It is not yet clear how smart home technologies and applications will actually be accepted as part of our everyday lives. In this research, the thoughts of 248 people about smart homes were collected by interviews and with an Internet survey in Europe and Asia. It was found that people have very versatile thoughts about what the term “smart home” means in practice and when smart houses will become part of our daily lives. The Asian answerers can be considered to be slightly more optimistic about the schedule. The majority of the answerers were found to be interested in versatile smart home applications and willing to live in a smart house. The cost can be considered to be their biggest worry and the Asian answerers were found to be more worried about the reliability, practicability, and cost than the answerers from Europe. Also some privacy concerns were found from both the European and the Asian answerers.
References
[1]
Libelium (2012) 50 Internet of Things Applications. http://www.libelium.com/top_50_iot_sensor_applications_ranking
[2]
Guo, B., Zhang, D. and Wang, Z. (2011) Living with Internet of Things: The Emergence of Embedded Intelligence. Internet of Things (iThings/CPSCom).
[3]
Virkki, J. (2013) Finnish Perspectives for the IOT. American Journal of Networks and Communications, 2, 23-27.
[4]
Mayer, P., Volland, D., Thiesse, F. and Fleisch, E. (2011) User Acceptance of “Smart Products”: An Empirical Investigation. Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings, Paper 9.
[5]
Gao, L.L. and Bai, X.S. (2014) A Unified Perspective on the Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance of Internet of Things Technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26, 211-231.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2013-0061
[6]
Kowatsch, T. and Maass, W. (2012) Privacy Concerns and Acceptance of IoT Services. The Internet of Things 2012— New Horizons, IERC Cluster Book, Halifax.
[7]
Wang, H., Yan, Y., Hu, Z. and Zhang, Y. (2011) Consumer Acceptance of IOT Technologies in China: An Exploratory Study. International Conference on Technology Education (ICTE), Chengdu, 23-25 July 2011, 2430-2435.
[8]
Aldrich, F. (2003) Smart Homes: Past, Present and Future, In: Harper, R., Ed., Inside the Smart Home, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 17-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-85233-854-7_2
[9]
Saizmaa, T. and Hee-Cheol, K. (2008) Smart Home Design: Home or House? International Conference on Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology, Busan, 11-13 November 2008, 143-148.
[10]
Choe, E.K., Consolvo, S., Jung, J., Harrison, B. and Kientz, J.A. (2011) Living in a Glass House: A Survey of Private Moments in the Home. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, ACM, New York, 41-44.
[11]
Solove, D.J. (2006) A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154, Paper No. 129.
[12]
Balta-Ozkan, N., Davidson, R., Bicket, M. and Whitmarsh, L. (2013) Social Barriers to the Adoption of Smart Homes. Energy Policy, 63, 363-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043
[13]
Ziefle, M., Rocker, C. and Holzinger, A. (2011) Perceived Usefulness of Assistive Technologies and Electronic Services for Ambient Assisted Living. Proceedings of the 5th International ICST Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies, Dublin, 23-26 May 2011, CD-ROM.
[14]
Gaul, S. and Ziefle, M. (2009) Smart Home Technologies: Insights into Generation-Specific Acceptance Motives, HCI and Usability for e-Inclusion. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5889, 312-332.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10308-7_22
[15]
Rothensee, M. (2008) User Acceptance of the Intelligent Fridge: Empirical Results from a Simulation. The Internet of Things. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4952, 123-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78731-0_8
[16]
Virkki, J. and Chen, L. (2013) Personal Perspectives: Individual Privacy in the IOT. Advances in Internet of Things, 3, 21-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ait.2013.32003
[17]
Rothensee, M. and Spiekermann, S. (2008) Between Extreme Rejection and Cautious Acceptance, Consumers’ Reactions to RFID-Based IS in Retail. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 75-86.
