Wearable tech isn’t exactly new

But the boom has only just begun.

Wearable tech has been a hotly debated subject lately. Innovations like Google Glass have made watches, shoes and other accessories a popular commodity, once they’re upgraded with various types of communicative technology. At the moment, the market for wearable tech has a value of $3-5 billion. But according to a new report from the European banking giant Credit Suisse, the market value for wearable tech will grow ten-fold within the next 3-5 years.

Now, wearable tech isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. We’ve been wearing digital watches since 1970, and they’ve since grown to include various functions such as online chatting and cameras. In recent years, wristbands with diverse functions such as unlocking mechanisms for cars and homes, as well as measuring your pulse or counting the amount of steps you’ve taken in a day, have become a popular accessory for the tech-wise. The latest invention is the Google Glass project, which promises to translate your voice if you need to ask anything in Chinese, give you the answers to curious questions and show the way in case you get lost. All through a slim pair of interactive glasses.

Its no surprise then that two of Silicon Valley’s biggest names, including Apple’s Tim Cook, only last week surmounted that wearable tech is an interesting market at the moment.

Famed venture capitalist and internet trend guru, Mary Meeker, even went so far as to call wearable tech the next big thing.

With developments like these, Credit Suisse says the wearable tech market is on the verge of a sales boom. As such, the bank has recommended clients to invest in heavy hitters such as Apple and Google, as well as up-and-coming companies specialising in software and retail.

However, some people are still skeptical of the trend, pointing out that “big things” such as digital cameras, MP3’s and GPS’s are taking a back seat to the all-mighty smart-phone, which provides all functions in one gadget.

But according to Mary Meeker, wearable tech will likely pick up where the smartphone leaves off.

The average smartphone user checks their device 150 times a day. "What if you didn't have to do that?" Meeker asked at a recent convention, pointing out that the need for quick convenience might circumvent the digital equivalent to a Swiss army knife.  In this respect, a simple, wearable device with sensors could be the answer to our future needs.

However, as Tim Cook pointed out, there’s still a way to go, before iWatches and Google Glass can replace the smart-phone. For example, big data, which is the data-gathering technology used for such intuitive inventions, is still in the developmental phase. In the meantime, tech-companies need to consider that not everyone wants to wear glasses or a wristband if the functions aren’t exceptional compared to a smart-phone. So yes, I agree that wearable tech is an interesting development worth keeping your eyes and money on. But I’m not sure that the boom is quite there yet. Give it a year or two.

Photograph: Getty Images

Sandra Kilhof Nielsen is a freelance writer and former reporter for Retail Banker International, Cards International & Electronic Payments International.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.