The Light Bulb Gets a Digital Makeover

Electric lights are 135 years old. The Internet is 45. They’re finally getting connected.

To demonstrate how the Internet is changing one of the oldest and least exciting technology businesses around, Shane De Lima, an engineer at Philips Lighting, took out his smartphone. A flick across the screen sent a message to a nearby Wi-Fi router and then to a wireless hub, which shot a radio command to a chip in the base of an LED lamp in front of us.

A moment later, the conference room where we were sitting darkened.

It may seem like Rube Goldberg’s idea of how to turn off a light. Or it could be the beginning of how lighting companies such as Philips find their way from selling lighting hardware into networks, software, apps, and new kinds of services.

 The introduction of networked lights is happening because of another trend. Manufacturers have been replacing incandescent and fluorescent lights with ultra-efficient LEDs, or light-emitting diodes. The U.S. Department of Energy says that LEDs had 4 percent of the U.S. lighting market in 2013, but it predicts this figure will rise to 74 percent of all lights by 2030.

Because LEDs are solid-state devices that emit light from a semiconductor chip, they already sit on a circuit board. That means they can readily share space with sensors, wireless chips, and a small computer, allowing light fixtures to become networked sensor hubs.

For example, last year Philips gave outside developers access to the software that runs its Hue line of residential LED lights. Now it’s possible to download Goldee, a smartphone app that turns your house the color of a Paris sunset, or Ambify, a $2.99 app created by a German programmer that makes the lights flash to music as in a jukebox.

That’s a very different kind of business from selling light bulbs, as Philips has done since 1891. “With the new digitization of light, we have only begun to scratch the surface on how we can control it, integrate it with other systems, and collect rich data,” says Brian Bernstein, Philips’s global head of indoor lighting systems.

Another look at how lighting systems are changing will emerge this November, when a 14-story regional headquarters for Deloitte, nearing completion in Amsterdam, will be festooned with networked LEDs in each fixture—the first such installation for Philips.

Each of 6,500 light fixtures will have an IP address and five sensors—all of them wired only to Ethernet cables. (They’ll use “power over Ethernet” technology to deliver the juice to each fixture as well as data.) The fixtures include a light sensor to dim the LEDs during the day, and a motion detector that covers the area directly beneath each light and turns the light off when no one is there. “We expect to spend 70 percent less on light, because systems [give] us much more control,” says Erik Ubels, chief information officer at Deloitte in the Netherlands. Additional sensors in the LED fixtures can monitor temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide, and heat, turning the lights into a kind of building-management system.

Prices for LEDs are high but falling quickly. A “dumb” LED that puts out as much light as a $1.25 incandescent bulb now sells for $9 (but uses one-sixth the energy and lasts much longer). That’s down from $40 each a couple of years ago. A connected LED bulb from Philips’s Hue line retails in the U.S. for $59. But these will get cheaper, too. Philips says a third of its lighting revenue now comes from LEDs, and about 1.7 percent from the newer LEDs that can connect to the Internet.

Many other uses are being explored. A department store in Dusseldorf, Germany, is using LEDs to send out light frequencies that communicate with shoppers’ smartphones. Philips has placed street lights in Barcelona that react to how many people are strolling by.

 

 

Digital Summit: Being Human in the Future

 

Intel’s chief anthropologist frames the MIT Technology Review Digital Summit by talking about the values that change, and those that don’t, as technology progresses.

 Even as the Internet of things, new interfaces, online health services, and other technological trends develop remarkably quickly, technology companies often forget that the users of these services change relatively slowly. With that observation, Genevieve Bell, the anthropologist who leads user-experience research at Intel, opened the MIT Technology Review Digital Summit today in San Francisco.

Bell told editor in chief Jason Pontin that a better appreciation of fundamental human desires–we all want to be part of a community that shares our values, for instance, and “we like to keep secrets and tell lies”–would make technologists less breathless and more honest about the potential for “smart cities,” connected cars, and other ideas that will be aired at the summit.

Here’s hoping that Bell’s way of framing technological change remains in the air throughout the summit today and tomorrow.

Three Questions with the Man Who Designed Beats’ Headphones

Robert Brunner explains how he helped make Beats’ headphones fashionable, and what other companies need to do to make wearable tech take off.

Beats Electronics, the headphone and music streaming company that Apple is buying for $3 billion, might not boast cutting-edge technology, but it’s clear that clever marketing and product design helped make the company’s products such a success.

The company’s founders, rapper Dr. Dre and music producer Jimmy Iovine, helped with marketing, but the man responsible for the design is Robert Brunner, founder of industrial design company Ammunition Group.

Brunner, a partner at Ammunition who is stepping down from his role as Beats’ chief designer due to the acquisition, spoke prior to the Apple acquisition with MIT Technology Review IT editor Rachel Metz to talk about how Beats achieved success, and about the importance design and marketing may have to wearable technology.

How do you convince people that a gadget can be a fashion accessory?

If you break Beats down, I’d say there are three things that made it work. One, we redefined audio for a very important audience: a younger audience. We said, “We’re building these headphones to be tuned to your genre of music, by the people who make that music.” So we’re creating the value there.

Then we redesigned the headphone. The headphone prior to that, when I looked at it, was kind of busy and mechanical and articulated, tied heavily to an audio culture instead of a fashion culture. So we completely rearchitected, made it more streamlined, more iconic; just better looking to wear.

And then on the marketing side it was always about pushing it in one part as sort of a movement, right? This is something you want to be part of. And then, just building it up to be aspirational, so this is where Jimmy lovine came in. He used to say, “Our marketing strategy is a lot of people owe me a lot of favors.” Which meant everybody he’s buddies with, from athletes to actors to music people, was wearing them, so it creates this aspirational thing.

What he did was make the headphone the celebrity. That’s Jimmy’s brilliance. And by contextualizing it in the way it’s presented, it creates amazing equity for the brand.

Putting headphones on your head is one thing—people are used to doing that. But it’s a lot harder with something like Google Glass, right?

Someone was asking me about Google Glass and whether it would be successful and I sort of likened it to the problem with Bluetooth headsets. That’s a wearable thing, and what happened with that is a certain class of individual immediately got associated with that, right? The Bluetool, as we called it.

So my thing with Google Glass, [and the] Glasshole thing, is instantly you’re this kind of arrogant techno-twit if you wear it. It has the potential of killing it just because of that social connotation, and that shows you how sensitive that stuff is. The wrist is a little more forgiving than your face or your head, but still it’s there. And if you want it to move into the mainstream the other piece that I think probably needs to be really ironed out well is the connectivity piece, because as you know if you use anything Bluetooth, it’s not 100 percent reliable. If you have to go in and re-pair your watch regularly, it’s not going to fly.

Do people really want to wear another device, though? It means one more gadget to keep track of and charge.

An iPad is a more limited interface, but for a certain number of things it’s perfectly adequate. So for a lot of people who bought computers for e-mail and Web browsing and games, “Oh, I’ll just get this because it’s more mobile, it’s easier,” and so forth. Well, you could see the same kind of thing happening between a phone and a watch. Let’s say with my watch I could easily make phone calls, I could easily get my messages, there’s a certain subset of things that are easier, simpler, and much more mobile, you could make that transition as well. There may be a subset of functionality on the smartphone that a bunch of people buy it for, all of a sudden it moves to the watch, and, great, I don’t have to drag this thing out of my pocket; it’s always on my wrist.

Apple to make 3-5 million smartwatches monthly, sales begin October: report

(Reuters) – Apple Inc is preparing to sell its first wearable device this October, aiming to produce 3 million to 5 million smartwatches a month in its initial run, the Nikkei reported on Friday, citing an unidentified parts supplier and sources familiar with the matter.

Specifications are still being finalized, but the devices are likely to sport curved OLED (organic light-emitting diode) displays and sensors that collect health data from blood glucose and calorie consumption to sleep activity, the Japanese news service cited industry sources as saying.

The industry has long expected Apple to unveil some sort of smartwatch, following the release of Samsung Electronics’ Galaxy Gear watches.

Wall Street is hoping to see a new Apple product this year to galvanize the former stock market darling’s share price and end a years-long drought of ground-breaking devices. CEO Tim Cook has promised “new product categories” in 2014.

Apple declined to comment.