computer graphics or text on top of the user’s view of the real world. Optical see-through HMDs are worn like glasses with an optical system attached to a location that does not interfere with visibility (usually off to the right side of the right eyeglass

11 lens). MicroOptical is the leading producer of this type
of unobtrusive display (see Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5). MicroOptical Display Image #1 Figure 1.4 – Courtesy of MicroOptical MicroOptical Display Image #2 Figure 1.5 - Courtesy of MicroOptical

12 The other system used with HMDs are video-based systems
where the user can either view live video or real-world scenes which are combined with overlaid computer graphics or text. Video based see-though displays are opaque displays that use cameras near the eyes to present live video on the display. “Using chroma or luminance keying techniques (keying is the electronic means of replacing a particular value -color, or chrominance vs. brightness, or luminance- with another), the computer then fuses the video with the virtual image(s) to create a video-based augmented reality environment”12 All of these designs are available in either monocular (one eye) or binocular (two eyes) configurations. The Poma is only available as an optical display while the CharmIt can use either display. 1.1.3 Input Devices The third feature that distinguishes wearable computers from other computing devices is their use of unique input devices. Wearable computers, due to their mobile nature, demand input devices that are different from the mouse and keyboard devices used by desktop and laptop computers. The variety of input devices for wearable computers runs the gamut of the imagination and new alternatives for data input are being created in wearable academic labs around the world. Currently, wearable computer systems use body-mounted keyboards, speech recognition software, hand-held 12 Starner, "Augmented Reality through Wearable Computing. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual

13 keyboards (or touch screens) and chording devices (see Figure
1.6 for an example of a chording device called the Twiddler). The “Twiddler” Figure 1.6 In addition, devices such as IBM’s Intellipoint, track balls, data gloves, optical mice, and the Twiddler are used to take the place of a traditional mouse. Future research into input devices is focused on allowing the user to direct the computer’s actions by thought patterns or emotional states through body-monitoring devices based on thought patterns or heart rate. The peripherals they develop run the gamut from the rather mundane (like a forehead sensor that can operate your computer by movement and blinks of an eye) to the more radical (like the US Air Force Human Engineering Division’s work on a brain-activated computer-controlled device that is Environments." pp. 10

14 triggered by reading brain waves).13 Brain-wave reading input devices
are not just the stuff of fantasy. Jennifer Healey at MIT’s Media Lab has built an affective computer that can read the biometric signals of the user and play music to suit the user’s mood and emotional state.14 An affective system might be very beneficial for training aimed at changing ingrained behaviors or altering unconscious reactions to stimuli that cause stress or fear. Researchers at the University of Rochester equipped a virtual reality helmet so that is able to recognize key brain signals (and while inside a virtual room), users can currently turn on appliances by just wishing it so.15 Wearable research centers are also focused on utilizing haptic devices (haptic devices allow human-machine interaction through force and touch) to allow for input. The use of haptic devices would provide the user a realistic experience by providing direct physical perception of digital objects.16 1.1.4 Always-On Functionality The fourth distinguishing feature of wearable computers, which differentiates them from other mobile devices, is that they are always-on, allowing the user to use the 13 Thomas Bass, "Dress Code," WIRED, April 1998. 14 Ibid. 15 Aries Keck, "Wishful Thinking: Controlling Your World with Brain Waves," ABCNews.com, June 9 2000. 16 Starner, "Augmented Reality through Wearable Computing. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments." pp. 13

15 product’s features while accomplishing other tasks. Computer users are
accustomed to an interaction with their computer that is initiated by their actions, and this changes that paradigm of human computer interaction (HCI). With wearables, computing is not the main task – interacting with the environment is; the wearable either enhances or supports the user’s interaction with the environment through providing additional information necessary for the task at hand. Thad Starner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Wearable Computing Project17 alumni and founder of Charmed Technologies (the only wearable computing company solely focused on developing a consumer product) cites this feature of wearable computers as the most fundamental shift in HCI. When asked about the challenges facing the adoption of wearable computers, Starner states, "It's possible to have interactions with your computer that you don't initiate. That's the change that's going to be so fundamental."18 Unlike other mobile devices that require the user to divert their attention toward the computing task, wearable devices allow for a minimal amount of interference between the computing task and the user. This allows a greater ability to maintain eye contact with the external environment while conducting a computing task when one or both hands are busy. 17 MIT Wearable Computing Project at the MIT Media Laboratory was founded and maintained by students who were interested in the intimate and everyday use of wearable computers, and emphasis was placed on augmenting the mind and senses of the user. 18 Manny Frishberg, "What to Wear: Why Not a Computer?," WIRED, October 10 2002.

16 1.1.5 Power supply The final distinguishing factor for wearable
computers is their need for longer lasting batteries. Due to wearable computer’s always-on state, these systems rely on batteries that are longer lasting than what is necessary in current mobile technologies. Research into power supplies for wearable computers has spawned a rash of research developments that enhance battery life. German scientists are developing synthetic fibers that generate electricity when exposed to light and have stated that the fibers could be woven into machine-washable clothes to create the ultimate in portable solar cells. Academic research groups are also experimenting with technology that creates power by capturing the friction created by walking by imbedding a device in the wearer’s shoe. “The body is a lousy conductor surrounded by a good conductor," Post said. Holding up a shiny, specially rigged leather Nike shoe to illustrate, he explained that the 60 watts of energy generated by an average step could provide power -- and eliminate wires -- for point to point," Post said.19 Current wearable computers have limited battery life. The Poma only has three hours of battery life and the CharmIt has twelve, but is significantly heavier because of the longer lasting batteries, while research into longer, lightweight batteries is ongoing. Current devices are plagued by short batter life or a significant increase in weight to accommodate more battery power. 19 Lisa Napoli, "Wearable Computer: The User Interface Is You," The New York Times, October 14 1997.

17 1.2 THE HISTORY OF WEARABLE COMPUTING Computer inventors associated
with MIT Media Lab’s Wearable Computing Project developed the modern concept of wearable computers. The man who is hailed as the father of wearable computers was always fascinated with electrical engineering and as a teenager, began to play with computing devices to alter his reality and perception of the world. Steven Mann initially developed his wearable computer in the 1970s as a reality and memory enhancement device.20 Mann brought his inventions to MIT in 1991, where he became the catalyst for the University’s establishment of the MIT Wearable Computing Laboratory. He helped foster global discussions on the topic by proposing the first International Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) International Symposium on Wearable Computing. As a member of the advisory board of Xybernaut, and a current faculty member at University of Toronto’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, he is still involved in enhancing the wearable computing industry and developing new applications for wearable computers. Mann created the most advanced wearable computer in existence, and therefore, it is important to consider his personal wearable computer’s (the WearComp) features and applications when analyzing which features and applications would be attractive to the consumer market. He built the world's first covert fully functional WearComp with

18 display and camera concealed in ordinary eyeglasses in 1995.
He has been plugged into his advanced system almost twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week ever since. Mann uses his wearable computer to enhance his senses and support his intellect. His wearable inventions have undergone numerous modifications over the years, and as the world’s oldest cyborg, his wearable equipment allows him to view the real world through his left eye, and his right eye sees the projection of a computer screen that displays the processed images recorded by the camera within the eyeglasses lens.21 Those processed images have been modified by Mann to filter out advertising and to display various text notes next to objects for which he would like additional information. His privacy block feature (which blocks or modifies advertisements) helps him limit the number of intrusions into what he calls his humanistic property – the mental space that surrounds him. Mann’s WearComp also has biometric feedback built into the system to monitor his heart rate and vital signs, data he inputs into the system via a chording device. All of this connectedness separates Mann from even the most innovative of users, and he realizes that he is a bit odd. People find me peculiar. They think it’s odd that I spend most of my waking hours wearing eight or nine Internet-connected computers sewn into my 21 As defined by Mann: “cyborg, n. a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device” http://wearcam.org/cyborg.htm

19 clothing and that I wear opaque wrap-around glasses day
and night, inside and outdoors. 22 His work is not to be discredited however, and many of his more advanced features are being used and modified for specific commercial applications.23 The other prominent developer of wearable computing devices is Thad Starner, who worked with Mann in the Wearable Computing Group at MIT’s Media Lab. Starner began wearing his computer in 1993. Starner is now a professor at Georgia Tech in Atlanta and president of Charmed Technology, the wearable computing firm solely focused on developing consumer wearable technology products. Starner’s personal wearable computer is based on a pair of black-rimmed glasses that are similar to Mann’s, however Starner’s model is an optical vs. a video-driven display These two most prominent inventors in the field share different perspectives on application of wearable computers. You could characterize Mann and Starner as being on different ends of the inventor spectrum. Mann could be characterized as the idealist, who creates technology for technology sake, and Starner is the more economically practical inventor; creating advancements in technology to meet consumer interest and need. Mann is fascinated with how wearable computers can filter reality and allow the user ultimate control over his intellectual space. "Steve's [Mann] lifelong experiment 22 Steve Mann, "Cyborg Seeks Community.," Technology Review 102, no. 3 (1999). 23 For instance, like the application of wearable computers to support self-directed walking tours.

20 with wearable computers gives us a sort of a
living metaphor for our everyday coexistence with technology," explains Laurier's David Black, an event organizer for a 2002 lecture series (at which Mann was a speaker) at Wilfrid Laurier University. "In the extreme nature of his cyborg self we have a glimpse or understanding of our everyday codependency with technology. He's living five minutes in the future."24 However, many have found Mann hard to relate to. “He approaches technology in a more anarchistic way," says Peter Lynch, Canadian filmmaker who assisted Mann in the making of his documentary, Cyberman.25 Starner, on the other hand, is less interested in exploring how wearable computers can alter reality and personal psychology, and is more interested in how it can be adapted for real world applications. Starner realizes that wearable computing’s success lies in making it non-obtrusive in response to the influence social interaction and fashion has on consumer interest in the product. “The goal,” says Starner, “is to have the computer disappear into your clothes so that no one knows you have it.”26 24 Steven Mann, Cyborg: ([cited February 25 2003]); available from http://wearcam.org/cyborg.htm. 25 Jennifer Martin, "Speakers Series Lecture Examines Cyborgs and Cyber Pop" (paper presented at the Laurier Communications Studies Speakers Series, Wilfrid Laurier University, March 27, 2002 2002). 26 Stefan Theil, "Love Those Wearables!," Newsweek (2001).

21 1.3 WEARABLE COMPUTING INDUSTRY & CONSUMER PRODUCTS Both inventors
provided intellectual support for wearable computer’s entrance into the defense, commercial and retail industries. They have been used for a range of applications including managing ticket theft at sporting events, and advanced check-in at high-end hotels. There are only two companies, however, that sell wearable computing products for consumers. They are Xybernaut Corporation (XYBR) founded in 1990 out of Fairfax, VA and Charmed Technology founded in 2002 out of Santa Monica, CA. Not surprisingly, Mann & Starner provided the intellectual spark behind both companies (Mann for Xybernaut and Starner for Charmed).27 The companies have taken different approaches to the market with Xybernaut collaborating with Hitachi to product a simplified wearable product with few applications called the Poma at a price point of $1500 a unit. Charmed Technology produces and sells the CharmIt a true-fully- functioning computer on its own at a price point of over $3,500.28 Partially due to its early relationship with Mann, its client relationship with the U.S. Department of Defense, and supported by its vast number of intellectual patents, Xybernaut has become the largest of wearable computer firms. With offices in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and revenues of $9.5 million in 2000, Xybernaut 27 Charmed Technology’s sales are in the $500,000 to $1 million range, and Xybernaut’s sales are $10- $20 million range with all of its subsidiaries. See Appendix F for detailed product information about the CharmIt and Poma.

22 has been able to apply its research, development, and
commercialization of wearable technology to provide mobile computing solutions to clients around the world. In November 2001, Xybernaut announced a manufacturing-and-marketing deal with IBM which Xybernaut officials expected would help them sell the strap-on computers to consumers. “The consumer market never really appeared, and, while its cash dwindled, Xybernaut couldn't break out of the red. It lost $26.6 million (37 cents per share) on $10 million in revenue in 2002. It had lost even more, $32.2 million (63 cents) on $9.8 million in revenue, in 2001.”29 In April 2003, Xybernaut announced that it had backed out of the deal, had plans to cut the cost of its product by 20% and has turned to IBM Global Finance for a line of credit in exchange for a security interest in its assets. Clearly, a victim of the larger economic climate in the technology industry in 2003, Xybernaut is still the company best positioned to develop an enhanced consumer product. Xybernaut, as the market leader, is better positioned to develop and market a consumer wearable device than Charmed Technology; though Charmed is more focused on the consumer market (this is shown by the fact that they only develop and sell a consumer wearable products). Ultimately, consumers will only be interested in wearable 29 Ellen McCarthy, "Xybernaut Calls Off $50 Million Ibm Deal," Washingtonpost.com, April 9 2003.

23 computers if they are offered at a price that
they find attractive, and Xybernaut is the only company that (through its existing partnerships) could produce the units in sufficient volume to drop the price within a range consumers can handle. 1.4 CURRENT CONSUMER WEARABLE COMPUTING APPLICATIONS The key to developing a marketing strategy for products like the Poma rests in identifying and communicating how the product fits a distinct consumer need or can accomplish a current consumer task in a more efficient manner. The environment that existed within the high tech industry of being able to sell a technology solely on its cool factor is long gone. Consumers and corporations alike are only interested in purchasing technology when the technology fills a clear need and has an understandable use that is either personally enhancing or is able to increase worker’s efficiency. Whereas the cool factor is the main draw for the innovator market, it is not enough of a rationale for the early consumer market to purchase and try these products. Unfortunately for wearable computers, whereas the use for the product are limitless, a killer app which would help catapult the product from the halls of academic institutions to the consumer market has not yet been identified.30 Mark Spitzer, CEO of MicroOptical agrees that a killer application must be identified for successful adoption. 30 Killer app is a slang contraction of killer application. A killer application is a successful and popular software application (often written by a third party), that is generally perceived to be superior in function or that employs the latest and most impressive techniques.

24 People are still in the 'It's cool, but what
does it do?' phase. We need an application for consumers, perhaps something that evolves out of communication devices like cell phones and email and pagers. That's the missing piece right now.31 Similarly, the corporate applications for wearable computers (like assembly lines where the product is allowing for hands-free data input) do not directly translate into an application that fills a distinct consumer need. Current consumer wearable computers offer the same applications that are used with a desktop computer (Microsoft Office applications, web browsers, etc) only while mobile. Neither consumer product offers applications that use and enhance the product’s mobile capabilities. 1.5 FUTURE APPLICATIONS AND FEATURES There are a variety of computing features that currently are not offered by data telephony or wireless laptop technologies that could be offered by wearable computers. These features include: • Usable while portable: wearable computers can be used while walking or moving around • Hands-free: Many wearables emphasize the hands-free aspect relying on speech input and heads-up display or voice input. Other wearables use chording keyboards, dials, optical joysticks etc to minimize the use of the user’s hands by typing. 31 "Booting up Something More Comfortable," Wired Magazine, October 14 1997.

25 • Sensors: Wearables can have a variety of informational
centers so that the product can provide just-in-time information without interrupting the user like GPS, wireless communications, cameras, or microphones. Many of the above features have encouraged the development of innovative applications in academic research labs that, while not currently offered by consumer wearables, might be of interest to consumers. For instance, the video-based models offer applications that offer the user the ability to share experiences via video while mobile, the ability to have the computing system aid in recognition, and the ability to view customized, GPS-driven information while mobile. • 1.5.1 Sharing Experiences via Video The first unique application that may be of interest to consumers is sharing experiences via video while mobile. Using the video display to communicate with others and alter the user’s perspective on reality is a feature that Mann uses daily: Every morning I decide how I will see the world that day. Sometimes I give myself eyes in the back of my head. Other days I add a sixth sense, such as the ability to feel objects at a distance…I see some items as hyper-objects that I can click on and bring to life. I can choose stroboscopic vision to freeze the motion of rotating automobile tires and see how many bolts are on the wheels of a car going over 60 miles per hour, as if it was motionless…. I can block out the view of particular objects – sparing me the distraction, for example, of the vast sea of advertising around me…. While I am grocery shopping, my wife – who may be at home or in her office - sees exactly what I see and helps me pick out

26 vegetables…. she can imprint images into my retina while
she is seeing what I see.32 Whether or not this feature is of interest to consumers is hard to predict without field trials. However, the mobile industry is currently marketing products to user that will allow them to share life experiences while mobile using camera phones. The key to the power of mobiles -- is that they liberate people from their desktop telephones and computers, moving the action out to that much larger portion of life that encompasses wherever and whenever humans roam.33 Whereas mobile communications are now commonplace among consumers, consumer data collection will provide a more accurate indication of whether or not this feature appeals to consumers. 1.5.2 Remembrance Agents The wearable computer application that is unique and suited to this technology is the development of augmented memory systems. Palm’s history has shown that users are interested in conducting specific tasks while mobile, like using day-planners, address books and note taking options. However, these types of memory agents do not work in the same way as users are accustomed to remembering information. “Hierarchical directories or structured data such as calendar programs help only if the data itself is 32 Mann, "Cyborg Seeks Community.." 33 Joel Garreau, "Cell Biology: Like the Bee, This Evolving Species Buzzes and Swarms," The Washington Post, July 31, 2002 2002.

27 very structured and break down whenever a file or
query doesn’t fit into the pre- designed structure.”34 The wearable computer’s Remembrance Agent is a program that continually runs in the background, watches the user’s actions and displays one-line summaries of note-files, old email, papers and other textual information that might be relevant to the user’s current context. The example used most often imagines a user taking notes at conference; the remembrance agent suggests relevant documents. Additionally, the always-on feature that wearables offer does not require the user to make a suggestion in order to receive the information. One common practice among the wearable users at conferences is to type in the name of every person met while shaking hands. There have been times when the remembrance agent has reminded the wearer that the person whose name was entered was actually been met before, and has suggested the notes taken from the previous conversation.35 Assistance in remembering items and names seem like a universal social need, and this feature may prove to be the “killer app” if partnered with truly ubiquitous hardware. However, only consumer data collection and field trials will reveal if consumers are truly interested. 34 Bradley J. Rhodes, "A Wearable Remembrance Agent: A System for Augmented Memory," Personal Technologies Special Issue on Wearable Computing, no. 1 (1997). pp. 2 35 Ibid. pp. 3

28 1.5.3 GPS Driven Information The third application that is
being tested in academic labs and may be of interest to consumers I the display of GPS supported information while mobile. Wearable computers can provide the user with augmented information about their environment that can include, GPS driven, context sensitive information and displays. A combination of these features creates interesting real-world applications. For example, the Deep Map project funded by the Klaus-Tschira-Stiftung is focused on using wearable computers as mobile tour guides for museums and city tours.36 With embedded GPS technology, the devices allow visitors to gain information about the object or building in front of them based on their geographical position. With this feature, it is potentially possible for visitors to see an overlay of what the building looked like in the 1920s on top of the current architecture.37 Unfortunately, consumer use of GPS for positioning purposes has three shortcomings. First, the accuracy of stand-alone commercially available GPS receivers is limited to 20 meters or so. Second, it is possible to lose satellite visibilities when 36 The coalition of companies involved in the research include: European Media Laboratory in cooperation with the University of Heidelberg, Department of Geography and Department of Computational Logistics; Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics in Darmstadt: Interactive Systems Labs at the University of Karlsruhe and at CMU in Pittsburgh, Institute of Photogrammetry, University of Stuttgart, University of Mannheim, Technische Informatik, Deutsches Forschungszentrum fúr Kunstliche Intelligenz (DFKI). 37 Jim Nash, "Wiring the Jet Set," WIRED, October 1997.

29 nearby buildings or dense foliage blocks a substantial part
of the sky and the signal. Signal loss is most noticeable in the downtown areas of moderate to large cities where a concentration of tall buildings at times occludes much of the sky from street-level location. Third, distortion is created by reflections of the GPS signal from nearby structures. 38 1.5.4 Intersection with Smart Fabrics There are other technologies in development that may be able to provide benefits and advanced features for wearable computers. The hardware used for input devices and the CPU pieces of the wearable systems are heavy, bulky, and not aesthetically pleasing. Developing hardware solutions that address these issues has spawned a division of wearable computer research focused primarily on developing lightweight devices that are easy to wear (or in some cases) actually embedded into the user’s clothing. Industry analyst, Tim Shea, has been widely quoted as predicting that the future of wearable computers will be intimately linked to the development of computing systems that are woven into fabrics (referred to as e-textiles or smart fabric). . MIT Media Lab alumni and President of International Fashion Machines, Maggie Orth is dedicated to the development of smart fabric “The tactile and material properties of what people wear are important to them, and people are reluctant to have wires and hard 38 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality, ed. Woodrow Barfield & Thomas

30 plastic cases against their bodies.”39 Orth and the other
fledgling corporations that have stimulated interest in the development of smart fabrics and have promoted the perception that when worn on the body, consumers are looking for a device that is fashionable.40 Orth’s smart clothing consists of using silk organza threads (similar to the metallic yarn that has been used for years for decorative purposes in clothing manufacturing) and metallic yarn (which is prepared similar to cloth-core telephone wire) to create computing devices that are embedded or partially made out of cloth. The yarn is embroidered into cloth by using gripper snaps as the connectors between the fabric and electronics. “Since the snap pierces the yarn it creates a surprisingly robust electrical contact. It also provides a good surface to solder to. In this way subsystems can be easily snapped into clothing or removed for washing.”41 While this low-tech solution to a high-tech problem seems far-fetched, the technology works and initial consumer tests with wearable keyboards have initially been Caudell (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2001). pp. 443 39 E. Rehmi Post & Maggie Orth, "Smart Fabric, or Washable Computing" (paper presented at the First IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Cambridge, MA, 1997). 40 Steve Mann Woodrow Barfield, Kevin Baird, Francine Gemperle, Chris Kasabach, John Stivoric, Malcolm Bauer, Richard Martin, Gilsoo Cho., "Computational Clothing and Accessories," in Fundamentals of Wearable Computing. pp. 477 41 Orth, "Smart Fabric, or Washable Computing". pp. 3

31 positive. In one test (Orth presented the results at
the First IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers), 50 denim jackets were embroidered with a keyboard pattern. Some of the jackets were equipped with miniature MIDI synthesizers that were controlled by the keypad. She presented that, “The responsiveness of the keyboard to touch and timing were found by several users to be excellent.”42 Since that presentation, smart fabrics have found their way into the consumer market in other forms. For example, during the Christmas 2001 season, Foster-Miller Inc., Polartec, and Land’s End introduced the retail market to heated blankets made of four percent metallic fiber that created the embedding circuitry. The blankets were cozy without any clunky, uncomfortable wires.43 Many major clothing manufacturers (like Levi Strauss and Nike) and high technology firms (like IBM and Philips) have seen the benefit of being involved in smart fabric research. Making other parts of the computing device flexible and embedded in cloth has engaged the attention of Xerox’s Research Center of Canada, which has also announced the development of a printed organic electronic or POE transistors. These transistors are reliable enough to replace the silicon integrated circuits that make LCDs so expensive. “POE circuits, which can be sprayed on flexible plastic sheets, may be the breakthrough 42 Ibid. pp. 4 43 Bob Sullivan, "Finally in Fashion?," MSNBC, October 9 2002.

32 technology that makes gadgets like roll-up TV screens and
truly paper-thin electronic paper feasible.”44 Most of this technology is still in the testing phases. Smart fabrics are still unable to make every piece of computer hardware soft enough to blend with cloth and making the embedded wires truly soft enough to wear. There are still pieces of hardware that will be stiff and will need to be sewn into an invisible pocket or accommodated in some other way. There are however going to be parts of wearable computers (power supplies for example) that are not going to be easily made of fabric. These parts will always be solid forms, but they need to be plastic bricks.45 Researchers attending a Materials Research Society meeting admitted that current e-textiles are too brittle to wear.46 Smart fabric is limited in its ability to contribute to some of the challenges of wearable computing features beyond being able to make most the hardware invisible or embedded in cloth. Smart fabric research does not directly propose solutions for improvements in input devices or display improvements. Therefore, contrary to industry hype, beyond consumer interest in the 44 Mark Baard, "E-Fabrics Still Too Stiff to Wear," WIRED, December 5 2002. 45 Woodrow Barfield, "Computational Clothing and Accessories." pp. 487 46 Baard, "E-Fabrics Still Too Stiff to Wear."

33 novelty of the product, the impact smart fabrics will
have on wearable computer research is limited. 1.5.5 Intersection with NanoTechnology Advances in nanotechnology will provide yet unknown advancements in wearable computers. Some of the envisioned benefits include lighter batteries, unique ways to generate power, smaller CPUs, and different display options. “Three to four years from now we’ll be able to construct a 16,000-byte memory which will only be a few microns in size – that’s one-hundredth the size of a human hair,” commented Philip Kuekes, senior scientist and computer architect in Quantum Science Research at Hewlett-Packard laboratories. “We’re going 100 times smaller than what’s out there now. It will be small enough to fit in the fibers of your shirt.”47 Alex Lightman from Charmed Technologies agrees and predicts, “…. we firmly believe that we will have molecular-based wearable computing that can store gigabits of information all on Star Trek-like communication badge, that in turn is connected through a broadband communications link to the rest of the world filled with billions of similar devices.”48 However, unless the nanotechnology research results in a contact lens display, issues of 47 Lizette Wilson, "Wearable Tech: Tiny Microchips and Futuristic Materials Inspire Designers to Create Electronics You Can Really Get Into," San Francisco Business Times, November, 1-7 2002. 48 Alex Lightman, Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002). pp. 12

34 display and input will still remain one of wearable
computer’s largest obstacles for adoption, and like smart fabrics, nanotechnology’s level of impact on wearable computers’ real challenge to adoption will be limited.

Chapter 2: Product Adoption Theory There is an academic field
of study that follows new product development and marketing and focuses on creating models, defining universal characteristics behind consumer adoption of new technologies, and creating formulas for predicting diffusion rates for new innovations. 49,50. The work of product adoption researchers Everett Rogers and Geoffrey Moore are both widely used for their outline of the stages of the decision making process, their categorization of consumers into groups depending upon their rate of adoption of new innovations, and their definition of attributes and other factors that impact product adoption. This chapter will provide an overview of their work as well as other models and methodologies used to define potential audience segments that are prone to adopt new technologies, and will assess the strengths and challenges inherent within a product that could inhibit its adoption. This chapter will also look at the philosophical premise behind the models used to predict technology adoption and will discuss their strengths and weaknesses. This chapter will also look at models of consumer behavior to highlight the consumer motivators and attitudes that will affect adoption. Finally, this chapter will outline the models and methodologies 49 Diffusion is defined as the process by which an innovation is adopted and gains acceptance by members of a certain community. 50 Innovation within this thesis refers to the invention of new technologies, products and production processes, through the successful exploitation of ideas.

most applicable to predicting the adopter market for wearable computer
products, and defining the product strengths and weaknesses and the market challenges and opportunities that could accelerate or hinder its adoption. 2 Product Adoption and Diffusion Theories Diffusion research is the philosophical foundation behind the development of marketing positioning strategies that use psychographics segmentation profiles to identify the most receptive target markets for a particular innovation or product. Diffusion research, in its simplest form, investigates how factors such as the product itself, how information about the product is disseminated, the nature of the social system to which the product is introduced and a multitude of other factors that interact to facilitate or impede the adoption of a specific product among members of a particular adopter group.51 2.1 THE PURCHASING DECISION PROCESS Roger has written the seminal work on innovation adoption and diffusion. His work outlines five factors that influence the rate of an innovation’s adoption. They include: the perceived attributes of the innovation, the number of people involved in the adoption decision (individual vs. an organization), the communication channels used to 51 Leyla Namiranian & Renee Hopkins, "Is There Such a Thing as ‘Early Adopters Fatigue’?." pp. 199

promote the innovation, the nature of the social system into
which the product is adopted and the extent of the change agent’s promotional efforts.52 The Gartner Group expanded his model and combined it with a range of theories developed by academic and business writers’ focus on technology adoption. Those theories include the work of Geoffrey Moore and his corporate technology adoption theory outlined in Crossing the Chasm; Fred Davis’s individual technology adoption theory in his Technology Acceptance Modeling work; and Clayton Christensen’s examination of disruptive technology’s affect on consumer behavior in The Innovator’s Dilemma but with a singular focus on consumer adoption of new technology. Their Customer Adoption Roadmap looks at: • Consumer attitudes and behaviors toward the technology. • Market conditions, including product pricing, competition, and the maturity of the business structure of participating companies. • Accelerators and inhibitors likely to affect the rate of the adoption moving to the next stage. • Challenges and opportunities for the industries that participate in the product development. • Opportunities for non-technology marketers to take advantage of consumer use of technologies as a service or product platform.53 52 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1995). pp. 207 53 Richard Trinker & Brian Smith, "Consumer Technology Adoption Roadmap," Gartner G2 (2002). pp. 5-6

Garner Group’s comprehensive guide will be modified for use within
this thesis – by combining various factors of the most widely used models within a larger context. 2.1.1 Stages of Decision Making The decision to purchase a new technology is a complex individual decision. It is impacted by a variety of factors including the consumer’s personal characteristics and background, the amount of education a consumer has about the product, and the amount of influence from the consumer’s interpersonal social network. Rogers has defined a series of stages that an individual experiences in the adoption process. According to Rogers, the individual passes through five stages: • First knowledge of an innovation • Forming an attitude toward the innovation • Decision to adopt or reject the innovation • Implementation of the new idea and • Confirmation of this decision. 54 At each point in the decision-making stage continuum the consumer’s attitudes and beliefs are affected by a variety of messages coming from mass media, personal 54 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. pp. 161

information gathering, the consumer’s interpersonal network, and product change agents.55
2.2 CATEGORIES OF ADOPTERS Consumers do not universally adopt new technology products when they are introduced into the consumer market. There is one distinct difference between consumer groups based on their speed to adopt a product once it reaches the market. Based upon consumers’ individual personalities, socioeconomic status, and their attitude toward technology they approach purchase and the use of technology differently.56 For this reason, technology adoption and diffusion literature divides consumers into different groups depending upon the amount of time it takes them from their first knowledge of a technology to their successful adoption of the technology. Those groups are Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards.57 Based on his research, Rogers suggests that the percentages of adopters in the consumer market for each category are as follows (see Figure 2.1): • Innovators – 2.5% • Early Adopters – 13.5% 55 The idea of change agents is based on the hypothesis that every successful idea is first embraced by a small group of influencers before it spreads to the masses. Such influencers are early adopters, are strongly connected to their communities, and are naturally vocal and credible. 56 Technology has two components: a hardware aspect and a software aspect. 57 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations.

• Early Majority – 34% • Late Majority – 34%
• Laggards – 16% Figure 2.1 Courtesy of Technology Marketing Group, Inc.58 58 Technology Marketing Group Inc., Ideas: Using the Adoption-Diffusion Model to Anticipate Customers' Purchase Decisions [website] (Technology Marketing Group Inc., [cited February 10, 2003 2003]); available from http://www.technology-marketing.com/pages/Ideas/adcurve.html.

2.2.1 Innovators Innovators are the first 2.5% who adopt a
new technology and are interested in exploring new, untested concepts and products, often willing to absorb high costs and uncertainties for the reward of being first to adopt new technologies.59 2.2.2 Early Adopters Early Adopters are the next 13.5% to adopt a product. They find it easy to imagine, understand, and appreciate the benefits of a new technology, and are apt at relating the potential benefits to their other concerns. The highest numbers of “opinion leaders” are found among the early adopters. This group does not rely on well- established references to make their buying decisions and instead prefer to rely on their own intuition and vision.60 2.2.3 Early Majority Early Majority is defined as the next 34% to adopt a product and is characterized as deliberate and practical. They want to see reviews from well-established references before buying. They need reassurance that the new technology is stable before purchasing.61 59 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. pp. 263-264 60 Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers (New York, NY: HarperBusiness, 1991), Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. Pp. 12. 61 Ibid.

2.2.4 Late Majority Late Majority represents the next 34% to
adopt a product. They are skeptical about innovations and often only adopt a product because of the peer pressure from all those who have already adopted. They do not tolerate uncertainty about a product well and do not have the financial resources to switch products if the first does not meet their needs.62 2.2.5 Laggards Laggards make up the final 16% to adopt. These consumers are often characterized as “traditionalists” as well as “isolationists.” They often are suspicious of new technologies, and are often least able to afford any technologies that are not certain to succeed.63 2.2.6 Early Market vs. Mainstream Market Innovators and Early Adopters generally have similar economic and social characteristics. Early adopters have a shorter innovation-decision period (the time span between learning about an innovation and deciding to purchase/adopt the product) because they learn about the product earlier due to their interpersonal networks, and they require fewer months or years to move from knowledge about the product to decision. 62 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. Pp. 265. 63 Ibid. pp. 265.

Generally, they have more formal education, come from a higher
socioeconomic status, and more exposed to mass media communication, have a high level of interaction with social change agents, and socially active within their interpersonal network and are more cosmopolitan.64 Due to their similarities, they are often lumped together as a single group. Geoffrey Moore redefined Roger’s adopter categories to combine Innovators and Early Adopters into one group The Early Market, and Early Majority and Late Majority into a second group (the Mainstream Market). His work on the chasm examines the gap in attitudes and behaviors that exists between the Early Market and Mainstream Market discusses the different strategies needed to market to each group. (See Figure 2.2) He goes on to predict that firms who do not take into account those differences in communications strategies when marketing products often do not successfully breach the chasm between early market adoption of the product to late market adoption and their products fail to reach mass diffusion. 64 Ibid. pp. 169

Chasm Between Early Adopters and Mainstream Market Figure 2.2 Courtesy
of Sage Research 65 Innovations don’t just slide effortlessly from one group to the next and all kinds of high tech products fail because the companies that make them can’t find a way to transform an idea that makes perfect sense to an Early Adopter into one that makes perfect sense for a member of the Early Majority. This period of the adoption process is critical to new product adoption. “The part of the diffusion process between 10%

adoption to 20% adoption is at the heart of the
new product success. Before this range, there is no guarantee that a critical mass of adoption will be reached; beyond this range, it is often impossible to stop the diffusion even if one wished to do so.” 66 2.3 FACTORS THAT IMPACT RATE OF ADOPTION Product adoption that is partially driven by intrinsic product features influences the consumer’s decision-making process. Rogers discovered that there is a 49% to 87% variance in the rate of adoption, which can be explained by the following five attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability.67 2.3.1 Relative Advantage Relative Advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. 2.3.2 Compatibility Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. Compatibility helps the individual give meaning to the new idea so it can regard the product as familiar and reduce cognitive dissonance. 65 Sage Research, Technology Adoption Research [website] (Sage Research, [cited February 18 2003]); available from http://www.sageresearch.com/TechnologyAdoption.htm. 66 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. Pp. 259 67 Ibid. pp. 206

2.3.3 Complexity Complexity is the degree to which a consumer
perceives an innovation as difficult to understand and use. Rogers suggests that an increased perception of product complexity relates negatively toward its rate of adoption. Products that do not require consumers to change their behaviors and patterned ways of conducting a task are faster to be adopted than products that have a high learning curve. 2.3.4 Trialability Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. Products which allow a consumer to “try them out” before purchasing reduce the consumer’s sense of uncertainty and risk about the product and accelerate the adoption process. 2.3.5 Observability Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. Products that consumers can see being used increase the amount of exposure a consumer has to a product and speeds up the rate of adoption. For example, viewing people walk down the street using Sony’s Walkman product helped to reduce consumer uncertainty and encouraged the consumer to purchase and try the product. These five attributes (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trailabilty, and observability) are guidelines for the types of features that influence product adoption rates. By

modifying these attributes and including additional significant attributes, it is
possible to create a model that can be applied to wearable computers. 2.3.6 Consumer Valued Attributes The five valued attributes described above might not be the most important perceived characteristics for a particular set of respondents. For example, in new clothing fashions, the social prestige that the product conveys for the consumer is one of the most visible benefits that the consumer receives; and yet social prestige is not mentioned in Roger’s model.68 It is important to ask consumers about what benefits they perceive they will receive from the product, and to incorporate those benefits into market messages. Often features that provide the most benefit (like social prestige) are discovered through consumer surveys, focus groups, and daily use. For instance, Sage Research conducted a survey of enterprise IT decision-makers on IP telephony and found: “- beyond cost-savings - one of the most compelling benefits of this technology category was the graphical user interface (GUI). Collecting consumer valued attributes, therefore, is an essential tool to discover the messaging points that will have the most impact with consumers. 68 Ibid. pp. 214 (Rogers)

The value of social prestige plays a larger role in
product promotion and adoption. This concept is outlined in Malcolm’s Tipping Point, which focuses on a point of sudden change that suddenly tips the market toward mass adoption. The three other rules the law of the few (in a given process or system some people matter more than others), the Stickiness Factor (which says there are specific ways of making a contagious message memorable), and the Power of Context (human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem).69 Social prestige played a key role in cell phone adoption. During the early days of cellular use within the U.S., cell phone prices and services were so costly that it seems as though social prestige was one of the most important consumer benefits. Early product placement, advertising and marketing efforts played off that perception by installing cell phone in high-end cars.70 2.4 CRITICISM OF ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION MODELS There are various flaws in Roger’s Diffusion Model that should be addressed when applying this model to the adoption of wearable computers. First, Roger’s model is applied to the adoption of any innovation regardless of the product or technology. Second, his model does not account for the time that an adoption process may take. 69 Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2002). 70 Jr. James B. Murray, Wireless Nation: The Frenzied Launch of the Cellular Revolution in America (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2001).

Third, the total number of innovators and early adopters that
ultimately adopt the technology cannot be predicted and can only be determined after the innovation has been adopted, or when the adoption cycle is complete. His model therefore, gives us no clear-cut way to define who the early adopters are for a particular technology – like wearable computers - while the adoption of the technology is still in progress. The theory also does not allow us to predict the length of time the adoption process will take, and does not account for various other market factors that will influence rates of adoption.71 2.5 THEORIES OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR There are varieties of personal psychological factors that affect a consumer’s purchasing decision. Marketers need to understand the background that the consumer brings to the purchasing decision and the decision-making processes that are used. The consumer’s background encompasses social, cultural, personal, and psychological factors. The first factor that influences consumer decision-making is the consumer’s relationship with and opinions of their peer group, family, social role and status.72 71 Hopkins, "Is There Such a Thing as ‘Early Adopters Fatigue’?." pp. 202. 72 Colin Gilligan and David Pearson Richard Wilson, Strategic Marketing Management: Planning, Implementation and Control (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Ltd., 1992). pp. 105

Especially with technology purchases, recommendations from trusted friends are one
of the largest influences in consumer purchases.73 The second factor is the influence of culture and how it affects a consumer’s purchasing decision. The third major factor influencing consumer decision-making is the consumer’s personal characteristics including: age and life-stage, occupation, economic circumstance, lifestyle and personality. Marketers often use these characteristics to segment markets for directed advertising. The final factor influencing consumer decision-making (and the factor that directly speaks to consumer’s attitudes and feelings toward particular products) is psychological factors. These include the issues that motivate a consumer’s interest, as the perception that the consumer has about the product, and the consumer’s past knowledge and pre-established beliefs about the product. 2.5.1 Motivation Unraveling and analyzing consumer motivation involves understanding the consumer’s biogenic needs, which are physiological (hunger, thirst and discomfort) and psychogenic needs (need for esteem, recognition or belonging). When these needs become sufficiently intense, they create a motivation to reduce the tension until the need is less pronounced. The research about this phenomenon has engaged scholars for the past 100 years and is the foundation upon which theories of human motivation have 73 See the Communication Channel section, pp. 72.

been built. The most familiar human motivation theories are from
the works of Marshall, Freud, Veblen, Herzberg and Maslow.74 Whereas the Marshallian model is based on the idea that a person’s behavior is inherently rational and motivated by economic factors, most of the developed models are based on psychological premises. Freud’s work suggests that psychological factors that influence behavior are unconscious. Ernest Dichter took Freud’s theories and developed a series of techniques called motivational research, which attempted to uncover consumer’s deepest motivations. Veblen developed a social-psychological interpretations of behavior which highlighted that some of consumer’s motivations are driven by need for prestige or social standing and his theory forced research about consumer motivations to consider the affect of social relationships on consumer decision making. Herzberg developed the Two Factor Theory of motivation that distinguishes between satisifiers (factors that create satisfaction) and dissatisfiers (factors that create dissatisfaction) and proposed that consumer decision-making was a balance of those two factors. In some ways the most well known, Maslow developed a theory of motivation, which is explained as a hierarchy of needs. The needs he outlined (in order from most important and lowest level of need to least important and highest level of need) are: 74 Richard Wilson, Strategic Marketing Management: Planning, Implementation and Control. pp.105

• Psychological needs (hunger and thirst) • Safety needs (protection
and security) • Social needs (a sense of love and belonging) • Esteem needs (self-esteem, recognition by others, status) • Self-actualization needs (self-development and realization). Creating a Need for the Product Whether based on economic, psychological, or social psychological interpretation, consumer motivation toward purchasing products is driven by a sense of need that is filled by the products purported services and uses. However, often products are developed based on technological advancements and not directly, as a solution to a consumer needs. Wearable computers are that type of product. When the product’s development is based on technological advancement, the corporate marketing department is responsible for creating the need in the consumer’s consciousness that leads to a purchasing decision. This type of needs marketing involves promoting a product or service that nobody asked for (and often could not even conceive of). This has been successfully executed in relation to marketing such products as Sony’s Walkman, Betamax, 3-½ inch disk, and Palm’s PDA products.75 75 However, firms must be careful in creating and marketing technology for a technology sake as was displayed during the dot com bust over the last few years.

Palm strategically created a consumer need for the product by
taking technology advancements and refocusing the development to focus on consumer interest basing it on four values: • Low Price $299 • Small Size- small enough to fit into comfortably into a man’s shirt pocket • Simplicity –easy to user for average consumer • Synchronization with the PC –accessory to the PC By working to make the product compatible with desktops and focusing on making it simple to operate, they alleviated some of the concerns about the challenges of learning a new computing product (Roger’s compatibility). Palm then worked to increase the observability of the product through a guerilla marketing strategy that relied heavily on partnerships with industry analysts, prominent trade shows, and mass media spots. They were able to demo the product on Good Morning America and at the U.S. Robotics Booth (their early partner) at the PC Expo in New York City.76 Their most successful strategy however (and one that was mimicked by Xybernaut in its early attempts to introduce its MA V product) was to allow executives that were attending the Gartner Group’s symposium in October of 1996 to use Palm Pilots to track their conference schedules. Executives gave the Palm staff a credit card number to demo the 76 Andrea Butter and David Pogue, Piloting Palm: The inside Story of Palm, Handspring, and the Birth of the Billion-Dollar Handheld Industry (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002). pp. 142, 153

Palm Pilot, and if they decided to keep the product,
they were charged half the price. At the end of the conference, 2,500 Palm Pilots ended up in the hands of executives.77 The result of Palm’s focus on modifying technology advances to fill unmet consumer need for functionality and usability combined with its marketing strategy made it the fastest technology product adoption in history. As Donna Dubinsky, director of Palm marketing at the time recollects, “One million Palm Pilots had been sold in 18 months. Palm’s little invention had been accepted faster than VCRs, cell phones, TVs, or almost any other consumer electronic product.”78 2.5.2 Perception Three aspects of the perception process affect an individual’s perception of the same object: selective attention, selective distortion, and selective retention. Because of the large number of stimuli bombarding a consumer per day, consumer attention is limited toward new information and their mental attention is limited. Even when the message does reach consumers, the consumer’s preconceived notions often distort the message. The message is far more likely to be distorted to confirm to a consumer’s existing beliefs than to be heard without distortion if they are opposing a consumer’s 77 The MA V product is Xybernaut’s commercial product which is more expensive and significantly heavier than the Poma. 78 Pogue, Piloting Palm: The inside Story of Palm, Handspring, and the Birth of the Billion-Dollar Handheld Industry. pp. 197

beliefs.79 In the 1960s various efforts were made to integrate
a variety of theories, research findings and concepts into a general framework that highlights the psychological state of the consumer before, during and after the purchase in an attempt to discover the key to grabbing and holding consumer attention.80 Processing Information about the Innovation The consumer purchasing decision process is an attempt by an individual to reduce uncertainty by seeking and processing new information about the innovation. The individual needs to understand the concept of the innovation, its use, and be able to apply personal meaning to the innovation. Rogers identifies questions like “What is the innovation?” “How does it work?” and “Why does it work?” that need to be successfully answered within the marketing and launch strategy of an innovation for a product’s adoption.81 To that list, one could add questions of quality like “Will this last?” “Am I getting quality functions for my price?” as essential questions that need to be answered for technology products. The Communication Channel The communication channel used to educate consumers about an innovation also affects the rate of adoption. Innovation diffusion researchers like Brown and Pieters 79 Richard Wilson, Strategic Marketing Management: Planning, Implementation and Control. pp. 110 80 The principle researchers during that period were Nicosia, Engel, Kollat and Blackwell, and Sheth. 81 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. pp. 165

argue that, due to the high amount of uncertainty about
new technology products, mass media channels are not as effective for complex technology products where a variety of factors need to be considered during the innovation decision process.82 Interpersonal communication channels are much more effective for that type of decision process. Mass media marketing for a new innovation is most effective when the goal is to reach a large audience quickly, create and spread knowledge about a product, and encourage consumers to change their weakly-held attitudes and beliefs (all in an attempt to increase observability). Interpersonal communication is much more effective in persuading consumers with strong attitudes or when the product complexity requires more time to educate the consumer about the product features. Role of Change Agents The role of change agents in the product education process is essential and in many of the adopter groups it is the main medium through which the consumer learns about and makes decisions to adopt a product. Involving change agents during the promotional effort plays upon the psychological human tendency to reduce cognitive dissonance by surrounding oneself with concepts and people that are similar. It is easier to receive new information from a trusted, familiar source than from an unknown, unverified source of information. Many diffusion scholars believe that the 82 J.D. Pieters, "The Marketing of High Technology Production in the Technological Environment,"

predisposition of individual’s influences their behavior toward communication messages and
the effect that such messages are likely to have. “Individuals tend to expose themselves to ideas that are in accordance with their interests, needs, and existing attitudes. Individuals consciously or unconsciously avoid messages that are in conflict with their predispositions.”83 However, it is possible to develop an individual’s interest in a new concept when it comes from a peer source. Especially with technology adoption, where the majority of hardware and software purchases are made due to interpersonal recommendations, marketing strategies that utilize change agents are essential. Based on Roger’s characterization, early adopters rely on information from change agents more heavily to learn about, access, and decide to purchase new products. Therefore, utilizing change agents when marketing to early adopters will have results that are more effective. 2.6 PREDICTING MARKETS FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY The successful launch of new technologies is often based on product adoption predictions; however, in mature, well-understood consumer markets, only a minority of product launches are successful (around 1 in 10).84,85 The question remains: can a Southern African Business Review December (2000). 83 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. pp. 164 84 Successful adoption in this case is based on Carey’s definition of a product “taking off” – “attainting the lowest level of sales and penetration at which one would have confidence that he service would not

marketer predict the successful adoption of a new technology for
which there is currently no consumer demand? Various methodologies have been developed to answer that question and aid in predicting potential markets for new products. Forecasting demand for a new technology product relies on a variety of methodologies. However, most of the methods used create an imperfect result. For example, AT&T in 1980 released a study predicting the future of cellular services. “The study claimed that by the year 2000 there would be only 900,000 US cell phone users – a number that dramatically underestimated the snowballing effect of falling prices and the desire of Americans to talk while moving. By mid 2000 there were more than 100 million US cell phone users – more than 100 times the number AT&T predicted.”86 Even assuming the best intentions from the individual creating the prediction, and supported by solid scientific market studies, most forecasts result in over-inflated estimations. The difficulty in predicting the adoption of an information technology is largely based on the complexity of the factors that need to be included in the estimation. be withdrawn because of subsequent lack of demand.” viewed as enough sales of the product to warrant its continued presence in the market. 85 John Carey, "Forecasting Demand for New Consumer Services: Challenges and Alternatives," in New Infotainment Technologies in the Home: Demand-Side Perspectives, ed. Nikhilesh Dholakia Norbert Mundorf Ruby Roy Dholakia (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996). pp.36

Researchers must not only consider consumer desire or demand for
the product (which might be non-existent for a new product consumers have not been exposed to), but they must also take into account policies that might affect how the product is offered. In addition, they need to consider the impact that network effects, standards, and interoperability, as well as the marketing strategy, pricing and product competition might have on the product offering. 87 2.6.1 Bass Model for Predicting Adoption One of the methods used to predict product adoption is the Bass Model (or sometimes called the “S” Curve), which predicts that, through time, demand for the product will start slow, and at some point increase rapidly, eventually flattening until the saturation level for the product sales is reached (See Figure 2.3). To use this model, the researcher must predict the saturation level, estimate when it will be reached, and fit an S curve to those estimates (often based off an S curve from a similar product). 86 James B. Murray, Wireless Nation: The Frenzied Launch of the Cellular Revolution in America. pp. 26-27 87 These terms are covered in depth in Chapter 4.

Figure 2.3 Bass Forecasting Model also creates an index of
market potential for the new product and rate of adoption. It allows the marketer to predict the total number of adopters from the mean year of adoption based on the prediction of the number of adopters from the time of the prediction to the mean year of adoption. All of this is based on pilot launches of a new product, or from managerial judgments made based on the diffusion history of analogous products.88 88 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations.

The Bass Model of Diffusion assumes that two types of
communication channels influence potential adopters of an innovation. The first channel is mass media and interpersonal world-of-mouth channels. The second channel is individuals adopting an innovation because of a mass media message occur continuously throughout the diffusion process, but are concentrated in relatively early in the process. Individuals adopting because of interpersonal communication about the innovation expand in numbers during the first one half of the diffusion process, and thereafter decline in numbers per period, creating the S-shaped diffusion curve. The Bass model also assumes that the rate of adoption during the first one half of the diffusion process occurs at the same rate as the decline of the rate of adoption during the second half making the S-shaped curve symmetrical.89 2.6.2 Criticisms of the Bass Model Applying this model to technology products presents challenges. This model is based on a few simple assumptions that might not apply to telecommunication products & services. The first assumption is that the market potential of a new product remains constant over time. This model, therefore, cannot be adapted for the network effects that occur in telecommunication markets (and would be present in the wearable computing 89 Ibid. pp. 81

market). This is shown in the adoption rates of other
telecommunication products and services (see Figure 2.4). Early Subscriber Growth for Select Telecomm. Services 90 Figure 2.4 The second assumption is that the diffusion of the new product is independent of other innovations. The telecommunication industry is based on various 90 Gerald Faulhaber, "Broadband Deployment: Is Policy the Way?" (paper presented at the Brookings Conference, Washington, DC, 2003 2003).

interdependencies between products, networks, and services; and therefore this assumption
is not suited to predicting the adoption of telecommunication products. The third assumption is that the nature of an innovation does not change over time. With the fast pace of product improvement in the technology product industry (as seen by release of versions of software), technology products have a higher likelihood of changing as more users are exposed to and provide suggestions about the product features. The fourth assumption is that marketing strategies - such as changing a product’s price, advertising it more heavily, and so forth - does not influence the diffusion process. Within the telecommunication industry competitive pricing and economies of scale force many companies to price products close to cost and stability of marketing strategies is not the norm. Finally, the model assumes that supply restrictions do not limit the rate of diffusion of a new product. The history of technology products is peppered with references of under-predicting consumer demand and the creation of supply shortages. Palm Pilot’s initial launch was challenged by various hardware and software glitches including battery problem caused by the extra width of a warning sticker attached to the inside of the battery door. All of these delays resulted in customers who had placed their orders up to 4 months before having to wait to receive

their new Palm Pilots. When the products finally did reach
retail shelves, the demand quickly outstripped the ability to supply the product.91 This model can have an unrealistic high demand at the saturation point, by the fact that the product may never come near the saturation level, or it might never get to the point where the curve starts rising. Furthermore, it is difficult to estimate how long it will take the product to reach particular points within the S Curve. Even though the Bass Model is widely popular, the assumptions upon which it is based raises concerns about using this model to predict technology products. 2.6.3 Delphi Method for Predicting Adoption An alternative theory used for predicting product adoption is the Delphi method. This is a technique where groups of experts convene to create a consensus forecast for the market. This method can often provide insights created from the group interaction that are valuable to marketers. However, there it is unproven whether an expert’s prediction on product adoption is any better than someone else’s prediction. In some cases, the prediction might be biased due to the expert’s personal interest in the technology. 91 Pogue, Piloting Palm: The inside Story of Palm, Handspring, and the Birth of the Billion-Dollar Handheld Industry. pp. 144-151.

2.6.4 Other Models There are various other ways to predict
a product’s market potential. First, a marketer could derive a forecast for the entire demand for a product based on a similar established market. This is accomplished by taking the (similar market’s) demand and multiplying it by an estimate of the future market share for the new service.. For example, predicting the Internet’s adoption would be based on the demand of a similar established market (like consumer’s expenditures on information gathering) and a percentage of that demand would be used based on the number of consumers in that market that share the same demographic characteristics as the predicted consumer base for the Internet. Of course, this is based on an assumption that information gathering is the Internet’s paramount value to the consumer.92 Second, predicting the future market for a product can be based on individual purchasing decisions. This is accomplished by extrapolating the potential individual purchases into an estimate for the market as a whole by using demographic information.93 For instance, if the product is predicted to be largely purchased by college-educated males, then a prediction for the market can be developed by determining how many college educated males are present within the US market and would potentially be interested in purchasing the product. 92 Carey, "Forecasting Demand for New Consumer Services: Challenges and Alternatives." pp. 40

Finally, predicting the future market for a product can be
accomplished by asking a sample of consumers if they would be interested in purchasing the product and extrapolate that number based on demographics for the predicted market as a whole. This method has drawbacks as well. For instance, in the case of products that are entirely new to the public, the likelihood that they truly understand the value of the product and what it can do is based on a limited set of information (often based on verbal descriptions or photos, but no interaction with the product). Verbal descriptions of the product (via a phone survey for instance) have tendency to inflate the positive attributes of the product and limit the consumer’s awareness of the negative aspects of the product. Zangwill, author of Lightning Strategies for Innovation: How the World's Best Firms Create New Products, suggests that forecasting is a waste of resources and that companies should instead simply launch new products into the market, assess the consumer responses, adjust the design of the product or withdraw the product based on the feedback.94 However, this strategy is not fitting to a product that has various software and hardware components, and a variety of uses that might lead the consumer to misunderstand the product’s full range of features and applications. 93 Ibid. pp. 41 94 Ibid. pp. 54

2.7 USE OF PRODUCT PREDICTION THEORIES IN THIS ANALYSIS To
overcome the various shortcomings of predicting adoption of consumer technology products using models, this analysis will instead gather consumer data about their attitudes and behaviors that may affect adoption. Establishing a model of predicting new technology adoption (like the wearable computer) without an understanding of the barriers that currently exist within the mind of the early adopter consumer market (like product compatibility issues) would be a wasted exercise. In addition, what is currently missing in the market research firm’s predictions of consumer adoption of wearable technologies is a discussion of how the pre-conceived attitudes that consumers have toward wearable computers is truly the largest barrier to entry into the mass market. Therefore, this thesis will rely heavily on consumer behavior theories, and the Gartner group model to arrive at an analysis of the barriers to consumer adoption of wearable computers, with an emphasis on uncovering consumer attitudes and feelings toward the technology.

68 Chapter 3: Data Collection Studies Not only is there
a danger of the technology being used to monitor people to make them into obedient productive cyborgs, but there is also the potential that people will become too dependent on this technology.95 Are the fears of technology being used to monitor people or the fear of people being dependent on technology legitimate or widely believed? Would these fears affect consumer’s attitude toward new technology like wearable computers? This thesis is focused on discovering consumer attitudes and behaviors toward wearable computers that may influence consumer adoption. The three data collection efforts consisted of two online surveys, one focus group, and one daily use trial of Xybernaut Corporation's Poma product by a member of the target market. First, two email-driven/web based surveys were launched and asked early adopter consumers about their feelings and associations with wearable computers, wearable computer displays, and their integration with smart clothing.96 Second, a focus group was run with tech-savvy consumers using the Poma. Finally, a test subject was selected out of the focus group to use the Poma on a daily basis and he recorded his social interactions and provided comments about product usability. 95 Mann, "Cyborg Seeks Community.." 96 The full set of questions used for the two surveys are located in the Appendixes.

69 3 Data Presentation Throughout this data collection effort, inquiry
has focused on collecting consumer feedback about five areas: product features and usability, interested in always-on, full function mobile computing, concerns about social interactions, interest in the benefits of smart clothing, and the impact of culture on consumers’ pre-existing concepts about wearable computing. While this research will not present a statistically valid representative sample, it will present a qualitative understanding of the issues surrounding early adopter consumer interest and concerns about wearable computers. For this chapter, the demographics for each data collection group will be presented along with a definition of the methods for each data collection activity. The data will be presented based on the themes of issues or concerns that were similar among the respondents’ answers from the four different data collection efforts. Under each theme, each data collection group’s unique response are highlighted where applicable and indicated by sections, allowing for identification between the survey group’s concerns about mobility vs. the daily-use experience with the mobility of the product. All focus group participants are identified via a pseudonym. Comments by focus group participants are presented in normal quotations. The comments collected anonymously from survey group respondents are indicated by italics and with bullets to differentiate one respondent from another.

70 Consumers sampled in the four data collection efforts provided
oral and written comments about their associations, concerns, and pre-existing attitudes about wearable computers. Many of their comments challenge the industry-preconceived notions about consumer’s interest in always-on mobile computing. The consumer sampled for this study indicated their disinterest in always on computing, concerns about the impact the technology would have on their social interactions, and their lack of interested in the integration of smart fabrics and wearable computers. They suggested various product enhancements and provided feedback about their interest in various features and applications. They also demonstrated a range of associations between wearable computers and pop culture concepts and provided marketing suggestions that should be taken into account when marketing an improved consumer wearable computing product. These issues and concerns are presented as individual sections that contain comments from the each of the applicable data collection groups so that the reader can view how the level of interaction with the product resulted subtle differences between the data groups’ comments. 3.1 FIRST WEB SURVEY For the first email survey, the early adopter consumers were selected and asked a series of questions about their current technology use, what technology products they own, and what their attitudes were about wearable computers and their features. The consumer audience for this survey was a group with positive attitudes toward

71 technology and whose members owned more than one mobile
product. Attitudes toward wearable computing were defined through a series of 24 questions about: Demographic characteristics Previous mobile communication device ownership/familiarity Attitudes toward technology Interest in wearable technology features97 The twenty-four-question web survey utilized the Zoomerang.com service to send an email invitation, sent December 3, 2002 with a link to an online survey. The first email was posted to the listserve for DC Web Women (DCWW) and for Georgetown University’s Communications, Culture, and Technology (CCT) program.98 Participants were then encouraged to send the link to the online survey to men they knew who were technologically oriented. The survey was also posted three days later on a listserve for alumni from an anonymous technology company where only men were encouraged to answer. A small sampling of the researcher’s personal contacts (most respondents were colleagues in the technology field or college age students) was also solicited via email. The resulting pool of respondents was largely employed in the technology industry. A total of 256 people (97 men and 157 women) responded. 97 To view the complete survey, see Appendix A. 98 DC Web Women is a free listserve of over 4,000 women in the Washington, DC Metro Area that are involved in marketing or web work. Approximately 199 students use the CCT graduate program listserve to exchange news, information and support.

72 Key terms used in the survey were defined for
participants. The term wearable computer was not initially defined in order to get respondents to provide unbiased first reactions to the term. The definitions provided for these terms are as follows: Mobile Communication Devices Mobile Communications Devices were defined non-explicitly as devices that enable the user to manage communications while away from the home or office. Wearable Computers Respondents were asked to provide their own definition of what they thought the term “wearable computer” meant, and were directed to select the adjectives that they associated with a provided definition of what a wearable computer was, as well as select the specific tasks and features they thought were performed by wearable computers.99 A link to an image of the Poma was also embedded in the survey. Due to technical problems, not all respondents were able to see an image of a wearable computer. Attempting to fix the problem, a link to a picture of the Poma was added to the introductory email asking the respondent to answer the survey. Some respondents were 99 The definition and summary used was: “A wearable computer is a fully functional, self-powered, self-contained computer that is worn on the body. It can provide access to information, and interaction with that information, anywhere and at any time. With heads-up displays, unobtrusive input devices, personal wireless local area networks, and a host of other context sensing and communication tools, the wearable computer can act as an intelligent assistant, whether it be through a Remembrance Agent, augmented reality, or intellectual collectives.”

73 able to use the link to view the image
before taking the survey. There is no way to determine, however, whether or not a particular respondent actually viewed the image. 3.1.1 Determining Early Adopters Respondents were asked a multiple-choice question about their feelings toward technology and their current or previous use and ownership of a variety of mobile or wearable products. The question, “What three adjectives would you use to describe your current relationship with technology?” allowed them to answer affirmatively to the following options: Excited Amazed Eager Pleased Great Uncomfortable Uncertain Awkward Annoyed Self-conscious Frustrated Nervous Dumb Overwhelmed Upset The respondents that answered affirmatively in terms of their relationship with technology were categorized as early adopters (hereafter referred to as PositiveTech) and their responses were singled out from the total respondents. A significant number of

74 respondents (153 out of 256) were categorized as the
early adopter group (referenced as PositiveTech) and their responses were separated from the larger group for analysis. 3.1.2 Demographics The demographics for the survey group are as follows. More women than men responded (157 vs. 97) with a total of 356 respondents. Age & Gender The largest age group (68 out of 256 respondents) were ages 31-40 with the second largest group (47 out of 256) composed of three different age groups 25-30, 41- 50 and 51-60 year olds. The age groups for PositiveTech followed the pattern for the entire survey group with the largest group in the 31-40-age range, etc. Geography Most of the respondents (for both the entire respondent group as well as PositiveTech) lived in the suburbs (127 out of 256) or in an urban area (with 89 out of 256). Interestingly, even though the survey was only sent to DC metro area-related listserves (and 226 out of 256 respondents to the survey noted they were from the US), there were 16 respondents from Mexico, five from Canada, three from Europe, and one

75 respondent each from Asia, Oceania (Australia and New Zealand),
and the West Indies.100 Income and Professional Title The largest number of respondents selected the income range of $50,000 to $74,999 (62 out of 256) with the second largest number of respondents (41 out of 256) selecting the range of over $100,000 a year. The income for PositiveTech followed the pattern of the larger group. Respondents were also asked to select a professional title closest to their own. The largest number of respondents (within PositiveTech) selected Trained Professional (76 out of 153), Self-employed/Partner (50 out of 153) was the second largest response, and Consultant (23 out of 153) was the third most popular response. In summary, survey respondents were mostly women ages 31-40 who work in the DC metro area and make $50,000 to $74,999 a year as a trained professional or self- employed/partner. Familiarity with and Ownership of Mobile Technologies Respondents were then asked which mobile technologies they previously or currently owned (See Figure 3.1). Out of the entire survey group (PositiveTech and non-PositiveTech), most respondents (85.5%) noted that they owned or have used a 100 The DC metro area comprises the Maryland and Virginia suburbs within commuting distance of DC.

76 pager, 98.8% a cell phone, 86.7% a walkman, 90.6%
a pager, 87.1% a phone with Internet access, 92.6% a laptop, 87.1% a camcorder, 84% a digital watch and 84.4% a smart phone. For the PositiveTech group, 60% owned or had used a pager vs. 58% of the non- PositiveTech group. In relation to cell phones, the percentages were PositiveTech (95%) vs. non-PositiveTech (94%) respectively. For walkmans, PositiveTech (91%) vs. non-PositiveTech (86%); for PDAs, PositiveTech (75%) vs. non-PositiveTech (67%); for phones with Internet access, PositiveTech (47%) vs. non-PositiveTech (47%); for laptops, PositiveTech (89%) vs. non-PositiveTech (97%); for camcorders, PositiveTech (66%) vs. non-PositiveTech (76%); and for smart phone the percentages were PositiveTech (25%) and non-PositiveTech (22%) respectively.

77 Figure 3.1 Internet Usage Most respondents used the Internet
daily. In the PositiveTech group, 68 respondents (44%) accessed the Internet one to three hours a day. Sixty (39%) accessed the Internet for over eight hours a day, and 54 (35%) accessed the Internet three to five hours a day. Almost three quarters (72%) of PositiveTech accessed the Internet over three hours a day with 28% of them accessing the Internet for five to eight hours a day. For the rest of the survey group (non-PositiveTech, 47% accessed the Internet over three hours a day and only 18% accessed the Internet for five to eight hours a day. Almost all of the respondents were interested in mobile Internet. Most (247 out of 256 of the respondents) were interested in accessing the Internet while mobile (152 Survey #1: Mobile Device Ownership 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 pager cell phones w alkm ans PD A Phone w ith Internet laptops cam corders sm art phones Types of Mobile Devices Respondents who Own or Have Used the Technology Positive Tech Everyone Else

78 out of 153) and everyone in the PositiveTech group
wanted to be able to access the Internet while mobile. Almost all (152 out of the 153) The PositiveTech chatted using the Internet for the same percentages and period of time(s) as the entire survey group with 54% chatting online for less than an hour. In sum, this group responded strongly to the benefit of full page mobile Internet provided by wearable computing devices. Instant Video Sixty percent of the all the respondents wanted to share an experience instantly with their family and friends via video or photo, with 63% of PositiveTech interested in that feature and 55% of non- PositiveTech interested in that feature. Online Gaming Use The HMD used in some wearable computers offers full color displays which would allow consumers to engage in mobile computer gaming, and online gaming, if the device were Internet enabled. When survey participants were asked about their online gaming use, online gaming was only played by 35% of PositiveTech and only 15% of non- PositiveTech.101 Of the respondents who indicated they did play online games, 19% of all respondents spent once a week playing online games. A quarter of weekly 101 This might be due to the larger number of women who answered the survey and perhaps with more men answering the survey, (who represent a larger number of computer game players) there would be more interest in mobile game playing.

79 gamers (25%) were PositiveTech vs. 9% of non- PositiveTech.
This shows that while online gaming is a growing market, it would not be a killer app for wearable computers. 3.1.3 Daily Technology Use Respondents were asked to select activities for which they used technology on a daily basis. Their options were Scheduling, Email/Chatting, Creating Documents and/or Digital Memories, Sharing Audio or Video Files, Playing Audio or Video Files, and Managing Information or Data. They were then asked if this task was a function they could potentially engage in while mobile. (See Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3) Survey #1: Daily Technology Use 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Scheduling Email Chatting Business Email Documents Digital Memories Share Audio/Video Play Audio/Video Managing Information/Data Function % of Respondents PositiveTech N-PositiveTech Figure 3.2

80 Survey #1: Interest in Daily Technology Use While Mobile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Scheduling Email Chatting Business Email Documents Digital Memories Share Audio/Video Play Audio/Video Managing Information/Data Mobile % of Respondents P-While Mobile N-While Mobile Figure 3.3 Scheduling Daily use of technology for scheduling was selected by 63.4% of PositiveTech (vs. 36.5% of non-PositiveTech). Almost three quarters, (71.1%) of the entire survey group responded that they thought this would be more efficient if they could use this feature while mobile (with 71.1% of PositiveTech indicating their interest in scheduling while mobile, vs. 79.2% of non-PositiveTech).

81 Email/Chatting Out of all the respondents, 92.9% used technology
daily to connect with family and friends, with slightly more PositiveTech (94.1% ) than non PositiveTech (91.1%) using technology daily for this function. More than half (64.6%) of PositiveTech were more interested in this feature if they could use it while mobile, vs. 59.5% non- PositiveTech. Using technology daily for chatting was selected by 42.3% of all respondents (with 41.8% PositiveTech using technology daily for this purpose vs. 43.3% of non- PositiveTech). Almost half of all the survey respondents (47.2%) thought this would be more effective while mobile (47.9% PositiveTech and 46.2% non-PositiveTech). A large number of respondents (89.2%) used email for business communication on a daily basis (62.9 % PositiveTech vs. 37%), and 75.1% of PositiveTech thought this would be more efficient while mobile vs. 68.4% of non-PositiveTech. Documents/Digital Memories Not surprisingly, almost all of the respondents (92%) used technology daily to create documents (93.4% PositiveTech vs. 90% of non-PositiveTech), and 50.3% of PositiveTech thought this would be more efficient while mobile vs. 58.7% of non- PositiveTech group. More than half (55.6 %) used technology daily for creating digital memories (59.4% for PositiveTech and 49.4% for non-PositiveTech) and this discrepancy might be due to the large number of respondents who work in the web

82 design or graphic design field. Slightly more than half
of PositiveTech (54.7%) thought this would be more efficient while mobile vs. 47.3% of non-PositiveTech. Audio/Video Files Only one half of survey respondents (50.6%) used technology daily to share audio, video, or data files, (53.5% PositiveTech vs. 45.6% non-PositiveTech). Almost half of PositiveTech (43%) thought this would be more effective if it was mobile vs. 89% non-PositiveTech. More than half of the survey respondents (52%) used technology daily to play audio or video files, and 55.6% of PositiveTech were interested in this feature while mobile vs. 51.6% of non-PositiveTech. Managing Information/Data More than three quarters of all respondents (88%) used technology daily to manage information or data (88% PositiveTech vs. 86.5% of non-PositiveTech). Of the PositiveTech group, 71.6% were interested in this feature while mobile, vs. 64.2% of non-PositiveTech group. In summary, the entire group used technology primarily for communication, creating documents, and managing information and data. The PositiveTech group could envision using a wearable computer to assist them in conducting all of those functions while mobile; while the non-PositiveTech group were not quite as able to envision those features, except when it came to entertainment functions. The non-PositiveTech group

83 owned more video cameras than the PositiveTech group, and
was significantly more interested in sharing audio and video files while mobile. 3.2 SECOND EMAIL SURVEY A second survey was launched on February 14, 2003 to the same group of consumers (minus the personal contacts) to ask them questions about wearable computers that were omitted from the first survey. The second survey also asked questions about consumer interest in smart fabrics and smart fabrics’ role as a potential package for wearable computers. The sixteen-question web survey utilized the Zoomerang.com service to send an email message to the entire DCWW listserve and Georgetown University’s and the Communications, Culture and Technology program’s listserve, but not to the list of personal contacts. DCWW survey participants were then encouraged to send the link to the online survey to men they knew who were technologically oriented. The result was that 93 people (15 men and 78 women) responded. A variety of terms was defined for the survey participants. The survey was structured so that participants would provide their own definition of “smart fabrics or e- textiles” before reading the definition provided or seeing the image of a smart fabric

84 product. Definitions and images of wearable computers, smart fabrics,
and three types of mobile device displays were provided.102 Wearable Computers Wearable computers were defined as: “A fully functional, self-powered, self-contained computer that is worn on the body. It provides access to information and interaction with information anywhere and at anytime.103 Physically, the apparatus consists of a battery- powered, wearable Internet-connected computer system with a miniature eyeglass-mounted screen and the appropriate optics to form a virtual image equivalent to an ordinary desktop multimedia computer before the user’s field of vision. Because the device is tetherless, it travels with the user, presenting a computer screen that either appears superimposed on top of the real world, or represents the real world as a video image.”104 Wearable computers allow you all the functionality of your home computer, yet you can access all your familiar applications and files while mobile. In addition, since wearable computers are always-on, they can assist you in remembering a variety of important items throughout your day though a remembrance application.105 Smart Fabrics Smart Fabrics were defined as: 102 To view the complete survey, see Appendix B. 103 Starner, "Augmented Reality through Wearable Computing. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments." pp. 6 105 Steven Mann, "Humanistic Intelligence: `Wearcomp' as a New Framework and Application for Intelligent Signal Processing" (paper presented at the IEEE, November 1998).

85 E-textiles, smart fabrics involve microelectronic components that are directly
connected to electrically conducting fabric and sewn into clothing, thus directly integrating the electronics in the textiles to ensure comfortable, highly wearable smart clothing, thus allowing the full integration of electronic applications in clothes. Electronic clothing weaves all sorts of intelligence into textiles, including the ability to detect dangerous chemicals, sanitize themselves, and serve as communication networks. Applications run the gamut, from health and sporting goods to sophisticated combat uniforms.106 A visual example of smart clothing was also provided for survey respondents Mobile Displays Varieties of mobile displays were also presented to encourage feedback from the survey respondents.107 The displays used were: • Head Mounted Display (HMD) – defined as: “By projecting the equivalent of a full-size screen two feet in front of the user, the SV-3 heralds a new era of data presentation. The SV-3 is ultra-lightweight, ergonomically designed, can attach to eyeglasses.” An image was used for additional illustration.108 • Microdisplays - defined as: “Microvision's technology would allow users to flip up a small lens at the base of a phone or wear a lightweight headset to have the experience of looking at an image with the size and quality of a laptop or desktop monitor. Unlike alternative solutions that project images from a miniaturized screen, Microvision's display uses a single tiny mirror to scan a low-power beam of colored light across the eye, creating the effect of viewing a full-size screen.” An image was also used.109 • Traditional handheld display – this option was simply defined by an image. 106 "Infineon Unveils Technologies for for "Smart" Clothing," (Global Sources, 2002). 107 See Appendix B. 108 MicroOptical, Products (MicroOptical, 2003 [cited February 18 2003]); available from http://www.microopticalcorp.com/Products/HomePage.html. 109 Microvision, Microdisplay Product Sheet (Microvision, 2003 [cited 2003]); available from http://www.mvis.com/prod_microdisplay.htm.

86 3.2.1 Determining Early Adopters Respondents for the second survey
were categorized as early mobile adopters based on their membership to the DCWW listserve and the technology-oriented men that they forwarded the email invitation to, and their current or previous ownership of mobile devices. Whereas the first survey was sent to a wider variety of individuals, the respondents from the first survey were then divided into PositiveTech and non- PositiveTech and the PositiveTech respondents were more valuable to this data collection effort. The second survey eliminated the group of personal contacts (many of whom were non-PositiveTech respondents) and limited the audience of the second survey. An assumption was made that the individuals answering the second survey (by way of their membership in the various technology communities and based on findings from the first survey) were already positive toward technology and the question that allowed them to comment on their attitudes toward technology was un-necessary.110 Responses to the question about their current mobile devices supported the assumption that they were open to adopting new technology based on their previous purchases. Thirty respondents out of 93 (32.3%) currently or previously owned (C/PO) 110 In the first survey, it was determined that the relationship between PositiveTech and respondents who owned a laptop is significant based on Pearson’s Correlations at the .05 (2-tailed) level with a coefficient of –.141. For those who owned a smart phone, the coefficient is -.139 based on Pearson’s Correlations at the .05 (2-tailed) level.

87 a pager, 85 out of 93 (91.4%) C/PO a
Walkman; 85 out of 93 (91.4%) C/PO a cell phone; 36 out of 93 (38.7%) C/PO a cell phone with web access; 55 out of 93 (59.1%) C/PO a PDA; 10 out of 93 (10.8%) C/PO a smart phone; 74 out of 93 (79.6%) C/PO a laptop. 3.2.2 Second Survey Demographics Here are the demographics of the survey group. Age & Gender: Fifteen respondents (16.1%) were in the 18 - 24-age range, 24 respondents (25.8%) in the 25 - 30 age range, 36 respondents (38.7%) in the 31 - 40 age range, 15 respondents (16.1%) in the 41 - 50-age range, and 8 respondents (1.1%) in the 61 - 70 age range. Fifteen of the respondents (16.1%) were male and 78 of the respondents were female (83.9%) totaling 93 respondents. Geography Forty-six respondents (49.5%) lived in an urban area, 42 respondents (45.2%) in a suburban area and 5 respondents (5.4%) in a rural area. Almost all respondents (92 out of 93) were from the United States with one respondent from Mexico.

88 Income and Professional Title Respondents were then asked to
select a range that represents their annual income. The largest number of respondents chose the $40,000-$49,999 range (24.7%) with the second largest number selecting the $50,000-$74,999 range (19.4%). Respondents were asked to provide their professional title and those responses were then organized under general categories. Slightly fewer than half (41.9%) were technology professionals, 16.1% were students, 16.1% were in the communications field, 10.8% were designers, 5.4% were consultants, 4.3% were CEOs, three respondents were teachers 3.2%, one respondent had an administrative job and seven respondents were categorized as other. In summary, participants in this second email survey were prominently women in the 25-40 age range who worked in the technology, communications or design profession, lived in the DC metro area and made between $40,000 and $75,000 a year. Almost three quarters of the participants C/PO a laptop, over 90% of them C/PO a walkman and a cell phone and over half of them C/PO a PDA. 3.3 POMA FOCUS GROUP The Poma focus group was held on February 10, 2003, a weekday night at 7:00 PM in a classroom on the Georgetown University campus. Participants were recruited through their indicated interested from participating in the first wearable computing survey; as well as through an email invitation to join the focus group posted on the

89 Communications, Culture and Technology program’s listserve; and on the
DCWW listserve. Some participants were male husbands or friends of women from the DCWW listserve. All participants indicated via email that they owned at least two of the following products: PDA, smart phone, cell phone, laptop, and/or pager. Participants were not paid, but dinner was provided. To assist with setup, three assistants were recruited and were in the room manning the video camera, setting up food, and moving the Poma from one participant to another. The assistants were members of the early adopter market and contributed to the discussion. 3.3.1 Focus Group Demographics All participants were asked to complete a simple registration survey that asked a few demographic questions and also allowed them to indicate their approval for use of their comments in this study.111 Ten out of the twelve had jobs in the technology industry. One was a student in the Georgetown University Communication, Culture, and Technology program. Three participants held senior level positions (CEO, COO and Director). Their ages ranged from 26 to 50 with the majority of the participants in their mid 30s. Seven out of the twelve lived in the District of Columbia, with the remaining participants living in the greater DC metro area. 111 See Appendix C for registration survey questions.

90 Mobile Device Ownership Focus group participants were asked on
the registration survey to indicate their ownership of mobile devices. Ten out of the twelve participants had both a cell phone and a laptop, nine had a PDA; five owned cell phones with web access; and four owned smart phones (See Figure 3.5). Focus Group: Mobile Device Ownership 10 10 9 5 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1 Types of Devices Number of Participants Cell Phone Laptop PDA Cellphone with Web Smart Phones Figure 3.4 3.3.2 Written Responses Focus group participants were asked to respond to a series of questions by writing down their answers instead of sharing the responses orally with the group. After the first three introductory questions, they were encouraged to fill out their written answers.112 In addition, they were given images of three different types of displays on 112 See Appendix D for the written response questions.

91 the market for wearable devices (the HMD, a traditional
Palm display, and Microvision’s Microdisplay) and were asked to provide comments. Focus group participants were then asked a series of questions about their interaction with the product, and their thoughts and interests in its applications and features.113 By combining their written responses and verbal comments, it is clear that the Poma has user interface issues and universally the participants were disappointed in its performance. After discussing the drawbacks of the product, they were encouraged to provide comments about how they would use a wearable computer. They were prompted to provide feedback on wearable computing applications still in development and whether they would use those features. Finally, they were encouraged to brainstorm about what type of marketing campaign they believe would encourage their peers to try the Poma product or wearable computers in general. 3.4 DAILY POMA USE To understand fully the limitations and positive aspects of the Poma product, a test subject was selected to use the Poma daily over a time span of two days. The Poma was developed as a wearable computer that was created to be always-on and for use while mobile. This thesis tested that functionality through a daily use trial. A test of 113 See Appendix E for focus group questions.

92 that functionality determined that the product did not meet
those expectations and challenged whether consumers would be able to adapt to always-on computing. 3.4.1 Daily Use Demographics The test subject chosen was Joe, a 24-year-old male who lived in the DC metro area. Joe is a customer service representative at a mutual fund company and is an early adopter. He owned a digital camera, laptop, PDA, smart phone, and MP3 player. Based on conversations with Xybernaut, personal use, and focus group use of the product it was clear that the HMD for the Poma was designed for Asian foreheads. In Asian anatomy, the foreheads that are flatter than Caucasian foreheads. The fact that the Poma was designed for Asians is not surprising, considering the Poma was developed by Hitachi for the Japanese market. Joe, as a Korean, was able to easily wear the HMD and see the screen where as all the non-Asian focus group participants had difficulty wearing the HMD and seeing the screen. Joe participated in the daily study from February 13 through February 15, 2003, wearing the Poma both at work and in social situations to test the true mobility of the product. At the end of the two days, Joe had quite a few suggestions for product improvements and ultimately decided that the product in its current version was not ready for consumer use.

93 3.5 DATA ANALYSIS: COMMON THEMES OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS
All four data collection efforts had similar themes based on consumer’s interactions with the product, and consumer interest in the various features, as well as similar attitudes about the concept of wearable computing. By combining survey responses (which were based on no interaction with the product and did not allow for ability to clarify the questions), focus group responses (where respondents were allowed to try the product but were influenced by the responses of others) and individual intensive use of the product; a more expansive summary of product use and design issues was developed. By analyzing the range of responses, a true sense of consumer interest in wearable computers was compiled which highlights the challenges and opportunities that face companies who want to introduce wearable computers into the early adopter consumer market. Consumers in this study expressed concern and provided comments that illuminated their expectations and pop culture associations, concern about social interactions and the impact the device would have on user attention, concern about being always connected to technology, and feedback about the challenges of the user interface. In addition, consumers in this study were asked to comment on their interest in always-on computing (vs. on my command), their interest in wearable computers integrated with clothing, their preference and interest in various applications, and finally their interest in purchasing a wearable computing product.

94 3.6 EXPECTATIONS & POP CULTURE ASSOCIATIONS All three groups
approached their first exposure to wearable computers with pre- established feelings and attitudes about the technology based on their personal background, cultural history, and previous exposure to a similar technology or press about wearable computers. In every situation, their expectations of what the technology could do and how they would use the technology did not match their first experiences with the product. 3.6.1 Focus Group The focus group participants had high expectations for the product and were disappointed when they finally were able to see the product’s look and functionality. Responses indicated that there were limitations inherent in current wearable products on the market and in development. It was clear these products were plagued by limited battery life and user interfaces that were too complicated for consumers to use. Both of these limitations hindered focus group participant’s interest. The focus group comments highlighted these issues. Throughout the entire focus group, participants were encouraged to provide comments about the Poma product as well as about features and applications currently provided by wearable computers in general.114 One clear 114 Wearable computer features and applications that are currently in development in academic labs were described to participants to elicit feedback about the wider range of wearable computer applications.

95 indication of the product’s limitation was seen in the
written responses to a series of questions, which asked them to indicate five positive things about the product and five things they would improve. Their responses to the positive aspects of the product in order of importance, included: • Portability • Small size • Lightweight • The cool factor • Hands free • The visibility of the display • Mouse • The concept of integrated communication • The ability to switch the screen to the other eye • Standard ports • And the ability to access the Internet wirelessly. The group’s responses to the product improvements that they deemed necessary included: • Screen visibility • Input

96 • Weight • Fit • Battery life • Remove
wires • Lighter Head Mounted Display • Operating system (OS) • Durability • Applications The most popular product improvements suggested included: • Improving the screen visibility (12 out of 12 participants listed this issue) • Improving the input mechanism (11 out of 12 respondents listed this issue) • Removing the wires from the CPU to mouse and the CPU to the HMD (8 out of 12) • Fixing the fit of the HMD with 4 out of 12, and • Limited battery life was mentioned by 3 out of 12 as an issue. By viewing responses to the question, “How is your current interest in the product different from what you expected when you first heard about the focus group?” It is clear that even without viewing advertising about the product, consumers approached wearable computing with a set of pre-established expectations. Here was Sam’s response: “Wow! I didn’t realize they had these on the market yet…Looking at

97 this, I’m not sure it’s something I would use
because it has too many wires attached.” Mary found the Poma downright awkward: “It would be a little more seamless, a little less awkward, that I would be able to focus on things around me while I’m wearing it. Adjusting to having something there and interacting with the real world was awkward.” Even more damaging, Mike commented, “I thought it would be cool and life changing, and it ended up being mediocre and not that interesting.” One respondent even questioned the whole premise of wearable computing when he remarked: “I just don’t see interacting with a wearable computer the same way as I see interacting with a desktop. And I don’t see it needing to do the same things that I do with my desktop.” This theme was echoed throughout the rest of the focus group as well as an underlying consumer concern illustrated in the surveys and daily use test. Consumers simply could not see themselves needing or wanting 24/7 computing interaction with something that looked and acted like their desktop computer. 3.6.2 Daily Use Joe had some clear irritations with the Poma’s plug n’ play functionality in relation to connecting to a wireless network. His concerns were well founded. It should be noted that the product was not shipped with a wireless card installed, and instead had software and drivers for accessing the Internet via a dial-up modem.115 Even though it 115 This would require the user to plug him/herself into a wall-mounted phone jack.

98 was positioned as a mobile product, the lack of
pre-installed WiFi software and drivers was puzzling. It is hard to imagine that a user would hook themselves into a phone line to access the Internet using the Poma. Here are Joe’s comments: The thing that was more annoying about the product is [sic] that even without proper permission. I should have been able to get onto the network for internet connection by having the PC detect the wireless network and make the connection somewhat in the same way that handhelds can outside corporate office buildings or neighbors can to their neighbors wireless networks. Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM 3.6.3 Survey Respondents’ expectations for the product were determined by asking participants in the first survey to comment on what their first thought was when they saw the term “wearable computing” without displaying any information about this type of mobile product. Their responses illuminated how the user’s cultural background biases user expectations. This open-ended question evoked a range of responses. Those comments have been organized by theme below to highlight how their cultural background and pre- existing notions about wearable computers influenced their expectations for the product’s functionality and the impact the product would have upon their life if adopted. The common themes were focused on direct associations with other concepts; products and concerns about the impact the product would have on their lives. The associations

99 mentioned were with: smart clothing, PDA technology, wireless Internet,
negative “geek” stereotypes, science fiction and Hollywood-created icons. The concerns focused on the impact on social interactions, personal health risks, and a losing of individual independence from technology. Connection with Smart Clothing Associations Thirty-six respondents created associations between wearable computers to various pieces of clothing including jewelry, T-shirts, jackets, vests, watches, hats, shoes, and eyeglasses. The most popular clothing association was watches with 10 respondents and jackets/vests with seven respondents. Some of the other clothing associations were very futuristic such as: clothing that thinks and wires and gadgets attached to the head and another, a shirt I heard about once, which was meant to provide an internet connection and also (I think) to interface with remote control-type devices in your home (to replace your remotes...). And one respondent immediately thought of a potential application for wearable computers integrated into clothing: Exchanging business cards by shaking hands or a really dumb hat that tells me temperature and humidity.

100 Hollywood Associations Many respondents made clear popular culture references.
Association with Dick Tracy’s watch was the most popular and mentioned by five out of 256 respondents.116 Star Trek was the second most popular association with three out of 256 respondents mentioning: - Glasses like Data in Star Trek - What would really be cool is something unobtrusive I could tap into like those intercom things on Star Trek. Four respondents mentioned a recent IBM commercial run during the 2003 Superbowl to entice consumers to begin thinking about wearable computing. Responses included: - The stockbroker in the middle of a plaza shouting ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ into his headset. - The geek sitting on the fountain scaring the pigeons. - “I think of the ad on TV where this young guy on Venice is doing stock trades by looking into his own glasses.” Three respondents associated wearable computers with technology implanted in your body. Two respondents commented that wearable computers seemed like something out of science fiction, and many respondents mentioned The Matrix, James 116 This is interesting considering that early research focus on consumer associations with cellular telephones found that Dick Tracy’s watch was a common consumer association. (See James Murray’s Wireless Nation)

101 Bond, RoboCop and Judith Butler’s Cyborg. One respondent even
took the wearable computer’s functionality a bit further by describing it as, “a computer which is in one glass of your sunglasses and the mind controls the computer, like it had no keyboard or mouse but the mind automatically sends signals to it.”117 Current Mobile Devices Associations Thirty-one survey respondents linked wearable computers to advanced PDA type devices and five respondents correctly defined mobile devices as hardware that is worn on the body and provided information processing capacity. Five respondents described wearable technology currently offered in the commercial market with comments like Things that already exist like USAF Tech Order. Manuals worn by flight line maintenance technicians. Seven respondents mentioned the MIT Media Lab, Xybernaut or Steven Mann. Eight respondents associated the product with Internet mobility and wrote wireless Internet. Negative Associations Some of those surveyed created negative associations and made references to the technology being borg-like (mentioned by five respondents): We are Borg :^). Three respondents associated wearable computers with dorks and geeks with comments like: dorks-r-us and dorks who need to get more sunlight and Hard core geeks. 117 Whereas this would solve wearable computer’s current input challenge, a wearable computer solely driven by thought is not yet ready for the consumer market and is in development in academic labs.

102 One respondent linked being a geek with a lack
of social interaction driven by wearable computers: − A person covered with cumbersome apparatus, looking something like a ‘Borg.’ − If the wearable computing equipment is subtle, the person will still appear strange because he or she will be tending to the information coming in via the equipment and not the environment around him or her. Two respondents thought of wearable computers in relation to their market presence with their comments: - Hype. - Wearable computing is currently a solution in search of a problem - It is taking too long to arrive. Feelings about Wearable Computing Respondents from the first survey were asked to describe their feelings about the potential of wearable computing. They were provided with the following options: Scary, Apprehensive, Restraining, Unable to Escape Technology, Hassle, Too Difficult to Understand, Exciting, Futuristic, Exotic, and All-Powerful. A few respondents (15 out of 256) immediately created positive associations like: cool, exciting futuristic, wonderful, amazing, and the cutting-edge technology of the near future. A large number of users 36.7% selected Exciting, followed by 28.9% of the respondents who selected Future and 20.3% selected Unable to Escape. A small number of users selected Apprehensive (9.8%), 8.2% selected Hassle, 7.8% selected Exotic, 5.8% selected All

103 Powerful, 3.9% selected Difficult to Understand, 2% selected Restraining,
and 1.6% selected Scary. Survey #1: Emotional Reaction to Wearable Computers 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Power Exotic Future Excite Difficult to Understand Hassle Unable to Escape Restraining Apprehensive Scary Emotional Reaction Percentage of Respondents Figure 3.6 Comments that were provided in the other comment field for this question is in some ways the most interesting. Their comments included: − Cautious - what are all of the impacts? Test! − Inevitable, and hopefully eventually very useful. − I love the idea, as long as it's not in my brain. − Tool w/ purpose but not for own sake: ‘ cool’ factor. − Connecting everything, whether we want that or not.

104 − Exasperated - concentrate on one thing at a
time! − "Please God, is there a way to avoid it?" − Ok, it's about time... − Convenient; vulnerable. − Fear of ridicule. − Information overload. − Techno-tyranny. − Will it be the servant, or the master? − Transforming, if far-future (ten years) apps work. − Technology is not there yet . WinCE sucks.118 3.7 CONCERNS ABOUT IMPACT ON SOCIAL REACTIONS All three data collection efforts experienced and were aware of the impact that wearing the computing product had on their social interactions. 3.7.1 Focus Group Jill mentioned that it was difficult to focus on reality while wearing the Poma: Depends on the application. It’s distracting to have something here (put her palm up against her eye) in front of you and having the world going on around you in your other eye. It felt like…well it just felt kind of awkward. 118 Spelling and emphasis placed by survey respondent.

105 Dave commented on futuristic product enhancements that might solve
that problem: Like having contacts with a device embedded and people would have to look at your eyes to see little lights and realize that it is not coming from you. (Laughter) It has to be unobtrusive. 3.7.2 Daily Use Finally, Joe provided some commentary about the social interactions that he experienced while using the device. Joe comments, As for people’s reactions, people thought it was quite cool. From my IT department to other people around the company, once they got beyond the general funny look...they were intrigued and on more than one occasion there were a bunch of people that mentioned that if they could they would want to embed certain technology in them or on them such as their cell phones. At the same time, many of the people who looked said that they would be unable to wear the device for a long period as it would wear on their eyesight and on their heads (it its quite comfortable on mine, but not on theirs). Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM 3.7.3 Surveys Respondents in the first survey were asked about what type of reaction they thought their friends would have to their purchases of a wearable computer as a way to gather their concerns about the impact the wearable computer would have on their social interactions. A few (11.9%) of non-PositiveTech thought “very negative”, 14.1% of that group thought “somewhat negative”, 3.2% thought “no reaction”, 23.9% thought

106 somewhat positive, 18.4% thought “positive”, and 28.2% were unsure
what the reaction would be. Out of the PositiveTech group, 14% thought the reaction would be somewhat negative, 5.3% thought there wouldn’t be a reaction at all, 24.1% thought the reaction would be somewhat positive, 34.2% thought the reaction would be very positive, 22.1% were unsure (See Figure 3.7). Survey #1: Friend's Potential Reaction to Wearable Computer 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Very Negative Somewhat Negative No Reaction Somewhat Positive Very Positive Unsure Type of Reaction % of Respondents PositiveTech nonPositiveTech Figure 3.7 Respondents in the second survey when asked about what they thought when they saw the term “wearable computing” indicated concerns about how the technology would change their social interactions: − I think technology is getting a little ahead of itself. Do people really WANT wearable computers? I picture people no longer communicating with one

107 another directly -- like people already do today when
they walk around talking on their cell phones.119 − Unnecessary. Just because it might be something we could do, SHOULD we? Let's think about WHICH technology is good, appropriate, not use it indiscriminately120. 3.8 CONCERNS ABOUT BEING ALWAYS CONNECTED Nine respondents questioned whether we really needed to be available to others, connected to the Internet constantly. They expressed concern with issues like the lack of peace and quiet: − Do we need to be so connected? Really, has "portable" communication like the cell phone really made our lives better? Or simply made us more chained to our jobs etc? I see many people who just "must" stay connected wasting much time and increasing their anxiety when not connected. − I am somewhat suspicious, because with laptop and home network, it seems like there's no time when you can't be expected to work. − Something that makes me too available to others − 24/7. Can the device show us away/unavailable in a way that is acceptable? − I think of the benefits it could produce but worry about the abuses -- the "big brother" effect, or more spam. − Is there no escape? 119 Emphasis placed by survey respondent 120 Emphasis placed by survey respondent.

108 3.8.1 User Interface Various aspects of the user interface
created concerns and issues with consumers. The largest number of concerns and hesitations toward adopting the Poma were focused on the HMDs, input devices and operating systems. User Interface- Input Mechanisms The third significant concern mentioned by focus group and daily use participants was related to the continued improvement of the human-computer interaction interface –specifically the input mechanism. Alex Lightman, CEO of Charmed Technologies, understands how this can be seen as a barrier to adoption: Imagine trying to compose a complicated recursive ‘find’ command line while walking down the street: bringing up the main pages and trying to memorize the options you need while simultaneously working out what the chord combination is for an ampersand. You’d get hit by a bus! The whole point of wearables is to augment your own capabilities. If you’re using up 90% of your brainpower just to work the wearable, it’s not an augmentation but a tremendous handicap. 121 All of the user groups had concerns about the functionality of the input mechanism, and some offered technological solutions that they would find more comfortable. 121 Lightman, Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet.pp. 160

109 Focus Group Focus group participants were asked if they
would be more interested if the input were driven by voice recognition. One respondent commented that it would not be an odd phenomenon. “Just with the wireless mikes, people talk into their cell phones now.” However that was followed by Stanley who commented, “Can you image a room full of people talking into their computer?” (Laughter). Melissa responded, “Seems like a perfect thing for industrial espionage.” Mike: The output of the device is one thing, but the input is the other really difficult thing to solve. Like this one, I found totally insufficient. The same with Graffiti and the stylus on the Palm. It just doesn’t keep up. It’s not fast enough. I can’t integrate it into my life. One character every two seconds…. (Many participants demonstrate how difficult it is). One female focus group respondent commented about her issues with the Poma’s optical mouse: This one is kind of awkward because it’s the thumb and I’m used to using these two fingers with the mouse. Tony suggested: “How about something like the Sony Gyroscopic mouse?” and the followed up with, “Why does that have to have wires? It’s a wireless device, and you have a mouse with a wire on it.”122 122 In reality, the Gyration Gyromouse is distributed by Electroboard and you learn more here: http://www.electroboard.com.au/products/detail.asp?ID=789

110 Joe took the conversation even further and started brainstorming
solutions to the input challenge: I think that getting back to Minority Report and what not in relation to input. But if you’re going to get to a point where you are going to wear this all the time is to really conceptualize and have it become your alternate reality if that’s the case. What is that horrible movie with Keanu Reeves? Johnny Mnemonic. Exactly. Where his brain was a hard drive and he puts on gloves to wander through space. It’s the same as Minority Report. Where he’d go into that program and wear some sort of gloves. If you had clear gloves with some sort of input and Bluetooth so, you wouldn’t be wired to anything. And you could slip them on and probably no one would notice, because the hardware would be on your palms. And that would take the place of the input to create a space where you could type or point. Chording devices were described to the group as a follow up to Joe’s comment, and the group was asked if they thought chording would solve the problem. Melissa remarked that: A large segment of the population is about to retire. So would a chording device make it all that difficult and for folks who have bifocals and trifocals, how much more difficult is it to use such a thing? Daily Use Joe had clear issues with the input mechanism for the Poma and had some clear suggestions for product improvements. The input device is quite poor…even if the device were to stay the same it should be wireless. There are too many things wired to the computer. Ideally, there would be some voice recognition and an alternate input device. The voice recognition could work on two different levels; one would be on a command level that would have key words that would activate certain systems (e.g. power on, keyboard, etc.) the other would be vocal input for things such as typing in

111 Word. As for the typing, I would be a
big fan of a glove system that had different contact and gave the user the capability to type in a VR (virtual reality) environment. It would also give them the capability to use one finger as a pointer in lieu of a mouse. [I]t was much easier to see the monitor in darker environments. Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM Joe was not far off base when suggesting an input device that could be embedded in a glove. New Scientist Magazine reported in 1999 that researchers at Stanford University were working on developing a system for entering data into a computer using a special glove and a hand-signal language. Vaughan Pratt, the head researcher at the lab has developed a one-handed sign language called ‘thumb-code’ that works by touching and grouping fingers in different ways and can enable 96 different combinations including the representation of upper and lower case, numbers and symbols. Pratt claimed that the language is easier to learn than Morse code and proficient users could type up to 30 words per minute.123 User Interface -HMDs Head mounted displays and the user interface (including current input devices for wearable computers) was seen as one of the largest barriers to mass consumer adoption by all data collection groups for a variety of reasons. First, users were not used to being able to see a display screen through eyeglasses, and depending upon the model, the screen blocked a piece of the visual field of the user. Though reassured by

112 Xybernaut’s sales staff that it would only take fifteen
minutes to adjust and that the user would eventually forget that the Poma screen was there, the focus group participants were not convinced. The other major product issue mentioned by all study participants was that the HMDs currently on the market makes it obvious that the user is wearing a technology gadget that might attract negative attention. Negative reactions from passersbys when wearing the device were experienced by Joe, the daily use subject. This concern brings to the forefront the focus of HMD developers: developing a device that isn’t obvious and looks cool. "You've got to look cool," said Wayne Piekarski, PhD student and wearable computer researcher at University of Southern Australia, advocating a rule of thumb for any wearable computing product.124 "People don't want to walk around advertising that they're a cyborg dork." Mark Spintzer, CEO of MicroOptical mimics that focus and is currently focused on leading his company to develop a product that is akin to Tom Cruise’s device that he used in Mission: Impossible 2 where Cruise's character gets his mission communicated to him through a pair of sunglasses.125,126 123 "Wearable Computers Come One Step Closer," Computergram International (1999). 124 For more information about Piekarski’s research, you can visit his website at: http://www.cis.unisa.edu.au/~ciswp/ 125 Dustin Goot, "Tech Specs: Less Geek, More Chic," WIRED, Dec. 03 2002. 126 MicroOptical’s new HMD for video displays (for DVDs, not for display of data) is on the mark – the screen is completely embedded in the lens of the glasses and it is virtually impossible to detect by the average passerby.

113 Surveys Display preferences were explored with the survey respondents.
Respondents from the second survey were asked to comment on the images of three different types of displays for wearable devices that are on the market: MicroOptical’s HMD, Microvision’s MicroDisplay Technology and Palm’s flat screen-on the device display, and indicate which display they were most interested in and why. Thirty-eight out of 93 respondents (40.8%) were most interested in MicroOptical’s display as a way to display data on a mobile device, 30 out of 93 (32.3%) were interested in MicroVision’s Microdisplay and 25 out of 93 respondents (26.9%) were most interested in a traditional handheld display (See Figure 3.7). Figure 3.7 Survey #2: Display Preferences 41% 32% 27% Head Mounted Display MicroDisplay Traditional Handheld

114 TRADITIONAL HANDHELD DISPLAY Those that selected the traditional handheld
display as their display of choice highlighted a range of reasons, including their familiarity with the interface, its ability to be put away when not in use, its durability, and ease of use. Ten respondents mentioned that they found the PDA handheld display the least intrusive. Four respondents out of that group mentioned that they would find it the least distracting. Quite a few respondents wrote that they selected this option because it was the most familiar. Four respondents who selected the PDA screen mentioned that it was because they did not want their technology attached to them, or they found the other options too weird. The other reasons given for selecting this display were directed at their concerns about various issues with the other display options. Some respondents were concerned about the ability to accomplish other tasks while using the other displays. - The head-mounted displays I would think would have a very task-specific application -- performing surgery, fixing a car. You'd have to perfect your monocular vision, though, I suspect. - Seems very practical, less that could go wrong, something weird about an image floating out in front of you. One respondent made a comment that at first glance seemed to be the argument for the use of HMDs: - Because the others seem like you can't do anything else while you are using the equipment, the handheld you can have in your hand and be watching TV or doing something else....

115 A few respondents were concerned about the impact that
using the other display options would have on their physical well being (headaches, eye strain). One respondent linked her choice to her health condition: - The other appear [sic] to obstruct your normal vision or call for one to refocus, which would bother me. Maybe because I suffer from migraines it doesn’t sound appealing to me MICROOPTICAL: The 40% of respondents who selected MicroOptical’s display highlighted many of the attributes and benefits already highlighted in the company’s messaging. - It can look just like a pair of glasses or contacts. It can give you info quickly and quietly without being imposing. Fourteen respondents made comments in relation to MicroOptical’s HMD being hands-free as a positive feature and that it seemed easy to use and comfortable to wear. - Hands-free is ALWAYS a major plus. Superior-level voice-activated tech would work here too. Besides, the headsets look cool. :D Other respondents (five) made comments about how the bigger, clearer display (vs. a traditional mobile device’s small screen) was their determining factor in selecting this type of display. - Because I can't see the tiny screens. I want something I can actually see. - I like the idea of a full sized screen instead of a small, hard to read screen. The reasons offered against using MicroOptical’s HMD focused on the consumers’ lack of interest in wearing glasses.

116 - I have eye problems that would prevent wearing
eyepieces. - The glasses might work (if I'm understanding them correctly) but then you have to wear glasses. Maybe if they are attached to sunglasses... - I am also not interested in wearing glasses. I wore corrective lenses for years (both glasses and contacts) and after spending $5K+ on laser surgery, I don't want to have to wear glasses again. One respondent’s comment illustrated the emotional reaction that needs to be addressed and reconciled when marketing the hardware: - Anything that transposes a visual field on top of the real world is very creepy to me. Many respondents mentioned that they would have to try them out in order to make a decision between the three options. For instance, one respondent stated: - Realistically, I'd have to test out each of them and compare how they operate, how comfortable they are to use, how well they work without crashing, how well they interface with your current system, etc. - I’m actually not too sure which one I would like the most. I’d have to try each out. MICRO DISPLAY Some of the positive responses to the Microdisplay option were based on the fact the display was a new technology and looked cool: Rad!!! I want to try one out, said one respondent, looks better, something new to try, said another. Others thought the look of the display was not such a motivating factor toward purchasing the technology: − Although traditional mobile displays are functional, the option of viewing a full-size screen is attractive. I wouldn't be caught dead in those head- mounted things; they look like a 1980s sci-fi vision of a Virtual Reality Machine. Do they really think people are willing to look like that on the Metro?!

117 − I prefer not to have to wear anything
on my head like a headset to be able to view the display full size. What if I forgot it? - I only have functional vision in one eye - I don't want it taken up with a screen in front of it. The traditional hand-held is too clunky. - Seems the least cumbersome because you don't have to wear anything on your head and it comes in a smaller package than a traditional handheld. - I have complete control over when the screen is in my field of vision and it is space-saving/compact and can be larger in perspective in my field of vision than the handheld display. - The head mounts look dorky and the traditional displays are too small Quite a few respondents had negative reactions to the Microdisplay: - I don't like the idea of high-intensity light shown constantly in my eye. It has to cause some bad eyestrain after awhile. - Using 'a single tiny mirror to scan a low-power beam of colored light across the eye'? Yeah, right. How does that work with sunglasses on, how bad's the afterimage, and that just sounds unhealthy somehow. - I don't quite understand microdisplays. If it's shooting beams of light directly into my eye, I'm guessing I would have to hold it very steady. I’d rather have something that I can glance at when necessary. - Getting older. It's hard to see the microdisplay. - Seems to me that there would be less interference if the beam were displaying directly to the eye. Focus Group The focus group participants had problems with the user interface for the Poma. Their difficulty came from both the required adjustment to fit the HMD on their heads,

118 their inability to view all pieces of the screen
while having both eyes open, and from the Poma’s operating system. Melissa had issues with the Poma’s HMD. “I’d want a head mounted display with the display being a bit further away from my eye (holds arm outstretched in front of her).” June commented, “I found that I had to close my other eye to focus better. It’s like a telescope.” Dave replied, “After about 5 minutes, I was able to focus on multiple things at once. It took awhile for my eyes and my brain to adjust. It was kind of unnatural.” Tony said, “The fact that someone thought that an object would remain on your head by just pressing up against your forehead?” Ever the optimist, Joe was convinced that consumers would adjust to wearing HMDs: The other thing with this (and this one is obtrusive) but eventually I think (as some people have said) if it becomes mainstream it gets to the point where you would get unbelievably used to it (well maybe not this – points to the Poma). But it’s because we’re trying this here for 10 minutes, but if you were to try this around for a week and half. And especially with the newer models, you’d probably get so used to it that you wouldn’t notice the data and you’d be able to move beyond it if you didn’t want to focus on it. It’s the same time with the pilots who use the heads up displays in the military they have all that information flashing in front of them, but in the end when it comes to shooting down a target they are not bothered by all the movement around them, they are focused on what they have to get done.

119 Dave mentioned, “With most of these things, it needs
to be as unobtrusive as possible. I want something up there in my face all the time; it’s going to be more of an annoyance and a distraction. With something that you call up when you want it, and put it away until I need it again.” Daily Use: It should be noted that the product manual stated that the Poma should not be used for more than 15-minute increments (presumably due to eye strain). There were also clear warnings (embedded in the 45 total warnings in the manual) that the product should not be used if the user could not clearly see the screen or if they became dizzy or experience headaches. Joe did not seem to experience any of these effects, though he had some clear comments about the difficulties of the HMD: ”as for the actual glasses, they are much too obtrusive.” User Interface -Operating System (OS) The Poma runs on the Windows CE operating system, and the focus group and daily use test subject had issues with the usefulness of the system on a mobile device. Focus Group Dave, a focus group respondent encountered the same issues that the daily use test subject had with the operating system: ”I don’t think a desktop metaphor is good for a device where you are mobile and on the go. That is a part of the reason why the user interface is so terrible.”

120 Stanley replied: They have clearly positioned it as a
laptop replacement based on the operating system and software that they put on it. That is not an interface for quick, down and dirty, “Where am I, how to get to there?” sort of requests. That is a full function computer with all of its drawbacks. And how do you work with a Windows system that is designed for a mouse and a keyboard and large monitor and those sorts of things…. With the multiple drop-down menus that the user needed to access, the participants ultimately responded that they would be happier with a Palm type interface. Daily Use Joe came to the same conclusion: To truly have the functionality of an overlay…. I do not believe this product should be Windows OS based. It should be more like the screens in Terminator or Robocop. I’m not trying to make this into a little boys dream, but really push to make this into a more viable product. Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM …This product needs to run on a different OS and not be just a computer. Instead, it should very much be like a HUD of a plane. You can focus on the data if you want but you can also bypass the data and focus on the real life if you want. Instead, what you have here is just a regular portable computer and that being the case people would rather carry a laptop or a PDA for that kind of functionality. Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM Marketing Focus: Near the end of the focus group session, the focus group was asked to give feedback about what marketing strategies and messages would allow them (and their

121 peers) to feel more comfortable purchasing the technology. Their
responses covered a range of suggestions from visual images that might help in advertising campaigns to direct personal marketing strategies. June suggested customer testimonials: “I would personally look for customer testimonials. Other people who have used it and talked about it.” Dave reiterated that without compelling software, he didn’t believe consumers would be interested. “Need to see why I’d want to use it. There needs to be a compelling use for it. I would look toward the software.” Stanley suggested cultural references and key messaging points, “Six million dollar display. Highlight the wireless and the mobility.” 3.9 MOBILITY Mobility was a huge issue with all three data collection audiences. Being able to use the product and watching others use it (as occurred during the focus group) highlighted its lack of mobility. 3.9.1 Focus Group Joe commented on how hard it was to complete a computing function and interact with the real world at the same time: “Right now especially when you’re trying to do a word doc you’re setting there and (he puts hand over other eye) “well let’s see” (laughter) and it defeats the whole purpose.”

122 In addition, Jane commented on how with the difficulty
of seeing the screen, social interactions were challenging. “I found that while you were talking, I couldn’t pay attention to anything that you said while I had the thing on. I had a hard time. I was completely focused on the screen.” Dave referred to other technology that also demands your attention while functioning and the challenges that it created: A few years ago, the car companies did a whole lot of research on heads up displays for GPS information or that kind of thing on the cars. And they had a couple of working models in the high-end cars, and it never really took off. What they found is most people thought it was distracting and it took their attention away from the things they wanted to be doing and should be focused on doing – which is watching where they were driving instead of looking at the GPS and everything else at the same time. I think a lot of this would have the same problem – that it’s distracting. Joe followed up on that comment by highlighting the fact that the issue would only worsen with age: I just wanted to say in term of the heads up display. One of my cousins is actually involved in designing cars, and one of the problems that they found in market research is that as you get older you have a harder time changing your field of vision – and I experienced this when I put it on. Think about it, they were putting those heads up displays in high end Cadillac – I’m not buying a high end Cadillac. It’s going to be someone my dad’s age who is going to have a hard time doing the “Hey, I need to look over there (indicates with finger), and now I need to check my speed (moves finger to his nose) and hey there is a tree in my face (puts palm up against face). Laughter

123 3.9.2 Surveys Related to the concern about being always
connected, a few survey respondents were concerned about how that would impact the user’s interaction with the rest of society. Specifically, they were concerned of the dangerous behavior created by people wearing their computers and driving, or during other acts of mobility: − I also imagine idiots trying to drive while on their computers... − With a wearable computer, you can work while shopping, exercising, and - most frightening of all - driving. − People walking around obliviously looking at their little screens... the way they walk and drive around w/ cell phones now − Convenience, freedom and multi-tasking information overload (i.e. getting overloaded from private, wearable sources along with the current environment sources - this is a big issue with cell phones - it isn't holding the phone that causes accidents so much as it is the split attention span.) 3.9.3 Daily Use Joe also tested the outer limits of the system’s mobility during his daily use trial and attempted to wear it during as many daily activities as possible. However, with the product’s battery life of only 3 hours, he was not able to engage in prolonged activities. He ignored the product manual warnings about wearing the product during periods of time when attention is needed (this includes driving). His experience: On my ride, home I broke the rules and wore the device as I was driving. With the device on I had a hard time at times keeping focus even though all I was

124 doing was driving and trying to avoid paying attention
to the screen. It has a way of creating tunnel vision. This was something that I had noticed earlier when I tried to talk to co-workers with a Word document up. I was able to focus on their face but the rest of their body would wash out. In general, it is much too difficult to view the monitor or not the monitor. Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM All respondents were interested in the concept of wearable computers for their ability to provide comprehensive communication and Internet features while mobile. In the daily use test and focus group, however, the Poma did not withstand the mobile test and all respondents found the Poma did not allow for true mobility due to its difficult to use display and input mechanisms. 3.10 “ALWAYS-ON” VS. “ON-BY-COMMAND” One of the largest issues highlighted by all three data collection efforts is that consumers are unsure whether they even want “always-on” computing (which is what wearable computers strive to provide). The focus group was encouraged to explore this issue. 3.10.1 Focus Group Dave discussed the always-on features vs. features currently available in today’s mobile devices: One thing that we need to take into account is that there are two separate and probably mutually-exclusive uses for the thing. The first is the Bill Gatesian information at my fingertips sort of thing where once I get this information and boom I’m gone and acting on that information. And there’s the "I’m going to sit down and work with this for an extended period of time". Those are two different

125 sorts of things. It’s like the PDA vs. the
laptop. PDA you want for just a quick second to get something and the laptop you’re actually going to sit down and work. And you need to tailor the device to be one or the other. Sam seemed to think that mobile computing wasn’t made for always-on functionality. ”I use a PDA and a cell phone. I use the PDA functions for 30 sec at a time and then I put it away.” Dave wasn’t as bothered by the always-on computing just as long as it was under his control, “It would have to be at my initiation. I would have to be the one that directed it to do something.” Other respondents could not envision wearing the device constantly with its actions under their control and instead envisioned using the wearable as a device, which they would be able to turn on and off and take on and off based on their personal preference. Dave commented, “I think, if you used Bluetooth instead of wires to communicate the display and if the display was integrated in your glasses that you could slip into your pocket that would be ideal. Then I could boom put it on, do whatever I want to do, boom put it down and go. I don’t want to mess with wires.” Mike was only interested in a system that prompted him when it needed attention due to his disinterest in wearing glasses or a HMD. He said he was interested in, “Something that could alert you and you could put the screen down. I don’t use glasses normally, so…”

126 Mike followed that comment with, “You had something much
less obtrusive. Something that you push a button on your sleeve and it swings out. That’s fine. I have a cell phone and it’s on all the time. But I don’t look at it all the time.” Stanley replied with, “Other people will choose to have it on all the times and will respond to you based on your individual presence.” 3.10.2 Daily Use Joe commented on how the wireless Internet connection was essential for the always-on functionality to be useful. Network connectivity is key for a product like this because especially with the way the input works, that is going to be one of the key reasons to have one of these machines. Now, does this mean that it would be any better than any other peripheral out on the market that would be perfect if it had good WiFi or 3G or some sort of high speed connectivity? Actually, probably not, because even if it were connected, it would come down to the question of being an "always-on" tool or a "on when it is desired.” If it is only on when it is desired there I can’t really think of any advantage. If it's to be "always-on" other major issues would need to be covered before it would be viable. 3.10.3 Surveys Respondents from the first survey were concerned about the effect that always- on would have on their personal life, their privacy and their ability to get away. − I actually start worrying about how much computers will take over our lives to the point that convenience overrides the need for privacy, but the more that time goes by, the more that I am comfortable with even just portable technology. The idea of wearable technology to me seems like another level of convenience that supercedes the need/desire for personal privacy.

127 One respondent wrote, More intrusion, and another: - Do
we need to be so connected? Really, has "portable" communication like the cell phone really made our lives better? Or simply made us more chained to our jobs etc? I see many people who just must stay connected wasting much time and increasing their anxiety when not connected. - I think of the benefits it could produce but worry about the abuses -- the "big brother" effect, or more spam. - I already spend too much time online. I need to cut back. - I need time AWAY from my technologies. 3.11 INTEGRATION WITH SMART CLOTHING Market research films have established a clear link between smart fabrics and wearable computing adoption by consumers. The data collected from consumers tells a different story. 3.11.1 Focus Group The focus group participants were asked about whether they would be more interested in wearable computers if they were embedded in clothing. Their banter illustrates the largest concern that consumers would have if offered wearable computers in clothing. Melissa: “But that means I’d have to wear the same thing?” June replied, “Oh, PLEASE that is SO last year.” Stanley also envisioned how smart fabrics and wearable computers could have health applications: “Children I can see. Something that help you track children or

128 monitors children for SIDs.” June commented that medical applicants
for the other end of the age spectrum: “Aging. Something that monitors you and alerts the authorities if you are in trouble.” June commented that, “People with physical activity who are training might be interested (in something) that could monitor their heart rate, but then I would want it a lot more light weight.” 3.11.2 Surveys Respondents from the second survey were asked if they would be more interested in purchasing a wearable computer if it was embedded in a piece of clothing. Twenty-one respondents (22.6%) stated that they were interested, 36 respondents (38.7%) were slightly interested, 11 respondents (11.8%) had no opinion, nine respondents (9.7%) were slightly not interested, five respondents (17.2%) were not interested (See Figure 3.8).

129 Survey #2: Purchasing Wearable Computers in Clothing 22.6 38.7
11.8 9.7 17.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 Interested Slightly Interested No Opinion Slightly Not Intereste Not Interested Amount of Interest % of Respondents Figure 3.8 Respondents were then asked about which smart fabric application interested them the most: a MP3 jacket, a wearable computer embedded into fabric, a cell phone in a jacket, or fabric that adjust to your body temperature to keep you cool when its hot and warm when its cold outside. Forty-six respondents (49.5%) selected the jacket, 38 respondents (40.9%) selected the wearable computer embedded in fabric, 31 respondents (33.3%) selected a cell phone in a jacket; and 77 respondents (82.8%) selected fabric that could respond to your body temperature (See Figure 3.9).

130 Survey #2: Interest in Smart Fabric Product MP3 Jacket
24% Body Temperature Fabric 40% Cell Phone in Jacket 16% Wearable in Fabric 20% Figure 3.9 They also provided comments about other fabric products that they would be interested in: • Monitor on sleeve instead of glasses/eyepiece. • Magic-fingers condoms. • Clothing that indicates temperature, air quality. • UV-sensitive fabrics that adjust to protect. Respondents were then asked if they were interested in purchasing a smart fabric product. Sixty out of 93 respondents (64.5%) said that they were interested. For those who selected that they were not interested, they were allowed to provide comments about why they made that decision; and their responses included: - I like my clothing to be clothing and electronics to be electronics. I'm not interested in the concept of melding the two.

131 Eleven respondents mentioned the high cost as a reason
to not be interested. Four respondents were worried about the washing and the comfort of the fabric. - Probably too expensive and how do you wash it? Seven respondents wanted to wait until the technology was more tested and verified by testimonials from people they trusted. - Not until they have been on the market, fully tested, and experienced in the real world by people I trust. Three respondents were worried about purchasing a clothing product imbedded with technology when the clothing item would potentially go out of style. - I don’t know, it really depends on the style... - That geek wears the same jacket every day - Its an interesting concept, but unless the gadgets could be removed from the clothing and used without the garment, it just seems like a waste to duplicate something I may already have, or to purchase something that has limited utility. - Don't need it, don't want to maintain it, Don't want it to go to waste when the style of it falls out of fad and it sits in closet - If it could control temperature, that would be pretty cool (no pun intended). - Too much trouble to take care of. Until they come up with one that I can ball up and ram under a chair in a crowded meeting, I'll pass. Also, don't want to have to worry about power supply or subtle changes that such a widespread but low-level electric field might cause in my body chemistry. Survey participants were asked which piece of clothing or accessory they would be most interested in if it was embedded with wearable computing power. Fifteen

132 respondents (16.1%) were interested in a wearable computer if
it was embedded in a hat, 60 respondents (64.5%) were interested in a watch, 48 respondents (51.6%) were interested in a jacket, 9 (9.7%) were interested in pants, 30 (32.3%) were interested in glasses, and 12 (12.9%) were not interested in wearable computers embedded in clothing (See Figure 3.10). Survey #2: Preference for Wearable Computers in Clothing Hat 9% Watch 34% Jacket 28% Pants 5% Glasses 17% Not Interested 7% Figure 3.10 3.12 POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS All three data collection efforts created new ideas for applications of wearable computers in response to users’ unmet needs. In the search for a killer application, their suggestions are invaluable. Wearable computers present the user with a variety of features not available through other mobile products like Palm or Handspring’s.

133 Wearable computers function in an always-on mode with the
inputs and outputs always present and ready. The following list illustrates the many uses that the wearable computing industry has suggested as potential applications for wearable computers: • Stock traders integrated voice and data communication links to in-house trading systems and to customers. • Game players (a $20 billion industry world wide –Reuters 10, May, 2000) facilitate the creation of captivating immersion game experiences. Game players would be able to interact with computer-generated objects overlaid onto a real world environment. • Medical doctors making the rounds for the Red Cross/relief organizations use wearable computers for checking vital signs, supply inventories, consulting medical databases. • News professionals could view video, retrieve stories, and read live reports. Reporters able to access data portals for research and fact verification while in the field. • Sports fans at a live game could view player stats imposed onto their view of the live game. • Fitness enthusiasts could track progress. • Tourists could access maps and local information and rent the system to see the past overlaid onto the present. • Typical FFA uses. • Soldiers, CIA, police officers, emergency personnel.127 127 Lightman, Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet.

134 Some of these ideas are already developed. Steven Mann’s
WearComp takes the above ideas about wearable computers’ functionality even further. It enables us to interact with others through its wireless data communications link, and therefore replaces the pager and cellular telephone. It allows us to perform basic computations, and thus replaces the pocket calculator, laptop computer and personal data assistant (PDA). It can record data from its many inputs, and therefore it replaces and subsumes the portable dictating machine, camcorder, and the photographic camera. And it can reproduce (‘play back'’) audiovisual data, so that it subsumes the portable audio cassette player. It keeps time, as any computer does, and this may be displayed when desired, rendering a wristwatch obsolete. (A calendar program which produces audible, vibrotactile, or other output also renders the alarm clock obsolete).128 3.12.1 Focus Group Focus group participants were asked to list and rank the features of a wearable computer that they were interested in the most. This activity assisted in stimulating the discussion that later occurred concerning what they saw as potential applications for the Poma. Their responses included such features as: • Translation • Internet • GPS/directions • Tourist options • Read books 128 Mann, "Humanistic Intelligence: `Wearcomp' as a New Framework and Application for Intelligent Signal Processing".

135 • Contact management • Instant messaging • Schedule •
Cell phone • Music • Scuba diving • Project display • Email • Laptop replacement The most popular potential use for the Poma envisioned by the focus group was: mobile GPS to assist in finding directions and business locations (9 out of 12). The second most popular potential use was communication functionality (cell phone, instant messaging, email, instant translation) (7 out of 12), followed by mobile Internet (3 out of 12), and contact management (3 out of 12). Their verbal responses were descriptive about how exactly they would like to use mobile devices. For instance, Jeff commented, I would like something that has all the data that is on my laptop, that I can carry around with me, with battery life that will last all day. That won’t break my back. That I can use with one hand. And I don’t need to do data entry most of the time. Every once and awhile I want some type of text input device whether its a keyboard that I can plug in, or a keyboard that can project onto a desktop. I mean text input for something that is portable is fine for me and probably for most people, but I want the ability to recall data.

136 Some respondents couldn’t envision any use for the product
like Susan who stated: “I’m not sure what I would use it for,” and: From a consumer standpoint, it seems like it is useful for extreme interactivity. You want to gain input about what kind of restaurants or events are occurring in the area. It seems like this model would be very hard to use and communicate with other people. You couldn’t even use it like you would a cell phone or PDA. It would be too hard. Some respondents envisioned specific applications based on their personal activities like Barbara when she commented, “I’m a scuba diver. So something that is waterproof that will tell you what a particular fish is or ‘that’s poisonous, don’t touch that’.” Mike talked about his potential interest: If I were interested in this, (and I can’t image it as a laptop replacement) but I can imagine it as something like overlaying the world I’m seeing with data about what’s around me. The biofeedback interested me or the architectural details about the buildings that you are seeing. Stanley was interested in applications that would simplify his personal life. “You just need to look at the type of applications that save you time and/or effort.” June could see the Poma (or wearable computers in general) as hardware that would simplify her social arrangements. “It would be nice to know 7:30 on a Saturday night as I’m walking to the movie theater that 75% of the movies are sold out, so don’t even bother walking there…. Tell me where the closest restaurant of this kind is…that sort of questions.”

137 Dave was the only focus group participant that was
interested in the Poma for its full computing functionality.129 If I had that one, what I would really use it for is that it’s a real pain in the neck to be sitting in front of a monitor for 8 hours. It’s hard to adjust the monitor. If I had a keyboard with that display it would be great, I could sit on the sofa and do whatever and not have to worry about lugging the whole thing around. In my mind, it’s more useful as a desktop replacement than anything else. Scenarios In an attempt to get consumers thinking about the applications for the device (and while waiting for their turn to try the Poma) participants were encouraged to read and respond to seven different scenarios using wearable computers. They were asked if they: 1. Could see themselves in a similar situation 2. If they found the feature(s) useful, and 3. If the feature(s) described would persuade them to purchase the product. The first scenario is as follows: Scenario 1: You and your family are visiting the US Capitol and want to spend a day touring the sites. You’re an architecture buff, and you’d like a tour that talks about the history 129 Considering his previous commented during the focus group that he was setting up a new server in his house, Dave seems to be more of an “innovator” and not an “early adopter” and therefore not a part of the market for this study.

138 of the monuments and buildings a little bit more
than a regular tour would. Your partner is interested in the famous historical events that occurred at various spots around the capitol. You’d both also like to tour the sites at your own pace. Thus inspired, you both decided to rent mobile tour guides for the day at $65 each. Armed with sunglasses with embedded display screens in the right lens and a small device the size of a paperback book strapped to your belt, a small optical mouse and headphones, you begin to wander and enjoy the sites. When you approach a building, you are able to see the current structure and with a click, you can see an overlay of what the building looked like when it was built. When you click on various aspects of the architectural style, you get to hear a narrator describe that aspect in more detail. Your partner, meanwhile, is seeing digital images of the famous people who were involved in events at that location. By clicking on the person, she has a narrator explain that individual’s importance in history at that location. All twelve participants answered that they could see themselves in that situation and ten out of twelve thought the feature(s) described would be useful. Half of the participants indicated that they thought the feature(s) described would persuade them to purchase the product. One female focus group participant commented, “I liked that one but I was familiar with that because at the Smithsonian, they have those PDA type things and I’ve done that and it’s really cool. They display different levels of information.”

139 Scenario 2: You are planning a trip to France,
yet you and your friends don’t know a bit of French. Armed with your mobile translation device, however, it hasn’t been a problem. Hidden in your pocket and transferring the translation to a wireless ear bud, you get to hear the speaker’s conversation in English in your ear. You still use the system’s digital French to English translation dictionary because you’re trying to improve your French, but you were happy to have the real language-speaking program when your car broke down in the countryside. With the system’s built in GPS location services, you were able to figure out where you were, but being able to have the mobile system correctly ask the Frenchman you encountered where you could find the nearest garage, saved you hours of frustration. All twelve participants could see themselves in this situation and eleven out of twelve indicated that they found this application useful. Eight out of the twelve participants indicated that this feature was useful enough to purchase the product. Scenario 3: You are in the grocery store picking up beef for dinner. Once you’re in front of the meat counter, you realize that you’ve completely forgotten what cut of beef your partner wanted. You quickly ring your partner at home and through the video display embedded in your glasses, they are able to point out exactly what piece of beef they needed for the beef stroganoff.

140 Similarly, you are in the video store and can’t
decide which video your partner is most interested in seeing. Connecting with them via your mobile device, they are able to see the video cover and read the description on the back of the case. You both ultimately decide to surf the TV listings together from your cable company’s website and agree that re-watching The Matrix seems like the best plan. This scenario was developed based on Steven Mann’s use of his wearable computer in the grocery store to connect with his wife to experience shopping together. Seven out the ten participants thought they could see themselves in a similar situation, with only four participants finding this a feature that would be useful and only three interested in purchasing a product based on these features. Later discussions about this scenario in particular illuminated that most participants did not feel as though they needed a wearable computer to conduct the activities described in this scenario, and that they could accomplish something rather similar by using their cell phone to call their spouse to check on the menu items for dinner. Susan commented, “If I don’t remember what type of meat my husband wants me to buy, if I have a cell phone on me I’ll call him up or otherwise I’ll just guess and I’m fairly unremorseful about it.” Stanley replied, “I think once you start doing it, it would become more familiar. It’s like before cell phones if you’re in the grocery store and you forgot to get whatever you were supposed to get, you’ll just get whatever…you

141 wouldn’t even try. And now that I have a
cell phone, I’ll try to reach whoever, and if I can’t reach him I’ll do whatever I think is best.” Scenario 4: You and your family are enjoying the sites in New York City and during the final hours of the trip decide to check the flight times. You realize that your flight is delayed, and you decide that you have time to wander through SoHo after all and see that free live performance that your wearable had alerted you to earlier in the day. Eleven out of twelve participants could visualize themselves within this scenario, and all the participants thought the functionality described was useful. Only seven out of twelve participants were interested in purchasing a product based on this functionality. This is also a scenario describing functionality that is not reliant upon a system that is always-on with a HMD. With a strong wireless data network, all of the above functionality could be accomplished with a wireless PDA device that accesses the Internet and provides personalized information. This scenario, however, created impetus for a discussion about the benefits and personal privacy threats of the push advertising that would be possible with mobile devices and GPS location tracking. The majority of the participants were actually in favor of GPS-based personalized services pushed to their mobile device, just as long as they opted in for the push of information. Dave: I’m not trying to replace my laptop. My laptop does some things that in theory only a laptop can do. But in these scenarios that you’ve got, they are

142 things that my laptop can’t do and will not
do for at least five years and these are the things that I can see wearables being used for. Create the new uses, create necessity for it, and then sell the product. For people that want to have the instant translation, for the people that want to walk along in a museum and have these things pop up with more information. 3.12.2 Daily Use Joe also provided suggestions for added functionality that he thought would enhance the product: I would say that it would be good to have this system have the ability to pick up TV. That would be another add-on that would make this a more viable product that also has the capability for distribution. Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM Joe also mentions the ability to access and use GPS as a functionality that would enhance the product. His response echoes the interest of the focus group participants in being able to access social planning type information while mobile. Joe’s comments: …What would be great is if when you were in a car you would get data from the car up on your screen and also data for the trip that you are making (travel info, places to eat, sights to see, and directions). Entry 2-13-03 8:07 PM 3.12.3 Surveys Survey respondents were then asked as series of questions about which applications and features they would be most interested in if they owned a wearable computer (See Figure 3.11). They were offered the following benefits: integration of

143 features, easy to see screen, lightweight, mobile Internet, MP3
Player, remembrance aids, location and mapping systems, sending & receiving photos, and enhanced perception. “All in One“Application The concentration of all communication and organizational features in one was by 65% of Positive Tech and 61% of non-PositiveTech. Easy to See Screen An easy to see screen was selected by 59.4% of the PositiveTech and 64.5% of non-PositiveTech, and overall 61.4% of the respondents were interested in an easier to see screen. Lightweight A lightweight device was selected by 75.1% of the PositiveTech group and 65.5% of the non-PositiveTech group. Mobile Internet The ability to access the Internet while mobile was of interest to 68.2% of the respondents, 69.2% of PositiveTech and 63.5% of non-PositiveTech. MP3 Player Respondents did not show interest in having MP3 capabilities in their mobile computer. A little over a quarter of PositiveTech (27.4%) were interested (72.5% were not) and 26.5% of non-PositiveTech were interested (73.4% were not).

144 Remembrance Aids Remembrance Aids had a lukewarm reception as
well. Only a little over half (53.5%) of PositiveTech were interested, and 53.8% of non-PositiveTech were interested. Location & Mapping Applications These features were of interest to 70.5% of PositiveTech and 61.7% of non- PositiveTech. Send & Receive Photos In contrast to many of the new products on the market, consumers were not interested in sending and receiving photos instantly. Only 24.8% of PositiveTech were interested (75.1% were not) and 26.1% of non-PositiveTech were interested (73.8% were not). Enhanced Perception Respondents were then asked if they would be interested in a wearable computer that gave them an enhanced perception of the world. Even with the vagueness of this option (and no details about how this would happen or what “enhanced” meant), 26.7% of PositiveTech were interested and 26.4% of non-PositiveTech were interested.

145 Survey #1: Most Interesting Wearable Computing Feature 0% 10%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Integration Easy to See Screen Lightweight Mobile Internet MP3 Player Remembrance GPS Photos Enhanced Perception Features % of Respondents PositiveTech nonPositiveTech Figure 3.11 3.13 INTEREST IN PURCHASING Ultimately, the focus of this study is to determine if early adopter consumers are interested in purchasing the technology, and all three groups were asked about what issues would hinder their purchase. The cost of the product was also discussed, and the

146 focus group participants found the Poma’s price tag ($1500)
as too costly for the features it offered. 3.13.1 Focus Group Mike, a focus group respondent mentioned: It occurs to me that this is more of a platform than anything else is, and it is hard for me to judge the utility of the platform without seeing some specific applications. It would be really useful to see what type of applications that they have for this. I’m not sure what I would use it for. Jane, mirrored that comment by stating, “I didn’t see much of a gain over what I could have with a cell phone (with an Internet cell phone or something). I thought your examples were good because they made me think about things that I would use it for, but I couldn’t really see myself using that much.”130 Barbara added, “With the GPS map…I’d be interested, but not interested enough to purchase.” In relation to the cost of the product, Dave had multiple comments throughout the session. “At that price point, no one is going to buy it without trying it once...I think you would have to have the price point at the same point as a high-end Internet cell phone…at that price point, I would have to be able to get rid of my laptop, my cell phone, my PDA.” And finally,” Until you get it out in your retail channel in your Best 130 We must keep in mind, thought that Jane also mentioned during the focus group that she’s been high tech for so long that she feels like she’s going the other way and decided six months ago to give up her cell phone. Whereas her previous consumer behavior places her within the boundaries of the adopter

147 Buys where you can have demos and people can
try it on, you’re not going to have anyone interested in it.” Kate commented, “I could think of things that I could use for business. I could see uses for it, but for my personal life, it’s too expensive. It doesn’t offer that much.” Sharon added, “Not for personal use, but I could see a commercial use for this.” 3.13.2 Surveys The first survey group was asked to select items that would potentially negatively affect their purchase decision. Their options were: difficult to use, not fashionable enough, too expensive, worries about repair, not having enough useful features, not enough information to purchase, not having enough compatible software, wireless access, and concerns about how well the technology has been tested. With all of its limitations, most consumers who used the product were unable to find a use for the product that was compelling enough for them to think about buying it (see Figure 3.12). group that would be most interested in the Poma, her current behavior would affect her interest and relevancy for this study.

148 Survey #1: Issues Which Would Prevent Purchase 0% 20%
40% 60% 80% 100% Too Difficult to Use Fashionable enough Too expensive Worries about Repair Not Enough Useful Features Not enough Information Compatible Software Wireless Access Well Tested Technology Issues Percentage of Respondents PositiveTech non-PositiveTech Figure 3.12 Difficult to Use Respondents were then offered a series of options that would possibly prevent them from buying a wearable computer. Predictably, only 18.3% of PositiveTech would be prevented from purchasing the technology because it looked “too difficult to use,” 81.6% were not concerned. A third of the non-PositiveTech group (38.2%) thought that being too difficult to use would inhibit them from purchasing the technology and 61.7% were not concerned about how difficult to use they perceived it to be.

149 Not Fashionable Enough Over three quarters of the PositiveTech
group (88.8%) were not concerned about the fashionableness of the wearable computer. The majority of non-PositiveTech (80.9%) were not concerned about fashion. Too Expensive Even without price information, survey respondents assumed (due to the technology’s recent entry into the consumer market) that the product was expensive. All respondents were price sensitive and mentioned that they would not be interested in purchasing the product if it was too expensive (78.4% of PositiveTech and 86.3% of non-PositiveTech). Worries about Repair Concerns about being able to repair the product were on the mind of 31.3% of PositiveTech and 39.7% of non-PositiveTech. Not Enough Useful Features This was a concern for 45% of PositiveTech and 37% of non-PositiveTech. Not Enough Information Not having enough information to make the purchasing decision was a concern for 42.4% of PositiveTech and for 43.6% of non-PositiveTech.

150 Compatible Software Not being able to purchase compatible software
was a concern of only 23.5% of the PositiveTech group and 30% of the non-PositiveTech group. Wireless Access Concern about the geographic reach of wireless access (which the device would use to connect to the Internet) was a concern of 39.2% of PositiveTech and 51.6% of the non-PositiveTech group. Survey respondents were not informed about what type of wireless network wearable computers use, and this answer might be different if they realized that it was supported by WiFi (vs. cellular) network. This was a concern of focus group participants once they realized that the Poma only ran on WiFi signals. Well Tested Technology Over a quarter (29.4%) of PositiveTech group and 41.7% of the non- PositiveTech group selected concern about whether the technology was well tested. This showed that early adopter consumers were comfortable purchasing and potentially adopting a technology that was new to the market and this aspect was not viewed as a barrier to adoption. Respondents in the second survey were asked if they were interested in purchasing a wearable computer. Sixty-two out of 93 (66.7%) indicated that they might be interested in purchasing a wearable computer.

151 The remaining respondents that didn’t see a need for
a wearable indicated a range of reasons. Nine respondents (9.7%) selected that they would be concerned that the technology wasn’t tested enough. One respondent selected that the technology looked difficult to use. Twenty-five respondents (26.9%) selected that they did not want to be connected 24/7, and 7 respondents (7.5%) were not interested in the remembrance agent. Respondents were also allowed to select “other” and here is a sampling of their responses: - I’ll wait a little bit until it better tested or I would prefer trial period for myself. - Don't know if I would or not. It would depend on what it could do and whether I considered those functions useful enough. Quite a few respondents were concerned about how it would affect their social interactions: - I'm disconnected from the real world often enough I don't need to have the real world represented as a video image. Ten respondents stated that they did not see a need for the product. Moreover, mimicking a common theme, many respondents were not interested in being constantly connected to their computers. - I do find it hard to be without web access, so I'm not a Luddite, but the occasions are few and far between that I need "all the functionality of my home computer" while not actually sitting at my computer.

152 - Too Borg-looking. I don't want to be connected
24-7-365. Power supply? I have enough battery-powered leeches right now. - I'm tied to technology too much during the day -- I need time to read my Bible or a paper book, to interact with my wife and kids, or just look at God's creation around me. - Mainly, for the same reason I don't have a cell phone. I don't feel the need to be plugged in or available all the time. Also, until the WCs are far less cumbersome, I'd rather not be geeked out with an eyepiece, headset, and/or PDA-sized wristwatch. 3.14 DATA ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS The four data collection efforts highlighted consumer concerns and pre-existing attitudes about wearable computers that challenge the industry preconceived notions about consumer’s interest in always-on mobile computing. Consumer sampled for this study were not interested in always-on computing, were concerned about the impact the technology would have on their social interactions, suggested various product improvements and commented on their lack of interested in the integration of smart fabrics and wearable computers. They also exhibited a range of pop culture associations that should be taken into account when marketing an improved consumer wearable computing product. 3.14.1 Not Interested in 24/7 Full Mobile Computing The most startling finding from the three data collection efforts was that early adopter consumer were not interested in full computing while mobile. They had a clear understanding of what types of computing functions they were interested in completing

153 while away from their laptop or desktop, and none
of those functions involved all of the processing power of a full wearable computer. Most respondents even had a clear psychological block against the concept of mobile computing and envisioned it as encroaching upon their limited time in their lives interacting with other people, their families and away from computing devices. A good number of respondents, however, were interested in a device which provided them with a number of mobile device functions to support their mobile life, and high on their wish list was true mobile Internet (with full content), GPS and map support while mobile and mobile communication. A good number of the respondents indicated their interest in a product that integrates all of their mobile and communication devices into one. 3.14.2 Concerned about Social Impact All participants were concerned about the social impact that wearing a computing device would have on their interpersonal interactions (as well as larger social interactions). Survey respondents were worried about how distracting computing while mobile might be and how that might have larger safety concerns. This concern was reiterated with the focus group and the daily test subject once they had a chance to use the Poma and discover for themselves how distracting the HMD was from reality. Everyone who had a chance to use the Poma had a hard time truly using the product while mobile and only Joe (while sitting) was able to see the screen and focus enough to be able to use the device. However, it was clear from interactions with him while he

154 was conducting computing tasks that he was unable to
carry on a conversation or focus on reality around him while navigating through the menu items to complete a computing function. 3.14.3 Issues with Product Interface and Features There were clear indications of product improvements that needed to be made to the Poma before consumers will even be interested in considering the product for purchase. They included: improved battery power, simple wireless Internet connectivity, better input mechanism, non-obtrusive display and a Palm or Pocket PC interface instead of the Windows CE OS. They were also concerned about durability, not interested in considering the product without applications that suited their mobile needs, and were all disinterested in the Poma immediately when they saw the wire that connected the HMD to the computing unit. Surprisingly, the largest number of respondents (40%) were interested in MicroOptical’s display (over the traditional handheld display) as a way to view the display from the mobile device. 3.14.4 Disinterest in Smart Clothing with Embedded Wearables Despite the industry’s focus on the success of wearable computers based on developments and marketing of smart clothing, all three data collection efforts highlighted the state of the consumer mind – which was very lukewarm if not blatantly against the integration of computing and clothing. The largest issue seems to be the cost

155 of the garment considering that clothing purchases are often
dependent upon the latest fashion. Most consumers were concerned about essentially purchasing a technology that would go out of style and are therefore be unusable due to concerns about social fashion consciousness. A large number of respondents were concerned about the fashionableness of the wearable computer even without it becoming integrated with wearable clothing (over 85% of the survey groups indicated that this would hinder their purchase of the product). It was also an issue mentioned by the focus group participants as well. Therefore, while consumers were not interested in a direct integration of computing and fashion, fashion did play a role in their potential purchase of a device that is so publicly visible. 3.14.5 Cultural Finally, in the process of developing an analysis of the current and future marketing for wearable devices it becomes important to note the number of times and the variety of cultural references that were made by survey respondents, focus group participants and the daily use test subject. Not only were consumers saying that they would respond positively to an advertising campaign that utilized cultural references (movie screens, television shows, cultural icons, etc), but they were also stating that the history of pop culture that they have grown up with would affect their preconceived definition of a wearable computer. With the older respondents, it was Dick Tracy and his watch that can do everything, for younger respondents it is Johnny Mnemonick.

156 Without intentionally creating expectations, companies like Xybernaut need to
be aware that the history of science fiction has primed this early adopter market to become comfortable with dreaming about how science fiction can become reality. This market has lived through that phenomenon with fax machines, cell phones and even the Internet, and their expectations were higher due to their faith in the fact that often technology can mimic what they see on the big screen or coming out of Hollywood. 3.15 IMPACT OF FINDINGS ON WEARABLE COMPUTERS ADOPTION The findings within these data collection efforts showed that wearable computers (specifically the Poma) are not ready for consumer adoption. The product needs significant adjustments in user interface (including the selection of operating system and HMD), in the development of available applications, and in support for true mobility. The high number of mobile technology users who also responded to technology with positive adjectives supports the hypothesis that the market for new mobile technologies will be represented by individuals who respond positively to new technology and are more accepting of new-to-market technology. However, wearable computing firms might want to note that consumers were not interested in true mobile computing with its always on functionality, but rather a simpler device that they can turn on and off at will. The potential market for this device is divided between negative associations with the concept of wearable computers and enthusiasm for their potential. It seems as thought they have pre-existing attitudes and beliefs about what wearable computers are

157 and what they can do, and this needs to
be addressed in future marketing campaigns for this type of product. A large number of consumers also created associations between wearable computers and Hollywood-created concepts and icons, which could be used as the foundation for messaging. Wearable computers are viewed as futuristic and “cool” and a visual representation of a future most of the public has only seen in science fiction. Playing upon those associations with images in advertising campaigns would add a great deal of strength to the consumer’s concept of what wearables could mean to them in their personal life.

158 Chapter 4: Limitations to Mobile Internet The feature consumers
are most interested in that is offered by wearable computers is its ability to provide full-page web content while mobile. Therefore, the type, availability, and access to a wireless network will affect the adoption and growth of wearable computers. The constraints and restrictions that currently exist in the various wireless data networks will translate into restrictions on wearable functionality, and a thorough discussion of the various wireless standards and technologies that are currently available and are predicted for the future is essential to any prediction of wearable computer adoption. Policy and standard decisions in regards to WiFi (Wireless Fidelity) and cellular networks will directly affect the development of a network capable of supporting the multi-media functionality and features that are essential to consumer’s interest in the product. There are varieties of technological limitations currently present in wireless networks that need be addressed before large- scale adoption would occur. These include limited data transfer rates, difficulties with seamless communication and limited geographic reach. This chapter will focus on outlining the wireless data network that wearable computers currently rely on as well as discuss the other wireless data transmission technologies available for mobile devices to access the Internet. Various standard related bottlenecks will slow adoption of wearable computing technologies. The first is the deployment of high-speed digital communication via

159 wireless networks (Mobile Internet Services) necessary to run the
advanced applications (like GPS and data transfer) that a wearable device can offer the user. Mobile Internet Services as defined by the Gartner Group is “the area of Internet connectivity which includes mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and similar devices.”131 The history of wireless data communication in the US is littered with low adoption rates and use largely due to the diversity of standards available and the limitations of current spectrum technology. Within the US, the market-driven battle to establish a single standard for such devices has not yet been successful in creating a dominant standard for all portable devices. The Wall Street Journal described the US situation as “a Tower of Babel-like syndrome…. a hodgepodge of competing standards that (makes) it difficult to achieve a seamless world-wide wireless experience.” 132 4 Wireless Data Networks Introduction A variety of wireless two-way networks (cellular and Wireless Fidelity –WiFi) constitutes the wireless data market. These networks are organized in a hub and spoke structure where all the wireless enabled devices speak to a central access point – a structure that is prone to network bottlenecks when traffic increases and is reliant upon 131 Brian Dooley Carol Skvarla, "Mobile Internet Access Services in the U.S.: Perspective," (Gartner Group, 2001). Pp. 2 132 James B. Murray, Wireless Nation: The Frenzied Launch of the Cellular Revolution in America. pp. 315

160 one point of failure (unlike the Internet’s structure where
one point of failure does not result in failure of the network). These two types of networks have distinct structures and histories but are united in that as network infrastructures they are impacted by features universal to network economics specifically: network effects, economies of scale, standards and subsequent policy actions to establish or regulate the use of standards and customer lock-in (or path dependence). 4.1.1 Network Effects Network industries (like cellular and wireless internet services) are strongly affected by network externalities and effects. Network externalities are defined as a change in the benefit that an agent derives from a good when the number of other agents consuming the same kind of good changes.133 Network externalities can be either positive or negative and usually occur beyond the predicted impact of the technology. Network industries increase in value to the individual user as more users join the network; therefore, interoperability (the ability of software and hardware on multiple machines from multiple vendors to communicate.) is essential to the success of products relying on network infrastructures.134 Network effects represent the increase in value of the network to the user as the network becomes larger. User participation in a network 133 S.J. Liebowtiz and Stephen E. Margolis, "Network Externalities (Effects)," (2002). 134 Denis Howe, The Free on-Line Dictionary of Computing [website] (Dictionary.com, 1993-2001 [cited February 17 2003]); available from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=interoperability.

161 is therefore heavily dependent upon that user’s expectations about
the benefits derived from network participation or the size of the network.135 Consumers who purchase network industry products expect that the quality and value of the infrastructure that the product relies on will stay the same or become more popular in the future. In many cases, the decision to purchase the good is therefore determined more by expectations of future value than solely by the price of the good or component. Networks increase in size (the number of users driving more physical infrastructure) faster when greater varieties of products use the same system. Standards that maintain the rules and technological specifications for a product to use the network encourage the development of interoperable products. The variety of cellular standards & WiFi standards have led to the establishment of a large number of distinct wireless networks – many of which are not interoperable. Mobile consumers are interested in joining the network that has the most features (like high data transfer rates), the largest user base, and the largest geographic reach. Mobile products outfitted for a network that meets most of those qualities have the greatest chance for successful adoption. 4.1.2 Economies of Scale Economies of scale affect cell phone networks and they exhibit high sunk costs and low marginal costs. The cost to deploy the network is significant, but the cost to run 135 S. M and Farrell Bensen, J, "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization,"

162 the network per users is nominal. Cellular networks have
been developed in a fashion that makes them interoperable with other carriers. Each system uses one of the variety of wireless voice and data standards within the US and internationally, but users on one network (with one standard) cannot transfer their equipment to another standard. Moreover, the features offered by one standard are not universal to all. This translates into cell phone users of one network becoming “locked-in” to that network. The cell phone company's practice of requiring one-year minimum service agreements with their customers only aggravates customer lock-in. This is called “customer lock-in” and customers are unable to shift to a different network or service plan based on their hardware choice. Because voice transmission are routed through landed lines, cell phone users of one system do not have problems calling either land lines or other cell phone users, but SMS (short messaging services) are not available between different cellular carriers. 4.1.3 Standards One of the characteristics of network industries (which are often called “cooperative constructs”) where products and services provided via (or as a part of) a network are deeply reliant on cooperation between the various nodes in order to operate and remain competitive. Often this cooperation is developed through the establishment Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, no. 2 (1994). pp. 118

163 of standards and agreements that maintain interoperable between the
nodes. Standards are composed of agreed-upon rules or models that outline principles and practices to follow that will ensure interoperability. Establishing a universal standard not only encourages industry competition (which means different options for consumers) but also encourages the development of products that rely on that network structure. It also benefits the corporation either to be the one who created the most-used standard or to supply the equipment for that standard. “Network markets by definition offer potentially lucrative returns to firms that can establish their own products as standards on which competition in the market, or in after markets for complimentary goods, will be based.”136 It is essential that customers on the network are able to get their equipment to communicate to the network (and to other people on the network) and this is only accomplished when there is a universal standard in place. Technology standards are developed in two ways. Within the US, wireless cellular standards have been established by de facto (market-created standards) and WiFi standards have been created by de jure standards (committee development). The way a standard is created greatly affects the rate of network growth and the development of products reliant upon that network. While government-imposed standards might result in a technological inferior standard being adopted, it usually spurs more rapid 136 Mark A. Lemley & David McGowan, "Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects,"

164 network growth.137 When it comes to a mobile product,
widespread access to a wireless network is essential to its success. 4.2 MECHANICS OF WIRELESS DATA TRANSMISSION It is necessary to understand the mechanics of wireless communication to fully appreciate the technological challenges that face the communication medium and policy issues that have developed to manage its use. Wireless communication began in 1831 when scientist Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the wave character of electrical transmission through space that led to Italian engineer and inventor (and physics Noble Prize winner) Guglielmo Marconi to demonstrate wireless telegraphy in 1895 using long wave transmissions. Electromagnetic waves carry voice and data from the mobile device to a receiver and then on to another wireless device or the Internet. The number of oscillations per second of an electromagnetic wave is called its frequency, f, and is measured in Hz (in honor of Heinrich Hertz). Electromagnetic waves all propagate at the same speed in free space or vacuum: the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a constant, the frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional and at higher frequencies, electromagnetic waves tend to travel in straight lines and bounce off obstacles (which is why cellular California Review 86, no. 479 (1998). pp. 24. 137 This is illustrated in the Europeans adoption of GSM.

165 signals have issues in areas with tall obstacles). For
example, high frequency waves of the order of 10 MHz to 100 MHz are absorbed by rain at high frequencies. The frequency range from 100 MHz to 100 GHz is called microwave. Digital cellular phones operate in the 800/900 and 1800/1900 MHz band and are thus classified as microwave transmitters. Data from digital mobile devices are actually carried over the air in continuous analog electromagnetic waves. The process of combining information signals on top of a carrier signal is called modulation (as in AM – amplitude modulation and FM –frequency modulation). Infrared transmissions are used for directed links and the most widespread use of this technology is used to connect laptops and PDAs. The 2.45 GHz range is used by Bluetooth and WiFi.138 4.3 WIRELESS EVOLUTION AND HISTORY Developing technology that relies on wireless data transmission is a risky proposition due to the panoply of wireless networks out there and the lack of single standards within the US. Data is transmitted wirelessly using radio signals and in the US that occurs both within spectrum that has been auctioned by the FCC (the legislative body that regulates spectrum use) or within the unregulated spectrum. Wireless 138 Bluetooth is the term used to describe the protocol of a short range (10 meter) frequency-hopping radio link between devices. These devices are then termed Bluetooth - enabled Radios that comply with the Bluetooth wireless specification operate in the unlicensed, 2.4 GHz radio spectrum ensuring communication compatibility worldwide. These radios use a spread spectrum, frequency hopping, full- duplex signal at up to 1600 hops/sec.

166 networks are unique in their standard setting behavior because
they have to interoperate with hundreds of millions of other devices and thousands of interconnected networks.139 There are varieties of Standard Development Organizations (SDOs), which are involved in the development of new wireless standards as well as managing the existing standards. The SDOs are comprised of national and multinational groups of companies who work together to resolve standard and spectrum issues. The SDOs include: • The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). • The Japan Association of Radio Industries and Business (ARIB), which primarily focuses on WCDMA for IMT-2000. • The Telecommunications Standards Advisory Council of Canada (TSACC). • The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) which is a US repository for standards considered to be semi-permanent. • The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a charter organization of the United Nations that manages standards regulation for satellite and radio spectrum on the international level. • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) manages the US spectrum. All of the global mobile communication standards (AMPS, GSM and W- CDMA) are committee-based standards (with international participation) that are for the most part sponsored by governmental agencies. Further, several of the global and non- 139 Lightman, Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet. pp. 28

167 global standards have evolved towards a more open or
committee-based standard setting system in order to gain broad support. “Europeans believe in standards, while the US believes in market forces – GSM is one of the few examples where the approach via standardization worked.”140 Open standards attract a larger number of service providers and manufacturers, thus increasing the amount of competition within the standard and the number of agents who can act as agents of diffusion.141 4.3.1 WiFi – Standards Wireless transmission of data occurs in other areas of spectrum. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) developed the 802.11 family of standards for wireless LAN (Local Area Network) standard. The standard originated with the 802.11a standard which operates in the 5 GHz frequency range (5.725 GHz to 5.850 GHz) with a maximum 54 Mbps data transfer rate. WiFi (Wireless Fidelity) became the name of the certification for 802.11b that operates in the 2.4 GHz frequency range (2.4 GHz to 2.4835 GHz) and provides a throughput of up to 11 Mbps which is up to 200 times faster than a modem connection and more than 4 times faster than the speeds promised by "3G" networks. Microwave ovens, cordless phones, medical and scientific equipment, as well as Bluetooth devices, all work within the 2.4 GHz frequency band. 140 Jochen Schiller, Mobile Communciations (New York: Addison-Wesley, 2000). pp. 11 141 Jeffrey L. Funk, Global Competition between and within Standards (New York: Palgrave, 2002). pp. 13.

168 The newest standard, 802.11g provides a throughput of up
to 54 Mbps and uses a different radio technology to boost overall bandwidth. An international governing body, not a company that owns the prominent standard, created the WiFi standard. This type of standard development process has allowed a larger range of companies to provide WiFi hardware and services. Its use of non-regulated spectrum has allowed WiFi companies to deploy their network quickly and to sidestep the regulations and policy bottlenecks that plagued the cellular infrastructure development. 4.3.2 WiFi - Structure Creating a WiFi network requires users to 1) have an existing connection via an Internet Service Provider; 2) purchase a wireless hub/router, and 3) purchase wireless cards from the applications that will be connecting via the hub. Rather than purchase wireless data connections as a service, the user configures hardware to establish a connection. The user, however, needs to purchase high-speed Ethernet-based (DSL or cable) service from an ISP to enable the base computer to access the Internet. Most wireless networks are established within one building or home, though access can also be accessed through publicly provided WiFi. Hotspot is the name for a location that provides public wireless access. Hotspots share their DSL, cable, or T1 broadband connection via an Access Point that transmits the signal to the user’s wireless card in the

169 mobile device. Multiple users then connect through a login
page in their Internet web browsers. Coverage extends over a 100-300 foot radius of the access point. The 802.11b network normally has a range of up to 300 feet when there are no obstructions and can transfer data at speeds of 11 M bit per second. Unfortunately, due to the fact that 802.11b operates in an unlicensed band of spectrum, the signal can experience interference from radio noise (often generated by microwaves and cordless phones), humidity, air temperature and resource reduction (from other appliances using the same hub) and therefore the signal is not as stable as a cellular signal. WiFi uses unregulated spectrum, which means that the FCC does not regulate its use. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) however, does impose regulations on the WiFi equipment to ensure that WiFi transmissions do not use access bandwidth and that the WiFi devices do not interfere with other devices using the spectrum. The FCC requires that the devices use one of three spread-spectrum technologies (which disburse the signal over the entirety of the band): Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS), Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), or Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). DSS spreads the signal over multiple channels in one frequency range without hopping. It uses a binary string called a spreading code that sends redundant transmissions, and the transmitter and reviving devices of the signal use the same code to find and piece together the signal. FHSS divides the signals among sub channels in a random pattern understood by the

170 transmitter and receiver and uses hopping to transmit the
data. The hops are short bursts of data and the amount of time between the hops is called “dwell” time. OFDM divides the spectrum into sub channels and sends a portion of data over each one. 4.3.3 Other Wireless Data Standards The other two standards used for wireless data transmission are Bluetooth and HomeRF. Both technologies use FHSS. Bluetooth can transmit data 50 feet at 1 Mpbs and HomeRF can transmit data at 10 Mbps. Based on their transfer rate and geographic range, neither technology is worth considering as a viable option for mobile technologies to use to connect to the Internet, though Bluetooth is gaining widespread support as a technology used to eliminate wires between devices that are in close proximity of each other. 4.4 WIFI – DEPLOYMENT ISSUES Due to the organic nature of WiFi’s infrastructure growth, the fixed costs are not disproportionately high compared to the marginal costs (every device needs a wireless card and the hub is only slightly more expensive than the cards). This type of growth, however, translates into spotty coverage and a hub and spoke type network structure. There are various positive and negative externalities created by an organically growing, decentralized network. For instance, most consumers would like to connect to the Internet from everywhere. However, Internet connection relies upon the good will of

171 businesses that offer free wireless connection as an additional
service or neighborhood consortiums that provide connection as a social statement. 4.4.1 Usability Issues Another factor hindering public WiFi development is the difficulty in configuring the software provided by WiFi hardware companies that is clumsy, requires users to learn about arcane settings such as "SSID" (network names) and "WEP" (network security). Hotspot operators expect users to configure their WiFi cards manually to gain access with limited technical support. Representatives from Linksys (one of the largest WiFi hardware distributors) themselves admit that setting up a WiFi card and network are so difficult that they are the largest portions of technical support calls they receive.142 This is partially due to the ability for wireless hubs to lose network connection settings when the wireless hub experiences a loss of power or the ISP loses connection. WiFi networks also frequently lose signal due to their use of an unregulated portion of spectrum that has competition with other devices. In cellular networks the device is configure to the network once (which is established when the phone is purchased) and it never loses those settings. In contrast, WiFi networks often require re- establishment of settings and a more intimate knowledge of setting configuration. In 142 Linsys Technical Support, phone conversation, February 9 2003.

172 addition, the limited coverage of any one hot spot
operator means that users will need to sign up for different Hotspot operators depending on where they are.143 4.4.2 Security Issues Wireless encryption also has not been perfected. Companies running 802.11 networks can use the Wired Equivalency Privacy (WEP) – an optional feature that offers the equivalent of the confidentiality of a wired LAN that does not employ cryptographic techniques to enhance privacy.144 The wireless LAN is only as secure a system as the wired link that it connects to when WEP is enabled. When WEP is enabled, the hub and the client stations have keys and the key is used to scramble the data before it is transmitted via airwaves. The hub only receives and delivers packets to the hosts that are properly scrambled and have the assigned key. Network security experts, however, state that since WiFi products are delivered with the encryption turned on, about 85% of the 802.11 networks have WEP turned off and are at risk for security breaches. From a network infrastructure standpoint, this lack of education about the importance of security features results in users not configuring their WEP, and the network becomes vulnerable to a variety of data and information security issues that are not present within most wired Internet connections and create an increased risk for unaware users. 143 Boingo Wireless, How Does It Work? [website] ([cited 2003]); available from http://www.boingo.com/howdoesitwork.html. 144 WapSight.com. 2000. “What is Wap?”

173 Security issues need to be resolved within the wireless
network sphere before widespread use of wireless applications becomes a reality. Currently without wires, it is difficult to keep track of all the users connected. Moreover, with a quarter of a mile range for most wireless hubs, there is plenty of opportunity to hack into a wireless network. 4.4.3 Future Deployment - Subscription Various strategies exist that are focused on increasing the deployment and reach of WiFi networks. One of the corporate models that promises access to a WiFi network with a larger coverage area involves linking corporate hotspots together and providing a simple login process for a monthly, annual or one use fee. One such subscription service currently being deployed nationally is Boingo, which eliminates the complexities of configuring to public WiFi networks by using their “sniffer” software. Boingo’s subscription service allows mobile users to (while using Boingo software which compiles and configures the settings for public WiFi networks automatically) for a subscription fee. The businesses that subcontract with Boingo receive a cut of the revenues every time a Boingo subscriber accessed his/her WiFi hub. Key to the widespread deployment and use of Boingo is the development of a consumer base that does not have to incur high switching costs to become a part of the Boingo network. Boingo is addressing this by establishing proprietary agreements with hardware manufacturers. As of March 2002, Hewlett-Packard had agreed to bundle its

174 laptops with Boingo functionality and WiFi hub provider Agere
Systems has agreed to include Boingo access with its air cards.145 Part of the key to Boingo’s potential success (even against free and organically growing WiFi networks) lies in establishing a first mover advantage (they are one of the first companies to link hubs together over a significant amount of geographic area) and to develop a easy plug n’ play setup for users. If Boingo is an easier to install and use system with a wider coverage area, they might be able to sign up customers even when competing against a free option. Boingo has a plug n’ play sort of functionality that is not present within the free networks. Establishing a connection to a free WiFi network requires a wireless card and more significant knowledge about how to adjust the wireless settings. The battle between free and subscription based WiFi is impacted by which infrastructure develops the widest coverage. Home use of WiFi networks are assisting in developing a base of consumers with the hardware necessary to access WiFi networks. which will speed the use of public WiFi networks. However, home WiFi network users might be more comfortable configuring their own settings when connecting to a Hotspot. 4.4.4 Future Growth Expectations among some analysts predict a WLAN market of around $7 billion in 2005, “though this may easily be exceeded if all market segments can be successfully 145 Peter Howe, "Wireless Connection," The Boston Globe, March 22 2002.

175 addressed - especially if roaming is made possible between
the corporate, public, and home networks”146 There are standard development processes occurring in Europe that may increase the viability of WiFi as a significant mobile network. The HiperLAN 2 standard developed by Europe’s Broadband Radio Access network within the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) runs on the 5 GHz band (the same as 3G) and is purported to have a variety of features beyond 802.11b such as: • High and scalable capacity as the number of users increase in the system. • Managed bandwidth with predictable performance for each user and application. • Robust protocols that also optimize the overall throughput of the available radio resource, making it the most spectrum-efficient WLAN technology operating at 5 GHz. • A high level of security. • OS capabilities to support virtually any type of service or application. • Ease-of-use through a set of auto-configuration tools.147 Additionally, HiperLAN promised to provide interconnection with 3G networks, the ability to plug n’ play, and increase security features. HiperLAN seems like a strong option for use by mobile devices that demand high data transfer rates and extensive 146 Search Networking.com, Spatial Division Mutiple Access [website] (Whatis?com, [cited 2003]); available from http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci501705,00.html. 147 Ibid.([cited).

176 geographic reach. However, HiperLAN is currently only widely tested
in Europe and is not being deployed as extensively in the US as the 802.11 set of standards. 4.5 CELLULAR EVOLUTION AND HISTORY Consumers are much more accustomed to mobile devices where they pay a connection fee for a service, and the device is forever connected. For this reason, even though wearable computers are configured for WiFi technology, the footprint of cellular networks makes it a more viable option. However, cellular networks have their own challenges, and a through understanding of the various standards and their distinct feature needs to be considered when evaluating cellular networks as an option for wearable computers. There are two ways to transmit voice over a cellular network: analog or digital signals. Analog signals were developed earlier in cellular history and can not support data transmission, and digital signals were developed to support that type of information transportation as well as in an attempt to increase the number of users who can use a section of spectrum. Spectrum efficiency can be gained by compressing the signal, but cellular analog signals cannot be compressed and manipulated as easily as a true digital signal. Digital phones covert voice signals into binary information (1s and 0s) and this allows for between three and 10 digital cell-phone calls to occupy the space of a single analog call. A pair of frequencies (one for transmit and one for receive) is used to

177 create one channel. 148 The frequencies used in analog
voice channels are typically 30 kHz wide -- 30 kHz was chosen as the standard size because they give the user better voice quality comparable to a wired telephone. To transmit and receive frequencies, each voice channel is separated by 45 MHz to keep them from interfering with each other. Each carrier has 395 voice channels, as well as 21 data channels to use for housekeeping activities like registration and paging.149 Cellular systems are unique in that they reuse frequencies and hand off the signal to the next “cell” (the area serviced by a cellular tower) when a user moves out of range. 4.6 GENERATIONS OF STANDARDS Each major improvement in cellular structure and the development of new standards is described by the industry as a new “generation”(G) of services. Roughly, 1G encompasses analog standard development, 2G is the establishment of standards that allowed for data transfer, 2.5G allows for enhanced data capabilities. The current newest standard is 3G which allows for faster data transfer rates, and the proposed 4G network (or Ultrawide Band) standard would be able to truly support the always-on, mobile data transfer demanded by the new and future mobile technologies. Deciphering 148 Marshall Brain and Jeff Tyson, How Cell Phones Work (Howstuffworks.com, [cited February 4 2002]). 149 Ibid.([cited).

178 cellular standards is a difficult task, and industry jargon
is always changing, as commented by Richard Levine, founder and principal engineer of Beta Scientific Laboratory and former chairman of several working groups in the North American digital cellular standards development, who stated: “Warning, jargon subject to change without notice! Beware of total confusion….”150 4.6.1 1G- First Generation The first mobile analog telephone system was set up to serve the countries of Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden with the Nordic mobile telephone (NMT) system using the 450 MHz carrier. NMT was the first commercially available analog system, introduced in Sweden and Norway in 1979. AMPS The second analog signal was launched in 1980. Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS) has since become the most successful analog standard and is deployed on all continents. In 1983, it was approved by the FCC and first used in Chicago. AMPS uses a range of frequencies between 824 megahertz (MHz) and 894 MHz. European countries decided to develop a different standard to include most of Europe in 1982 that utilized the 900 MHz spectrum. Their new standard Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was entirely digital and allowed roaming through 150 Richard Levine, Digital Switching (Richardson, TX: Richard Levine, 1996-2001), powerpoint

179 Europe and was not backward compatible (dual mode hardware
which allowed for digital roaming). The major advantage of the digital systems (second generation) over analog (first generation) is in voice quality and in the level of efficiency with which they use the frequency spectrum.151 In addition, subsequent generations of cellular network development are able to offer higher data transmission capabilities. 4.6.2 2G - Second Generation The move to digital cellular signals is characterized as second generation within the cellular industry. Second generation digital services were first started in 1992 in Europe and by 1995, digital services were being offered in more than 100 countries. 2G networks were substantially faster and were able to support 9.6 to 144 Kpbs – roughly the speed of a dial-up modem or ISDN line.152 The first US digital standard was the IS-54B dual mode standard, which used time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) technology. (A dual phone uses digital signals when available, defaults to analog signals when they are not, and is backward compatible). The US increased the spectrum capacity by using a variety of technologies including: The three largest incompatible systems that were developed were TDMA presentation. 151 Funk, Global Competition between and within Standards. pp. 38 152 Lifang Chou, "An Analysis of Wireless Internet Industry in Th Networked Economy" (MA, Georgetown University, 2001).pp. 16

180 based IS-54 in 1990, CDMA based IS-95 in 1992,
and TDMA based “all digital” IS-136 in 1994. Each US standard used a different approach to gain greater efficiencies from the same allotted spectrum. TDMA TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) divides each frequency channel into time slots, and each user is allocated a time slot, which improves spectrum capacity. In other words, each call uses a certain portion of time on a designated frequency. Using TDMA, a narrow band that is 30 kHz wide and 6.7 milliseconds long is split time-wise into three time slots. D-AMPS (Digital Advanced Multiple Mobile Phone System) used TDMA to use the same bands as the AMPS system to allow for digital transmission. It was developed to increase capacity and allow for backward compatibility. The decision of which cellular system to support in the use was hung up in legislative arguments over whether to use FDMA, TDMA, or CDMA for two years. GSM is also based on TDMA as well as PCS systems, however PCS works in a higher 1.9 GHz band. In 1990, American cell phone subscribers grew from 1.5 million in 1998 to 13 million in 1993 and cellular companies began to run out of capacity.153 The US’s second digital system was proposed by Qualcomm, Inc. as a solution to the capacity problem. Called IS-54 it is based on CDMA. 153 Levine, Digital Switching.

181 CDMA CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) gives a unique
code to each call and spreads it over the available frequencies.154 This results in multiple calls being overlaid on each other in the channel, with each have a unique sequence code. In CDMA, the data is sent in small pieces over a number of the frequencies available within a specified range. All users transmit in the same wide-band chunk of spectrum and each user's signal is spread over the entire bandwidth by a unique spreading code. The receiving device uses that same unique code to recover and reassemble the signal. Because CDMA systems need to put an accurate time-stamp on each piece of a signal, it references the GPS system for this information.155 Current 2G services are known as CDMAOne. GSM In Europe, GSM applied a more efficient approach a new section of the spectrum (the 1800 MHz range).156 GSM was standardized and when it was discovered that AMPS in the US and GSM in Europe were not sufficient for the high density of users in the cities, Europe allocated more spectrum for wireless use – the 1800 MHz spectrum. 154 Tyson, How Cell Phones Work ([cited). 155 Ibid.([cited). 156 Chou, "An Analysis of Wireless Internet Industry in Th Networked Economy". pp. 17.

182 In the US, additional spectrum was not allotted and
different companies developed new, more bandwidth-efficient systems to try to solve the problem. GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) was developed in the early 1980s by the Conference Europeanne des Postes et Telecommunications (CEPT) and it led to the adoption of GSM as the European standard. It is based on TDMA’s strategy for efficiently using spectrum, though it applies it a bit differently. GSM was developed as an open standard by the GSM Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Association assisting in the formation of inter-company agreements within Europe’s new allotted spectrum. GSM operates in the 900-MHz and 1800-MHz bands in Europe and Asia, and in the 1900-MHz (sometimes referred to as 1.9-GHz) band in the United States. It enables the PCS-based systems and the Integrated Digital Enhanced Network (IDEN), a popular system introduced by Motorola and used by Nextel. PCS requires a larger number of antennas to cover a geographic area. PCS phones use frequencies between 1.85 and 1.99 GHz (1850 MHz to 1990 MHz). Moreover, while it is based on TDMA, PCS has 200-kHz channel spacing and eight time slots instead of the typical 30-kHz channel spacing and three time slots found in digital cellular.157 157 Tyson, How Cell Phones Work ([cited).

183 4.6.3 2.5G – 2.5 Generation Consumers were clambering for
higher data transfers that were possible with the development of 3G services, so within the US, the FCC decided to auction new spectrum. The spectrum action became mired in legislative proceeding similar to the FCC’s initial management of spectrum for the establishment of cellular in 1982.158, 159 Ultimately, corporations were unwilling to wait for the release of spectrum for 3G and began to form interim solutions (based 2.5G). 2.5G encompassed GPRS and PCS standards. The enhanced second-generation services that are called either 2.5G or 2+G increase the bit rates of existing standards and are therefore able to introduce limited data functionality. GPRS GPRS is a 2.5G data transmission technology that was optimized for services such as wireless Internet and multimedia. It is also known as GSM-Internet Protocol (IP) because it is based on 2G GSM services and it connects users directly to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). GPRS will allow mobile devices to be connected via their IP addresses. Developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) 158 For an in-depth discussion of cellular policy, read The Wireless National by James B. Murray. 159 In 1982, the federal government was watching the successful battle between standards in the personal computer industry (Microsoft and Intel) and mistakenly believed that unbridled competition was the best way to spur adoption and growth in digital cellular. Funk, Global Competition between and within Standards.

184 and theoretically supports data transfer rates of up to
171.2 kbps by utilizing all eight channels simultaneously. This data rate is roughly three times faster than today's fixed telecommunication networks and about ten times as fast as current circuit-switched data services on GSM networks. Identical to how the Internet sends and receives data, GPRS is reliant on packet switching. Packet switching means that GPRS radio resources are used only when users are actually sending or receiving data. Using GPRS, the information is split into separate but related packets before being transmitted and subsequently reassembled at the receiving end and it can facilitate instant connection and create a perception that it is always connected. 4.6.4 3G - Third Generation 3G is truly an umbrella term for a variety of approaches to bringing high-speed Internet services to cell phone systems, which different from continent to continent from country to country.160 Within 3G a variety of standards are used including: SDMA, TDMA, DCMA, and GSM. 4.6.5 SDMA SDMA (Spatial Division Multiple Access) simply increases spectral efficiency by more effectively managing the distribution of calls across the spectrum. The technology uses satellite dish antennas to transmit signals to numerous zones on the

185 earth's surface. The antennas are highly directional, allowing duplicate
frequencies to be used for multiple areas on the earth’s surface. SDMA has a variety of technological limitations that have encouraged use of other standards. For instance, SDMA requires careful choice of zones for each transmitter, and precise antenna alignment, for a small error can result in failure of the signal, signal interference, and confusion between surface coverage zones.161 TDMA TDMA is currently providing the basis for the development of Universal Wireless Communication (UWC-136), a third-generation standard that in its first phase will provide a data transfer rate of up to 64 Kbp, and the second phase is predicted to provide up to 115 Kbps in a mobile environment. CDMA CDMA is a digital wireless technology that allows multiple users to share radio frequencies at the same time without interfering with each other. 3G services use new high-speed versions of CDMA called W-CDMA. CDPD CDPD is a digital, packet-based network that is over-laid on analog cellular services. It is an always-on service similar to GPRS, but is more common in the U.S., 160 Lightman, Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet. pp. 88

186 since GPRS is associated with GSM, which is not
as common in the U.S. as in other parts of the world. Most CDPD service is in urban areas and along interstate highways. Transmission speed depends upon how many people are using the system. It employs unused frequencies along the voice channels, and uses packet switching to allow data transfer rates of up to 19.2 Kbps, a quicker call set up than using dial-up modems.162 4.6.6 4-G Future of US Cellular Current spectrum standards are not able to effectively meet the growing demand for advanced service (full mobile Internet) and an increase in the number of users.163 Fourth generational cellular is an entire digital packet-switched network which is purposed to provide multimedia services with tighter network security. All of the new standards that provide this type of functionality are referred to as 4G within the industry. The two most prevalent scenarios involve the development of a high-breed of CDMA and TDMA called TD-CDMA and an “upgrade” solution for GSM networks called Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems (UMTS). 161 Networking.com, Spatial Division Mutiple Access ([cited). 162 Carol Skvarla, "Mobile Internet Access Services in the U.S.: Perspective." pp. 5 163 Phillip Ames & John Gabor, "The Evolution of Third-Generation Cellular Standards," Intel Technology Journal, no. 2nd quarter (2000).

187 TD-CDMA One of the scenarios for improving spectrum use
and simplifying the number of options to the end user is by combine TDMA and CDMA radio air interface technology into one system. This proposed scenario, referred to as TD-CDMA, would retain some of the GSM-TDMA design features, such as frame and time-slot structure, and the CDMA technology would add better interference averaging and frequency diversity. This proposal would also provide excellent spectral efficiency that CDMA offers with the well-understood characteristics of TDMA-based GSM. UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System is based on the 2.5 system GPRS.164 As a key member of the 3G technologies, UMTS is predicted to be the natural evolutionary choice for operators of GSM networks, currently representing a customer base of more than 747 million end users in over 180 countries and representing over 70% of today's digital wireless market.165 Simon Forget of OSI, and IT consultancy, believes that UWB could be a viable solution for 4G systems. “UWB, as spread spectrum, could compete with all existing technologies in that it embraces them all, functionally, be they PHS, DECT, Tetra, Bluetooth, CT2, GSM, IMT2000, or 164 UMTS, What Is Umts? [website] (UMTS Forum, 2003 [cited); available from http://www.umts- forum.org/servlet/dycon/ztumts/umts/Live/en/umts/What+is+UMTS_index. 165 GSM Association, Gsm World [website] (GSM Association, [cited February 17 2003]); available from http://www.gsmworld.com/index.shtml.

188 AMPS.”166 UMTS is repudiated to solve many of the
problems that currently plague 3G. It is purported to be able to transmit through walls and move tons of data in microseconds. UMTS still has technology kinks to iron out before becoming the solution to the high-speed services that consumers demand. Jorg Kramer, vice-president of Mannesman’s Mobifunk division, predicted in 2000 that UMTS would only likely to be able to deliver data transfer rates between 32 and 64 kbps. When his company tested UMTs they found that, It will create speeds of 384 kbps, but only if you are the only person using the network, standing next to a transmitter and not moving…You have a choice: Stand still have get your 4 MB MP3 song in 10 minutes, or move around and take a half an hour to a full hour - if you don’t drop your connection, which is likely, given that coverage will be incomplete for several years. 167 Quotes like this illuminate why certain corporations are involved in the development of 4G. 4.7 IMPACT OF CURRENT WIRELESS INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE ON THIS RESEARCH Wearable computers current utilize WiFi standards to access the Internet and transfer data. There are varieties of disadvantages to this strategy. One, most wireless 166 Lightman, Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet. pp. 207 167 Ibid. pp. 17

189 networks have their own proprietary standards, and there is
no single network which covers enough geographic area and provides enough high speed data transmission to be a viable option for wearable computers. Secondly, there is user confusion when finding a Hotspot signal and configuring the WiFi device. Finally, it seems as though federal regulation is needed rather than market forces to open up new spectrum for the deployment of cellular 4G and the establishment of a single universal wireless standard rather than the multitude of options available in the market today. To fulfill consumer demand for truly mobile wireless and true mobility, wearable computing devices need to be modified to use the 3G cellular networks. There are advantages and disadvantages to running a wearable computer on a cellular data network. The advantages are clear. One, the established cellular networks have a larger footprint geographically than WiFi networks. Secondly, cellular networks are more plug n’ play than WiFi networks. Finally, whereas free access to WiFi networks is ultimately the solution that would appeal the most to consumers, installing the settings for a wireless card to access the network is not an intuitive process and will hinder adoption. Current wearable computing products are developed to access WiFi networks, which do not have enough geographic reach to be a sufficient solution for a true mobile product. Cellular networks currently cannot support the type of data transfer that will be necessary to support wearable computer functionality. Without future improvements to

190 either wireless network, true fully-functioning mobile Internet will no
be possible, and without that feature, consumers will not be interested in wearable computers.

191 Conclusion Studies conducted by leading market research firms state
that early adopter consumers are not interested or not ready for wearable computers. The studies conduct for this thesis concur. Consumers are not interested in the current products on the market and the features they offer. However, that does not mean that consumers are not ready for the concept of wearable computers. The data collected for this thesis shows that largely over 60% of the early adopter group sampled for this study indicated an interest in a mobile device that offers more functionality than the products currently on the market. The wearable computer industry is correct in stating that consumers are not interested in full-function wearable computers, but not necessarily for the reasons that the industry envisions. Pivotal to early adopter consumer’s interest in wearable computers is a clear marketing statement that presents an application or a series of applications that appeal to consumers and meet a real consumer need. Wearable computers have been long viewed as a technology looking for an application. Some technologies that have been developed find applications that make them widely successful on the consumer market, but many fail in their attempt to find a real application for their computing capacities, and wearable computers are in danger of becoming the latter.

192 5 The Killer Application – Wireless Internet Applications Wearable
computers, with their head mounted displays, can offer mobile Internet functionality more advanced than products currently on the market. Wearable computers have the ability to open up the whole range of content to the mobile customer by allowing the user to see unmodified web pages rather than stripped down WAP or Palm clippings pages. Capitalizing and promoting this feature requires a redesign of the product (to accommodate wireless cellular signals), a partnership agreement with a cellular firm to establish interconnection, and most importantly, a policy effort on the part of wearable firms to push for 4G, the next standard for wireless cellular transmission. Part of the purpose for this study was to identify the killer application or series of applications that could spur adoption of wearable computers. The data collected for this study demonstrates that one potential killer application for wearable computers is the ability to view full screen Internet content while mobile. Based on the sample for this study, early consumers indicated that they did not need laptop replacement. Instead, they were interested in GPS (directions) applications, time saving applications (reserving table at restaurant, checking movie times), and mobile tourist applications – all of which require mobile Internet support. In addition, the increased number of purchases globally of mobile Internet enabled devices demonstrates the growing interest in wireless, mobile Internet.

193 5.1 WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS The wireless network used to
support wearable products needs to have a wide geographic range and a strong signal or consumers will not be interested. There are a variety of issues in relation to wireless network capacity, consumer education, and product improvements that need to be addressed before wearable computers will be adopted by the early consumer market. The product and its network are intimately connected. Unfortunately, neither has the capacity to support a large number of mobile users with high bandwidth demands . Consumers (even early adopter consumers) are not interested in wearable computing products available today until they become easy to use and easily connected to a wireless network. Equally important, wearable devices need to have applications that are beyond the basic functionality offered through today’s PDA. There is no doubt that early adopter consumers sampled for this study are interested in this product based on its cool factor. These users can envision the potential for wearable computers. This is shown by statements made during the focus group session and the daily use trial. The respondents provided clues as to how to introduce a newer version of the product to their market and provided suggestions about potential must have applications that would peak their interest in purchasing such a product.

194 5.2 PREDICTING CONSUMER INTEREST FOR WEARABLE COMPUTERS Wearable computers
have a unique challenge that makes predicting their adoption even more difficult. Based on the factors outlined in Roger’s model that influence adoption, encouraging adoption of wearable computers might be challenging. First, without a clear killer application, it is difficult to show the product’s relative advantage over other mobile technology. Second, their design is relatively complex, and much more complicated to operate than current mobile technology that offers similar features. They are also not compatible with consumers’ current concepts of computing, and there is no means to try the product before purchasing. Finally, wearable computers have not been adopted enough for potential customers to observe others wearing the technology.168 The two most shattering findings from this study are the study participants’ disinterest in always-on computing, and disinterest in adjusting their current computing behaviors to the product. Due to the wearable computer’s unique human computer interaction, this consumer group had a difficult time changing and adjusting their beliefs about how one should interact with a computer. If the belief about socially acceptable ways to interact with their computer is strong enough, early adopter consumers may 168 Though to be fair, with the obvious HMDs that are used with the product, wearable computers will be a highly visible and observable product on the market.

195 decide that changing that fundamental belief is too life
changing or difficult and will therefore be disinterested in adopting the technology. Convincing consumers to adopt new disruptive technology faces challenges beyond Roger’s simple technology adoption model. Disruptive technology creates higher levels of cognitive dissonance that require more consumer behavior modification, due to their interaction with deeply held beliefs, attitudes, and personal behaviors.169 Wearable computers are a disruptive technology on many levels. They require a completely new way of interacting with the computing environment by allowing the user to interact with a computing interface while mobile. Due to the product’s potential uses and personal interaction with the user, there are a variety of consumer concerns, attitudes and beliefs that should be assessed and taken into consideration when developing a marketing strategy for this product. Without closely examining the attitudes and fears that consumers have toward the technology, wearable computing systems will never surpass Geoffrey Moore’s “chasm” no matter how small or user friendly the technology becomes. The early adopter market is more comfortable adopting technology that is relatively untried by consumers, but the 169 Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person has relatively stable tendency to respond to a given object with either positive or negative affect. That tendency is accompanied by a cognitive structure made up of beliefs about the potentiality of that object for attaining or blocking the relations of valued states. Therefore, the reaction (positive or negative) and extremity of the reaction experienced toward the object are correlated with the content of its associated cognitive structure. 169

196 mainstream market is only interested in adopting tried-and-true technology
that is easy to use and fits a distinct need. One of the other compatibility issues as outlined by Rogers is the impact of the cultural background on users’ potential adoption. This study shows that wearable computers have a tendency to provoke American’s deeply embedded cultural concerns about the possibility of computers becoming more powerful than humans or humans loosing control of computers. These concerns are presented by decades of science fiction as represented in movies such as Terminator or Johnny Mnemonic. There also seems to be a cultural fear in America where individuals are concerns with loosing their individuality and their freedom to disassociate themselves from society. This is brought to the fore by a device that allows for constant interaction with others by being plugged into a digital network. Being always-on and always connected also creates individual concerns about individual privacy and security that without being properly addressed through product education, could hinder adoption. Most of the published research, which promotes wearable computers, is focused on improving the functional aspect of the technology (making it smaller, lighter, faster) and ignores the impact of human factors behind its adoption. If the attitudes and concerns of users are referenced, the tendency is for researchers to talk about how the users will only be interested in the technology if the functions become more efficient (making it lighter, easier to use, and more ambiguous - less geeky) rather than

197 addressing the consumer attitudes and perceptions (their social distraction
concerns, concerns about durability, etc). 5.3 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS None of the consumers sampled were interested in purchasing the Poma product (or really playing with the product for more than five minutes) in its current version. They made a variety of product suggestions including the use of a Palm type interface, durability, a pen based input, a better HMD and a range of applications similar to ones offered by Palm Pilots. Many of their suggestions for product improvement have been incorporated into Interactive Imaging System’s Second Sight product. Even with the Second Sight product, the wire between the HMD and the CPU is a necessity (and will need to remain until wireless network capacity increases) but the interface used is based on a PocketPC format that better suits the mobile user; smaller size and longer battery life. In addition, by utilizing MicroOptical’s newest HMD, viewing the screen is no longer an issue.170 170 Plans were in place to run a focus group with this product, but IIS was not able to iron out all the technological limitations in a fashion that suited the timeline for completion of this thesis. However, this researcher has tried the product and was impressed by how well it matched the focus group’s specifications for a wearable computer that they would be interested in purchasing.

198 5.4 CULTURAL INFLUENCES OVER CONSUMER’S DECISIONS The findings show
that most consumers have pre-conceived ideas about wearable computers. While only a minority have formulated their perception concepts of wearable computers based on their personal interaction with similar technologies or through watching current market efforts by Xybernaut to enter the consumer market, the majority of consumers envision something out of a science fiction book or movie or some other type of pop culture association. 5.5 SOCIAL & FASHION INFLUENCES Wearable computers also evoke image concerns for the consumers sampled on how they might be perceived by their peers or in other social situations. Some made references to negative social stereotypes (like geek) when describing their associations with wearable computers. The wearable industry is aware of how social perception will impact wearable computer adoption and has focused on making the technology invisible by embedding it into smart fabric as a potential solution. Smart fabrics may not be the answer. Consumers sampled for this study thought wearable computers embedded in fabric was impractical, temporal, and prone to losing value based on fashion changes. No consumer was interested in investing in a technology product that would have to be discarded when fashion styles changed. However, survey respondents did not list this as something that would prevent them from purchasing a wearable computer. Some survey respondents were concerned with how they would be viewed by others when wearing

199 the device. The focus group participants were most interested
in a product which could be turned off and put away - partially for this reason. The Poma faired well in relation to fashionableness. While not easy to use, most who saw the product (this was most obvious during the results from the daily use trial) found the product cool and were initially interested in learning more about the product based on its look. Consumers did not take this concern about fashion and coolness as far as to want their wearable computing solution embedded in clothing. Through both surveys and the focus group it became clear that consumers are truly not interested in a product that is embedded in fabric. 5.6 DISINTERESTED IN AN “ALWAYS-ON” PRODUCT Study participants expressed their concern about how being connected 24/7 would affect society’s future social interactions and safety as more people become distracted by technology and less in touch with daily reality while driving or walking.171 171 This is truly a concern that was also expressed during the introduction of the Internet, and throughout the first decade of the innovation, there were multiple studies published that looked at the affect online interaction has on social interactions. (See Flaherty, 1998. Internet and Face-to-Face Communication, Kim, Johg-Young. 2000. Social interaction in Computer-Mediated Communication, and Sempsey, J. & Johnston, D. 2000. The Psychological Dynamics and Social Climate of Text-Based Virtual Reality)

200 Many respondents questioned whether as a society we needed
technology to mediate our lives and suggested that perhaps increasing the amount of access we have to our technology will negatively result in less time away from work and less time interacting with our friends and family. 5.7 WEARABLE DEVICES THAT CONSUMERS WANT The largest surprise from this study was that early adopter consumers are interested in a mobile device that can combine the features provided by their cell phone, PDA, mobile entertainment systems (portable DVDs, MP3 players, etc) into one device with mobile, full-page Internet access. However, that interest has specific demands. What they are interested in is a mobile device that looks like ordinary glasses that can be taken off and put away when the user doesn’t want to be seen as using technology. Consumers in this study stated that they are only interested in purchasing a wearable computer if it met a specific need and operates with appealing software. They are interested in an OS other than Windows CE, and it needs to have standard ports so that the consumer could interface the device with other peripherals. Both survey respondents and focus group participants were only interested in a device that was lightweight. While there was no consensus about alternate input devices that they found more appealing, there is consensus that the input options offered by the Poma (and many of the other devices offered). They want a product that has a long battery life and is rugged

201 enough to handle daily use. This is a direct
response to the Poma, which, even in its own product manual warns about fragility and its three-hour battery life. 5.7.1 Interest in Head Mounted Displays There is significant interested in head mounted displays, even with their relative newness in the market. About half of the consumers questioned for this study expressed interest in keeping their small display (most due to familiarity, or a lack of motivation to change the type of display they use) but 40% of survey respondents were interested in MicroOptical’s HMD as a display option for any mobile device. For focus group participants, their interest in HMD was conditional based on the removal of the wires between the CPU and the HMD. Consumers in this study indicated that even if there is a loss of graphic depth, they would be more likely to adopt the technology if it is wireless. 5.8 MARKET CONDITIONS There are various larger market issues that were not touched upon in depth with this thesis that will influence the potential adoption of wearable computers by early adopter consumers. One of the largest market barriers to adoption is the state of the current technology economy. The technology industry has been hit hard economically, and both wearable firms have been impacted by the larger economic climate. Neither firm has the funding to conduct consumer research, and it is questionable whether they

202 have the financial resources to redesign or market a
product for the consumer market. Xybernaut Corporation has the maturity to tackle this market if they should decide to, and if they are able to price the product under $1,000. 5.9 ACCELERATORS AND INHIBITORS The pace of early consumer adoption is largely based on the choice of wireless Internet standard and the partnerships that wearable firms are able to negotiate with cellular firms to provide infrastructure support. 5.10 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Xybernaut and Charmed Technology face an uncertain economic future. It would require a huge investment to conduct the product improvements needed to enter this consumer market successfully. Xybernaut, however, has a history of corporate partnerships that could aid in developing manufacturing, infrastructure and distribution partnerships that might make possible bringing a new product to market. As the market leader, if they could secure larger corporate interest (through Microsoft or IBM) they might have the financial momentum to enter this market. 5.11 OPPORTUNITIES FOR NON-TECHNICAL SERVICES USING WEARABLE COMPUTERS Indeed a huge potential exists if the product is widely adopted and if the infrastructure expands to support real mobile computing. By offering full web page

203 content as well as GPS functionality, the next generation
consumer wearable computer could offer some of the functionality mentioned by focus group participants (specifically locating restaurants and making reservations while walking through an unknown neighborhood, buying movie tickets on the way to the theater, or getting directional assistance when lost). It is these mundane services that could provide useful support for the mobile user and provide advertisers a unique way to provide personalized, user requested, mobile advertising. 5.12 MARKETING SUGGESTIONS In relation to how the study group of early adopter consumers could see a product like the Poma (with the above features) marketed, they provided examples about advertising images, marketing strategies, and marketing mediums. The consensus among the study group was that they would only be interested in this type of a product if they were allowed to try it before purchasing. (For instance, one respondent used demos in Best Buy as an example). In initiating this study, one of the original potential outcomes was to gather enough consumer information and product feedback to develop a marketing strategy to be used by a wearable computing firm in order to market a current wearable product to the early adopter consumer market. Once the data collection was completed, however, it became clear that while consumers might be ready and interested in the concept of wearable computing, the products currently on the market do not meet their needs or

204 expectations. In addition, the current wireless infrastructure does not
provide enough support for true mobile Internet (which was shown as consumer’s perceived killer app for wearable computers). It is possible to make product improvements to address many of this study group’s issues (and many of these improvements have been incorporated into Interactive Imaging System’s Second Sight product). However, improving the state of current wireless infrastructure presents a seemingly insurmountable barrier that will hold wearable computer adoption in limbo until data transfer rates and geographic coverage issues can be addressed and improved by the wireless industry. What this study does present is a sampling of early adopter consumers’ pre- existing beliefs and attitudes toward wearable computers and specifically the Poma product. This study provides insight into the issues and concerns that need to be addressed in a marketing campaign for a consumer wearable computing product, as well as positive associations that will assist in increasing early adopter consumers’ sense of familiarity with wearable computing concepts.

205 Appendix A Survey Questions Demographics 1. What is your
age? under 11 11-17 18 - 24 25 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 70 71-80 over 80 Rather not say 1. What is your gender? Male Female . What is your annual income? Rather not say Under $10,000 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 Over $100,000 Which of the following best describes the area you live in?

206 Urban Suburban Rural 1. What geographic area to you
live in? United States Mexico Canada Europe Africa Antarctica Asia Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) Central America South America Middle East West Indies 5. Which of the following best describes your professional title? Upper Management Trained Professional Middle Management Skilled Laborer Junior Management Consultant Administrative Staff Temporary Employee Support Staff Researcher Educator Student Self-employed/Partner Other

207 6. What three adjectives would you use to describe
your current relationship with technology? Excited Amazed Eager Pleased Great Uncomfortable Uncertain Awkward Annoyed Self-conscious Frustrated Nervous Dumb Overwhelmed Upset 7. What do you think of when you hear the term “wearable computing”? 8. Which of these wearable computing products do you use or have you used? Type Have Used Currently Use Pager Hearing Aid Pace Maker Cell Phone

208 Walkman Artificial Heart PDA (for example, PalmPilot, Newton, Ipaq,
Sony Vio) Cell Phone with Internet Access Laptop Camcorder Digital Watch Cell phone/PDA combo (Handspring Trio) Technology Use/Frequency 9. How many days a week do you access the Internet? Daily once a week twice a week three times a week If you access the Internet daily, how many hours a day are you online? less than 1 hour 1-3 hours 3-5 hours 5-8 hours over 8 hours

209 11. Would you be interested in having access to
the Internet while mobile? Yes No 12. Do you use chatting software on the Internet? Yes No 13. If so, how many hours per week do you spend chatting online? less than 1 hour 1-3 hours 3-5 hours 5-8 hours over 8 hours 14. Have you ever wanted to instantly share an experience using video or photos with your friends? Yes No 15. Do you play online computer games? Yes No 16.If you play online computer games, how many times a week? Daily Once a week

210 2 times a week 3 times a week N/A
17. Which of the following do you use technology for and would qualify as essential to your daily life? Scheduling appointments Connecting with family/friends via email Chatting Communicating for business via email Producing documents or files Creating digital memories (photos, video) Sharing audio, video or data files Playing audio or video files Managing data/information Other 18. Would your essential daily technology use be more effective if you could use that technology while mobile? Yes/No Scheduling appointments

211 Connecting with family/friends via email Chatting Communicating for business
via email Producing documents or files Creating digital memories (photos, video) Sharing audio, video or data files Playing audio or video files Managing data/information Other 19. Which feature would appeal to you the most about owning a wearable computer? concentration of all communication and organizational features in one easy to see screen lightweight mobile Internet devices to aid remembering location and mapping systems

212 ability to send and receive photos and video instantly
ability to have an enhanced perception of the world 20. Which of the following would prevent you from buying this technology? Looks too difficult to use Not fashionable enough Too expensive Concerns about repair Not enough useful features Don’t have enough information to purchase Worried about being able to purchase compatible software Concerned about geographic range of wireless access Technology does not seem to be well tested 21. If you already own a mobile communication device, which of the following impacted your decision to purchase the product? -Saw a friend using one -Read magazine or online articles about the product -Conducted research using print and Internet sources -Saw Internet ads for the product

213 -Saw the product used on TV or in movies
-Needed a paperless organizer solution -Needed a mobile communication solution 22. What type of reaction do you think your friends would say about your wearable computer? Very positive -> very negative ( 5 point scale) 23. When you think about the potential of wearable computing, which word best describes your feelings? Apprehensive Restraining Scary Too difficult to understand Exciting Futuristic Exotic All powerful

215 Appendix B SMART FABRICS SURVEY What is your age?
What is your sex? What is your personal income? Which of the following best describes the area you live in? What geographic area do you live in? What is your professional title? Which of these mobile products have you used or previously owned? 1 Previously or Currently Own 2 Never Owned or Used 1. Pager 2. Walkman 3. Cell Phone 4. Cell Phone with Web Access 5. PDA (for example, PalmPilot, Newton, Ipaq, Sony Vio) 6. Cell phone/PDA combo (Handspring Trio)

216 7. Laptop 8. Camcorder What do you think when
you read the term “e-textiles” or “smart fabrics”? E-textiles, smart fabrics involve microelectronic components that are directly connected to electrically conducting fabric and sewn into clothing, thus directly integrating the electronics in the textiles to ensure comfortable, highly wearable “smart” clothing, thus allowing the full integration of electronic applications in clothes. Electronic clothing weaves all sorts of intelligence into textiles, including the ability to detect dangerous chemicals, sanitize themselves, and serve as communication networks. Applications run the gamut, from health and sporting goods to sophisticated combat uniforms. An example of smart clothing:

217 Wearable computers are; “..a fully functional, self-powered, self-contained computer
that is worn on the body. It provides access to information and interaction with information anywhere and at anytime.172 Physically, the apparatus consists of a battery-powered, wearable 172 Starner, "Augmented Reality through Wearable Computing. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments."Pp. 6

218 Internet-connected computer system with a miniature eyeglass-mounted screen and
the appropriate optics to form a virtual image equivalent to an ordinary desktop multimedia computer before the user’s field of vision. Because the device is tetherless, it travels with the user, presenting a computer screen that either appears superimposed on top of the real world, or represents the real world as a video image.173 “ Wearable computers allow you all the functionality of your home computer, yet you can access all your familiar applications and files while mobile. In addition, since wearable computers are always-on, they can assist you in remembering a variety of important items throughout your day though a remembrance application. If reasonably priced, would you buy a wearable computer? If no, is it because: Don’t need it Technology not tested Looks too hard to understand Don’t want to be connected 24/7 3 Mann, "Humanistic Intelligence: `Wearcomp' as a New Framework and Application for Intelligent Signal Processing".

219 Not interested in remembrance agent Would you be more
interested in purchasing a wearable computer if it was embedded in a piece of clothing? (range) Are you interested in purchasing a smart fabric product? If yes, which of the following applications most interest you? Mp3 jacket Wearable computer embedded into fabric Cell phone in jacket Fabric that adjust to your body temperature to keep you cool when its hot and warm when its cold outside. Which pieces of clothing/accessory would you most be interested in having as a wearable computer? (pick all that apply) Hat Watch Jacket Pants

220 Necklace Glasses I am not interested in a wearable
computer I am not interested in a wearable computer embedded in clothing There are a variety of ways for information to be displayed for wearable computers. Head Mounted Displays: By projecting the equivalent of a full-size screen two feet in front of the user, the SV-3 heralds a new era of data presentation. The SV-3 is ultra-lightweight, ergonimically designed, can attach to eyeglasses.

221 Microdisplays: Microvision's technology would allow users to flip up
a small lens at the base of a phone or wear a lightweight headset to have the experience of looking at an image with the size and quality of a laptop or desktop monitor. Unlike alternative solutions that project images from a miniaturized screen, Microvision's display uses a single tiny mirror to scan a low-power beam of colored light across the eye, creating the effect of viewing a full-size screen.

222 Traditional Handheld Displays:

223 Out of the above options, which way of displaying
data from a mobile device are you most interested in? Head mounted display Microdisplay Handheld screen Why?

224 Appendix C Wearable Computers - Pre-Session Questionnaire First Name:
City you live in: Professional Title: Age: Which One of these do you own? Pager Cell Phone Walkman PDA Cell Phone with web browsing capabilities Laptop Camcorder Digital Watch Cell phone/PDA combo (Handspring Trio, smart phone)

225 The comments and results from the focus group will
be used for Katherine Watier’s graduate thesis and if individual comments are used, they will be identified by pseudonym first name only based on gender. I understand the above and consent to participate in this focus group. Signed _______________________ Date ____________________ I would like to be notified if my comments are used. You will be notified by the eamil address you provide below. I would like to be notified when the thesis is published. I would be interested in participating in another focus group with a different wearable computing product. Email address: __________________________________________

226 Appendix D Written Responses: Write down 5 positive things
about the product and 5 things you would improve. Positive 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Order of Importance Improve 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Order of Importance If you were interested in buying a wearable computer product with a headset (like a Poma) how much would you pay for such a unit? Now that you’ve seen a wearable computer, if you could design a wearable computer to support your daily activities, which features would you want it to assist you with? Please list and rank

227 Appendix E FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS Intro Questions: Tell me
who you are and what you enjoy doing most. Tell us about a technology product that you think is cool and why. What is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the term “wearable computing”, what does the term mean to you? After Using the Product: What was your first reaction when you got a chance to use the product? What was your reaction to the user interface? (written response) Write down 5 positive things about the product and 5 things you would improve. What kind of people do you think this product would appeal to? If you could change one thing about this product, what would you change, and what’s the main reason that one thing needs changing? What else do you need to know about this product for you to feel comfortable making a decision to purchase the product?

228 (written response) If you were interested in buying a
wearable computer product with a headset (like a Poma) how much would you pay for such a unit? If you were responsible for selling 100 units of this product, what key point would you stress in the ad campaign? What do you think the potential uses are for wearable computing? What do you think your friends would say if they saw you where the Poma? (written response) Now that you’ve seen a wearable computer, if you could design a wearable computer to support your daily activities, which features would you want it to assist you with? Please list and rank. Now that you’ve had a chance to use a wearable computer, do you see it as a product that a consumer would purchase and if so what do you think is the biggest concern consumers will have about this technology? While not playing with the Poma: I have given you pictures of three different display options for wearable computers. Which display options do you like the most and why? I’ve given you a number of scenarios involving functionality that is available with other wearable products on the market. Please take some time to read the scenarios

229 and comment on whether you could see yourself engaged
in that type of activity, whether you’d find that feature useful and whether that functionality would encourage you to purchase the product. I’ve also given you a picture of a wearable computer embedded in a piece of clothing. Research firms are currently working on designing computers into necklaces, watches, hats and jackets. What do you think about computers embedded in clothing?

230 Appendix F The following outlines the technical specifications for
Xybernaut’s Poma and Charmed Technology’s CharmIt. POMA PRODUCT SPECS CPU- Hitachi SH-4 32bit, RISC processor, 128 MHz, 230MIPS 32 MB RAM 32 MB ROM Type II Compact Flash USB Headphone Jack DC in Integrated Lithium Ion Battery LED for Power and Charging Status Reset Switch Outer Dimensions: 140(H) x 90(W) x 26(D) mm/5.5"(H) x 3.5"(W) x 1.0"(D) Weight:10.9 oz.(310g) Head Mount Display 640 x 480 VGA full color

231 Weight:Approx. 2.8 oz.(80g) Wearable with eye glasses Pointing Device
Customized Optical Mouse CHARMIT PRODUCT SPECS The 266 Mhz Pentium model: $1,995.00 Pentium MMX processor, 128 MB SDRAM. Video controller 10/100 ethernet 2 serial ports, 1 USB port 1 parallel port. 16-bit ISA PC/104 expansion bus A Dual PCMCIA PC/104 module The 800 Mhz Transmeta model $2495.00 Crusoe TM5800 processor Transmeta board has 256 MB SDRAM. Video controller, stereo audio, 10/100 ethernet along with 4 serial ports 4 USB ports (integrated hub) 1 parallel port. 32-bit MiniPCI expansion slot IEEE1394 firewire ports

232 Bibliography GSM Association. Gsm World [website]. GSM Association, [cited
February 17 2003]. Available from http://www.gsmworld.com/index.shtml. Mark Baard. "E-Fabrics Still Too Stiff to Wear." WIRED, December 5 2002. Thomas Bass. "Dress Code." WIRED, April 1998. S. M and Farrell Bensen, J. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization." Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, no. 2 (1994): 117-31. "Booting up Something More Comfortable." Wired Magazine, October 14 1997. John Carey. "Forecasting Demand for New Consumer Services: Challenges and Alternatives." In New Infotainment Technologies in the Home: Demand-Side Perspectives, edited by Nikhilesh Dholakia Norbert Mundorf Ruby Roy Dholakia, 35-57. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996. Brian Dooley Carol Skvarla. "Mobile Internet Access Services in the U.S.: Perspective." Gartner Group, 2001. Lifang Chou. "An Analysis of Wireless Internet Industry in Th Networked Economy." MA, Georgetown University, 2001. "Communications Intelligence Corp. Cic, Xybernaut Enter Strategic Partnership to Advance E-Business through Biometric Identification." Computer User 18, no. 11 (2000): 78. Gerald Faulhaber. "Broadband Deployment: Is Policy the Way?" Paper presented at the Brookings Conference, Washington, DC, 2003 2003. Manny Frishberg. "What to Wear: Why Not a Computer?" WIRED, October 10 2002. Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality. Edited by Woodrow Barfield & Thomas Caudell. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2001. Jeffrey L. Funk. Global Competition between and within Standards. New York: Palgrave, 2002.

6 Phillip Ames & John Gabor. "The Evolution of Third-Generation
Cellular Standards." Intel Technology Journal, no. 2nd quarter (2000). Joel Garreau. "Cell Biology: Like the Bee, This Evolving Species Buzzes and Swarms." The Washington Post, July 31, 2002 2002, 1. Mark Gibbs. "More Distance, Less Pringles." Network World (2001): 44. Malcolm Gladwell. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2002. Dustin Goot. "Tech Specs: Less Geek, More Chic." WIRED, Dec. 03 2002. Leyla Namiranian & Renee Hopkins. "Is There Such a Thing as ‘Early Adopters Fatigue’?" Denis Howe. The Free on-Line Dictionary of Computing [website]. Dictionary.com, 1993-2001 [cited February 17 2003]. Available from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=interoperability. Peter Howe. "Wireless Connection." The Boston Globe, March 22 2002. Technology Marketing Group Inc. Ideas: Using the Adoption-Diffusion Model to Anticipate Customers' Purchase Decisions [website]. Technology Marketing Group Inc., [cited February 10, 2003 2003]. Available from http://www.technology- marketing.com/pages/Ideas/adcurve.html. "Infineon Unveils Technologies for for "Smart" Clothing." Global Sources, 2002. Jr. James B. Murray. Wireless Nation: The Frenzied Launch of the Cellular Revolution in America. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2001. Aries Keck. "Wishful Thinking: Controlling Your World with Brain Waves." ABCNews.com, June 9 2000. Brad King. "That Computer Looks Great on You." WIRED, March 12 2002. Richard Levine. Digital Switching. Richardson, TX: Richard Levine, 1996-2001. powerpoint presentation.

7 Alex Lightman. Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big
Bang and the Infinite Internet. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002. Steve Mann. "Cyborg Seeks Community." Technology Review 102, no. 3 (1999): 36. Steven Mann. Cyborg: [cited February 25 2003]. Available from http://wearcam.org/cyborg.htm. ———. "Humanistic Intelligence: `Wearcomp' as a New Framework and Application for Intelligent Signal Processing." Paper presented at the IEEE, November 1998. S.J. Liebowtiz and Stephen E. Margolis. "Network Externalities (Effects)." (2002). Jennifer Martin. "Speakers Series Lecture Examines Cyborgs and Cyber Pop." Paper presented at the Laurier Communications Studies Speakers Series, Wilfrid Laurier University, March 27, 2002 2002. Ellen McCarthy. "Xybernaut Calls Off $50 Million Ibm Deal." Washingtonpost.com, April 9 2003. Mark A. Lemley & David McGowan. "Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects." California Review 86, no. 479 (1998). MicroOptical. Products MicroOptical, 2003 [cited February 18 2003]. Available from http://www.microopticalcorp.com/Products/HomePage.html. Microvision. Microdisplay Product Sheet Microvision, 2003 [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.mvis.com/prod_microdisplay.htm. Geoffrey Moore. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. New York, NY: HarperBusiness, 1991. Lisa Napoli. "Wearable Computer: The User Interface Is You." The New York Times, October 14 1997. Jim Nash. "Wiring the Jet Set." WIRED, October 1997. Search Networking.com. Spatial Division Mutiple Access [website]. Whatis?com, [cited 2003]. Available from http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci501705,00.html.

8 E. Rehmi Post & Maggie Orth. "Smart Fabric, or
Washable Computing." Paper presented at the First IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Cambridge, MA 1997. J.D. Pieters. "The Marketing of High Technology Production in the Technological Environment." Southern African Business Review December (2000). Andrea Butter and David Pogue. Piloting Palm: The inside Story of Palm, Handspring, and the Birth of the Billion-Dollar Handheld Industry. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002. Sage Research. Technology Adoption Research [website]. Sage Research, [cited February 18 2003]. Available from http://www.sageresearch.com/TechnologyAdoption.htm. Bradley J. Rhodes. "A Wearable Remembrance Agent: A System for Augmented Memory." Personal Technologies Special Issue on Wearable Computing, no. 1 (1997): 218-44. Colin Gilligan and David Pearson Richard Wilson. Strategic Marketing Management: Planning, Implementation and Control. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Ltd., 1992. Everett M. Rogers. Diffusion of Innovations. Fourth ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995. Jochen Schiller. Mobile Communciations. New York: Addison-Wesley, 2000. Richard Trinker & Brian Smith. "Consumer Technology Adoption Roadmap." Gartner G2 (2002). T. Mann Starner, S. Rhodes, B. Levine, J. Healy, J.Kirsch, D. PicardR, and Pentland, A. "Augmented Reality through Wearable Computing. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments." In Fundamentals of Wearable Computing, 384-98., 1997. Hal Niedzviecki Steve Mann. Cyborg: Digital Destiny and Human Possibility in the Age of the Wearable Computer. Toronto: DoubleDay Canada, 2002. Bob Sullivan. "Finally in Fashion?" MSNBC, October 9 2002.

9 Linsys Technical Support. phone conversation, February 9 2003. Rivka
Tadjer. "Well-Defined Wireless -- Companies Are Successfully Rolling out Wireless Apps by Building Networks for Specific Purposes That Can Handle Only Simple Text." InternetWeek, October 22, 2001 2001, 28. Stefan Theil. "Love Those Wearables!" Newsweek (2001). Marshall Brain and Jeff Tyson. How Cell Phones Work Howstuffworks.com, [cited February 4 2002]. UMTS. What Is Umts? [website]. UMTS Forum, 2003 [cited. Available from http://www.umts- forum.org/servlet/dycon/ztumts/umts/Live/en/umts/What+is+UMTS_index. WapSight.com. What Is Wap? 2000 [cited. Available from http://wapsight.com/whatis/. "Wearable Computers Come One Step Closer." Computergram International (1999). whatis?com. Handheld [website]. December 23, 2002 2002 [cited February 25 2003]. Lizette Wilson. "Wearable Tech: Tiny Microchips and Futuristic Materials Inspire Designers to Create Electronics You Can Really Get Into." San Francisco Business Times, November, 1-7 2002, 23-27. Boingo Wireless. How Does It Work? [website]. [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.boingo.com/howdoesitwork.html. Steve Mann Woodrow Barfield, Kevin Baird, Francine Gemperle, Chris Kasabach, John Stivoric, Malcolm Bauer, Richard Martin, Gilsoo Cho. "Computational Clothing and Accessories." In Fundamentals of Wearable Computing.

MARKETING WEARABLE COMPUTERS TO CONSUMERS: AN E...

MARKETING WEARABLE COMPUTERS TO CONSUMERS: AN EXAMINATION OF EARLY ADOPTER CONSUMERS' FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD WEARABLE COMPUTERS

More Decks by Katherine Watier Ong

Other Decks in Research

Featured

Transcript