For instance, the relationship between the Internet of Things (IoT) and business is like that. Just as there is much talk about investing in stocks but no one actually makes money from them, everyone talks about IoT these days, yet I haven't heard of anyone making a fortune with it. As a popular catchphrase from a comedy show goes, it is truly a "strange story." So, how should we interpret this strange story? Where on earth did things go wrong?

The momentum of the Internet of Things shows no signs of slowing down. In the first half of the year, the government announced plans to invest 98.9 billion won over three years in five major IoT convergence sectors, including smart homes. Furthermore, the government intends to expand the domestic market size from 2.3 trillion won to 30 trillion won, aiming to become a "leading nation in the hyper-connected digital revolution" by 2020, developing and utilizing IoT services. With a connected era expected to arrive by 2020 where 26 billion devices are "connected" (according to Gartner), this is undeniably the true "creative economy."

At this point, it is worth asking yourself: Have you made any money from the Internet of Things? Are we currently doing the Internet of Things correctly? If you cannot answer immediately, perhaps the question is wrong. Then let's rephrase the question. Perhaps your understanding of the Internet of Things is incorrect. Have you been viewing IoT merely as the sale of products?

For example, let's look at IoT, which has recently started appearing frequently in advertisements. It is said that using IoT technology, you can be immediately notified whether you left the gas on or if a burglar opened a window and entered.

So what am I supposed to do about it?

Let's say you realized you left the gas on when you left the house, and let's say you realized a burglar has broken in. Now, what should you do? Should you just call and have a fire truck and a police car sent to your house? Should we consider it fortunate if the fire does not spread and the thief waits until the fire trucks and police cars arrive?

There is something we have overlooked. Gas detectors and home CCTVs are merely "connected devices," not "IoT" itself. To be precise, IoT technology must "process data collected through devices to create meaningful and tangible repercussions." What is important is that it must "provide revenue to suppliers and clear benefits to users ," rather than focusing solely on the Internet of Things devices. Professor Kim Hak-yong of Pusan National University diagnosed at a seminar that "IoT businesses have not been successful because this simple principle has not been upheld."


Samsung Electronics introduced strategic IoT-centric products at IFA 2015.

IoT is a business term. The technologies currently discussed as IoT are technologies that have been developed and used for a long time. IoT is not some special technology that suddenly popped up out of nowhere. Perhaps that is why we assumed that we could simply develop and supply IoT products using traditional methods. Could it be that we created products consumers didn't even want, simply because the market entry barriers were low, and then claimed that the business wasn't viable?

Professor Kim stated that the answer to this problem must be found in the 'definition' of the Internet of Things. The IoT defined by the ITU-T is to provide advanced services using connected devices that utilize information and communication technology. Here, he stated that he failed to understand the true purpose of IoT, which is 'advanced services,' and instead mistook 'connected devices' for the means of IoT. Accordingly, he introduced the so-called Provice, which provides services using devices. A Provice integrated with content services would serve as one example.

Of course, his argument is likely not the first of its kind. However, his suggestion that we reconsider the definition of IoT as we know it is very useful, especially at a time when we are swept up in the massive trend of IoT and confused about what to do and how to conduct a truly 'IoT-like' business. Fortunately, IoT businesses have recently begun to yield results in fields such as boiler meter reading, intelligent building systems, smart logistics, and smart factories.

While revenue is being generated more in the enterprise sector than in the consumer sector, government-led IoT projects aimed simply at selling communication lines, as is currently done, will not work. To catch up with overseas companies that are expanding the IoT market around platforms, a different approach is required.

In other words, the reason why people fail to make money with IoT is that they blindly rushed into it without considering what consumers truly need. It is because they failed to envision the bigger picture. This is also why we need to re-examine the definition of IoT.

As an aside, I believe that the Sensor IoT Business Commercialization Outlook Seminar, which our headquarters will host on the 25th of next month, will be an opportunity to seriously consider what kind of business can be conducted in the future using sensors and sensor-based IoT platforms.