Tag Archives: Technology adoption

Every Step You Take – Smartphone Step-Trackers (TUPdate)

Every Step You Take – Smartphone Step-Trackers – a TUPdate by Dan Ness, March 24, 2017

Baby steps count, as long as they’re in the right direction.  Digital health promises positive outcomes for a wide range of people. However, like gym memberships and home treadmills, they don’t do much unless people use them. A first step for many is to use what’s handy. Most Smartphones can track a user’s steps, and many are being used for that purpose, although use isn’t as widespread as Fitness Trackers or Smartwatches.

Phone Home or Walk Home?

Using one’s Smartphone to track steps is a regular activity for 25 million, or 1 in 9, US adults. There are other ways to track one’s health. Electronics activity trackers, such as the FitBit, are being actively used by 39.6 million, or 18% of US adults.

Also, Smartwatches are in active use by 36 million adults, or 17% of all U.S. Connected Adults.

Plans to Buy a Fitness Tracker

The strongest plans to purchase a fitness tracker are among adults who are already actively counting their steps. One-sixth (16%) of adults who are currently tracking their steps using a Smartphone are planning to buy a Fitness Tracker in the next 12 months. Fitness Tracker purchase plans are much smaller among Smartphone users who aren’t already using it to track their steps. Purchase plans are even smaller among adults who do not currently use a Smartphone.

Active Usage and Plans to Buy a Fitness Tracker – Age-related (in part)

The highest usage rates for electronic activity trackers is among older millennials, age 28-35, with nearly one-third (32%) actively using one. The shouldering cohorts have lower user rates that are identical with each other – 20%. Each older age group has a lower usage rate.

The pattern is different for tracking steps using a Smartphone. Younger adults, especially Younger Millennials, have the highest usage rates. Nearly one-in-five (19%) of Younger Millennials (age 18-27) use a Smartphone to track their steps. Slightly fewer (15%) of Older Millennials (age 28-35) do, and even fewer (11%) of GenX (age 36-51) do.

Purchase plans follow a similar pattern of being age-related, with younger adults having stronger plans than older adults.

There are many reasons for the difference in age interest between Fitness Trackers and Smartphones. One factor is the persistent wobbliness between BOB and SAK in tech. BOB means Best of Breed, which includes focused-function devices or services which focus on being the best in their class for a narrow set of capabilities. SAK refers to the Swiss Army Knife approach, integrating a broad range of adequate capabilities into a device or service. Over the last three decades of tech research, our research shows a constantly shifting balance between the adoption of BOB versus SAK, and for all kinds of technology products and services.

Separate wearables dedicated to fitness have the charm of being stylish accessories, of more appeal to younger adults. Also, any adults more athletic than their older counterparts will value the accuracy of dedicated fitness tracker, whether that additional accuracy is actual or perceived. Cost is a factor to some extent, as these younger adults don’t have the financial means of the next-older age cohort. Younger Millennials have the highest unemployment rates (10%), student rates (30%), and part-time employment rates (19%) of any of the age cohorts. Their full-time employment rate (29%) is nearly half that of Older Millennials (56%).

Looking ahead

Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches, although both Wearables, are not exactly in the same category. Fitness tracker makers would argue they are different in accuracy, health tracking beyond steps such as pulse rates, lower cost, or with design that’s more clearly oriented towards fitness. Purchase plans are similar, though, with 6% of U.S. Connected Adults planning by buy a Fitness Tracker in the coming 12 months, and 7% planning to buy a Smartwatch. What’s interesting is that the majority of those planning to acquire either type of device are employed full-time or part-time.

Perhaps some savvy marketers will join forces with employers oriented towards supporting their employee’s health, and support the many with healthy intentions. Whether supported or not, we expect digital health to reach further into the lives of Connected Adults, as an increasing number of devices offer metrics that matter.

About this TUPdate

This TUPdate includes a complimentary brief summary of recent MetaFacts TUP (Technology User Profile) research results. These results are based on the most-recent results of the MetaFacts Technology User Profile 2016 survey, its 34th wave, with 7,334 respondents (US). For more information about MetaFacts and subscribing to TUP, please contact MetaFacts.

Resources

Current TUP subscribers can tap into any of the following TUP information used for this analysis or for even deeper analysis.
This TUPdate was based on results in the TUP Chapter – Consumer Electronics, Section WEAR/Wearables, Hearables, Listening and Speaking.

Related MetaFAQs

The following related MetaFAQs address questions included in this TUPdate.

mq0118 Who is already wearing wearable technology? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [120 DRxWEAR] Respondent Demographics
mq0124 Is there an age skew for using a Smartwatch? Chapter: A User Profile  Section: A4-AGE/Age Ranges  Tables: [480 CExAGE] Consumer Electronics
mq0132 Is there an age skew for those using a Smartphone to track their steps? Chapter: A User Profile  Section: A4-AGE/Age Ranges  Tables: [480 CExAGE] Consumer Electronics
mq0169 Is there an age skew for using wearable activity trackers, such as a FitBit? Chapter: A User Profile  Section: A4-AGE/Age Ranges  Tables: [480 CExAGE] Consumer Electronics
mq0260 Are tech wearers bigger or lower tech spenders? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [790 SPENDxWEAR] Tech Spending
mq0335 Are tech wearers more or less socially active? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [230 SNSxWEAR] Social Networkers
mq0374 Are tech wearers earlier Desktop, Notebook, or Smartphone adopters? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [160 ADOPTxWEAR] Technology Adoption
mq0375 Are tech wearers early adopters? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [160 ADOPTxWEAR] Technology Adoption
mq0393 Do technology wearers use more or fewer CE products? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [480 CExWEAR] Consumer Electronics
mq0395 Do technology wearers use more or fewer connected devices? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [490 UNITSxWEAR] Units
mq0424 Are tech wearers more or less active with their devices than others? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [540 ACTxWEAR] Activities
mq0425 Are tech wearers using more-mobile tech products? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I1-WEAR/Wearable Technology  Tables: [250 DEV_KEYxWEAR] Key Device Metrics
mq0710 Do Smartwatch users use voice assistants at a higher rate than average? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I3-VOICEASST/Voice Assistance  Tables: [480 CExVOICEASST] Consumer Electronics

 

 

Comments Off on Every Step You Take – Smartphone Step-Trackers (TUPdate)

Filed under Demographics & Econographics, Fitness Trackers, Market Research, Personal and Productivity, Smartphones, Smartwatches, TUP 2016, TUPdate, Usage Patterns

How Do (They) Love Thee? Follow Their Brand Footprints

How Do (They) Love Thee? Follow Their Brand Footprints – a TUPdate by Dan Ness, March 17, 2017

“How Do I Love Thee? Let me count the ways.” So begins the 43rd of Elizabeth Browning’s Sonnets from the Portuguese. After more than 160 years, this poetry still inspires.
This classic poem seems fitting for a research-based understanding of customer loyalty and, well, mutual loyalty and love. One might hope that love and loyalty would flow in both directions – between customers and company – and in turn would result in more delighted customers, better products and services, and more customers actively using more of a brand’s offerings. In addition to brand footprint measures such as market size and intensity, MetaFacts measures the shape, loyalty, and quality of technology users.

Apple’s Intensity Up and To the Right

Apple’s customers now rank highest in average number of Apple devices, an elemental measure of brand footprint, reflecting in part the intensity of customer’s involvement. When customers use more than one of a brand’s offerings, it reflects the value customers see and their depth of customer loyalty. Based on our most recent wave of Technology User Profile (TUP), Apple’s customers are actively using an average of 2.18 devices, spanning Macs, iPhones, iPads, an Apple TV box, Apple Watch, or some combination. Only one year earlier, our TUP 2015 wave reported that Apple’s device average was effectively on par with the footprint of Microsoft Windows devices.
Between 2014 and 2016, HP and Google Android/Chrome OS devices have seen their customer’s active device averages erode as Apple’s has gained. This is due in part to consumers abandoning older Google Android Tablets. Dell’s average rose slightly in 2015, only to sag slightly by 2016.

Breadth Coupled With Intensity

Breadth of usage, or market penetration, is another dimension of brand footprint. Coupled with intensity – as expressed by the average number of actively-used devices – a more complete view is clearer.

In market breadth and intensity, Windows devices are head and shoulders above other brands. Windows is in the upper-right quadrant for both measures. The long-time established brand continues to have the largest number of active users and above-average mean number of actively-used devices.
Apple stands out for having a market penetration on par with tech majors HP, Google, and Dell, yet with a strongly higher usage intensity. Their fewer, if mightier, customers have more Apple products than any other platform. In a quadrant to themselves, Apple’s expansion in active usage sets the stage for additional expanded offerings to their loyal customers, ranging from devices to subscription services.

The Brand Footprint Mix

The Apple brand has, for most of its history, been a specialized brand, purposely positioned as “different”. This skimming strategy has been well-supported by Apple’s focus on proprietary integration over standards managed by others. Apple’s current brand footprint robust when looking at the total number of devices in use as well as the balance of products in its actively-used mix. Google’s Android/Chrome mix is similarly broad, yet is smaller. Among US technology users, Google is playing a me-too catchup game to Apple’s broadly balanced acceptance.

HP’s and Dell’s brand footprints are composed of two product types, demonstrating what might be alternatively called a disciplined focus or a lack of diverse breadth. HP’s persistent dominance in Printers is unrivaled by Dell, or competitors Epson, Canon, or Brother. Dell’s footprint in PCs is only slightly larger than HP’s.
The strength of the Windows brand footprint is based on PCs. Only recently have Windows Tablets started making their mark, and promise to continue to challenge Apple’s dominant iPad and Google’s 2nd-ranked Tablets . Windows Smartphones are on the way out, with a usage base declining in the face of Apple iOS and Android.
HP solidly dominates Printer usage. While years ago Dell challenged HP when it entered the printer business, Dell’s current brand footprint is puny in comparison. HP’s PC business, while nearly equal to Dell’s, is similarly being challenged by Apple’s broadening usage.
Apple’s entire brand footprint is benefitting from recent acceptance of two newish categories – smart watches and TV boxes. Although Google is on par with Apple in these categories, collectively these products are expanding Apple’s footprint into users they otherwise haven’t reached.

Looking ahead

It takes much more than a brand halo to convert fickle customers into loyal ones. Much effort goes into the design, manufacturing, distribution, promotion, and integration of products and services.
While Apple and Google are working hard to further their OS against Windows, smoother integration can attract and hold customers longer than an OS alone. Presently, Apple’s MacOS and iOS aren’t fully compatible, a difference which may become more important to the growing number of Apple customers actively using both iPads and Macs. Google’s Android and Chrome OS offerings face a similar conundrum, with even less OS consistency due to the many versions in active use.
Beyond OS ecosystems, technology companies are also seeking other ways of winning groups of customers. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft and joining Apple in racing to be the user’s choice for a voice assisted experience. Amazon’s recent release of Alexa on iOS is Amazon’s bid to establish dominance among voice assistants, and helping to support not only Amazon’s shopping footprint, but also their many other gateway products such as the Amazon Echo or Dot.
Pragmatically speaking, what matters is having customers and that they use many of a brand’s products and services. Measuring brand footprint by penetration and intensity are suitable metrics to measure market success both in size and quality. These metrics may be better than waiting for customers to compose love poems of “the depth and breadth and height” of their ardor for the brand.

About this TUPdate

This TUPdate includes a complimentary brief summary of recent MetaFacts TUP (Technology User Profile) research results. These results are based on the most-recent results of the MetaFacts Technology User Profile 2016 survey, its 34th wave, with 7,334 respondents (US), as well as two previous waves. For more information about MetaFacts and subscribing to TUP, please contact MetaFacts.

Resources

Current TUP subscribers can tap into any of the following TUP information used for this analysis or for even deeper analysis.
This TUPdate was based on results in the TUP Chapter – Devices, Section FOOT/Brand Footprint and Section DEV_ECO/Device Ecosystems from TUP 2014, TUP 2015, and TUP 2016. Other related results include Section VOICEASST – Voice Assistant in TUP 2016 Chapter – Wearables, Hearables, Listening and Speaking.

Related MetaFAQs

The following related MetaFAQs address questions included in this TUPdate.

MetaFAQs Question TUP Reference
mq0004 Who are the biggest spenders – Apple’s, Dell’s, HP’s, or Google’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [790 SPENDxFOOT] Tech Spending
mq0008 How much does the HP printer footprint overlap Canon, Epson, and Brother? Chapter: K Printers  Section: K2-PRH_BRANDS/Home Printer Brands  Tables: [411 PR1xPRH_BRANDS] Printer #1
mq0022 How many Apple iPhone users have older iPhones or contracts? Chapter: H Mobile Phones  Section: H2-SP1/Smartphone #1  Tables: [390 SPxSP1] Smartphones
mq0044 How does the mix of device activities vary between Apple’s, Google’s, HP’s, and Dell’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [570 ACT_COMMxFOOT] Communication Activities
mq0052 How does the mix of device activities vary between Apple’s, Google’s, HP’s, and Dell’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [610 ACT_CLOUDxFOOT] Cloud Storage/Sharing Activities
mq0135 Are the highest share of Millennials in Apple’s footprint, Google’s, or Dell’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [120 DRxFOOT] Respondent Demographics
mq0142 How demographically similar are Apple’s best customers to Google’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [120 DRxFOOT] Respondent Demographics
mq0151 Who have the most Connected Devices – Apple’s best customers, Google’s, HP’s, or Dell’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [490 UNITSxFOOT] Units
mq0182 Which brand footprint has the highest share of full-time-employeds? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [120 DRxFOOT] Respondent Demographics
mq0248 Who has the newest Smartphones – Apple’s best customers or Google’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [390 SPxFOOT] Smartphones
mq0258 How does the mix of devices differ between HP’s, Apple’s, Dell’s, Google’s, and LG’s footprint? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [250 DEV_KEYxFOOT] Key Device Metrics
mq0264 Who’s most likely to have an Apple iPhone – HP’s best customers or Dell’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [390 SPxFOOT] Smartphones
mq0272 How demographically similar are Apple’s best customers to Google’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [130 DHxFOOT] Household Demographics
mq0285 Are newer Smartphones used differently than older Smartphones? Chapter: H Mobile Phones  Section: H2-SP1/Smartphone #1  Tables: [390 SPxSP1] Smartphones
mq0325 Who have the most Windows devices – Apple’s best customers or Google’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [270 DEVxFOOT] Devices
mq0326 Which products do Apple’s best customers have fewer of? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [250 DEV_KEYxFOOT] Key Device Metrics
mq0334 Are Apple’s best customers more or less likely than average to be using a Workplace PC? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [280 PCxFOOT] PCs
mq0340 Do Apple’s best customers use their PCs for more or fewer hours than average PC users? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [280 PCxFOOT] PCs
mq0344 Who has the biggest purchase intentions – Apple’s or Google’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [810 PLANSxFOOT] Purchase Plans
mq0353 How does the mix of Connected Devices vary by Brand Footprint? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [490 UNITSxFOOT] Units
mq0356 Are Dell’s or HP’s customers more likely to have a Smartphone? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [250 DEV_KEYxFOOT] Key Device Metrics
mq0476 How far have Tablets penetrated HP’s and Dell’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [340 TABxFOOT] Tablet PCs
mq0680 How does the Smartphone OS share vary by age of PC? Chapter: X Custom  Section: X-CUSTOM/Custom  Tables: [390 SPxCUSTOM] Smartphones
mq0698 Which are used more often for a Voice Assistant, iPhones or Android Smartphones? Chapter: I Wearables, Hearables, Listening & Speaking  Section: I3-VOICEASST/Voice Assistance  Tables: [250 DEV_KEYxVOICEASST] Key Device Metrics
mq0004 Who are the biggest spenders – Apple’s, Dell’s, HP’s, or Google’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [790 SPENDxFOOT] Tech Spending
mq0008 How much does the HP printer footprint overlap Canon, Epson, and Brother? Chapter: K Printers  Section: K2-PRH_BRANDS/Home Printer Brands  Tables: [411 PR1xPRH_BRANDS] Printer #1
mq0022 How many Apple iPhone users have older iPhones or contracts? Chapter: H Mobile Phones  Section: H2-SP1/Smartphone #1  Tables: [390 SPxSP1] Smartphones
mq0044 How does the mix of device activities vary between Apple’s, Google’s, HP’s, and Dell’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [570 ACT_COMMxFOOT] Communication Activities
mq0052 How does the mix of device activities vary between Apple’s, Google’s, HP’s, and Dell’s best customers? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [610 ACT_CLOUDxFOOT] Cloud Storage/Sharing Activities
mq0135 Are the highest share of Millennials in Apple’s footprint, Google’s, or Dell’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [120 DRxFOOT] Respondent Demographics
mq0142 How demographically similar are Apple’s best customers to Google’s? Chapter: D Devices  Section: D4-FOOT/Brand Footprint  Tables: [120 DRxFOOT] Respondent Demographics

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Desktops, Devices, Market Research, Market Sizing, Mobile Phones, Notebooks, Operating systems, Smartphones, Tablets, TUP 2016, TUPdate

Inexorable Device Trends – Beyond the Niche, Fad, and Fizzle

Inexorable Device Trends – Beyond the Niche, Fad, and Fizzle – a TUPdate by Dan Ness, March 10, 2017

It can be exciting to see the hockey-stick charts, with everything up and to the right. It’s important to put the numbers into context, though, through a more grounded analysis of the active installed base. Yes, Apple’s long-climb into broader use of their triumvirate is substantial, Smartphones are quickly replacing basic cell phones, and PCs and Printers persist. Their market size confirms their importance.

We humans are wired to notice change. Our very eyes send more information about motion than background. While life-saving should tigers head our way, this capability can be our undoing if we miss gradual changes, like the slithering snake in the grass creeping towards us. Watching an installed base of technology has some parallels. For some, it can seem as if nothing is really changing even while important shifts are taking place.

For over 35 years, I have tracked technology usage trends and profiles, all calibrated by watching customers through surveys such as our Metafacts Technology User Profile. Among other truisms, I’ve seen that true technology trends aren’t sudden. Solid trends are the summation of the habits, preferences, and activities of millions of technology users. They’re inescapable, inexorable, and years in the making. Trends become truly important when they’ve spread beyond being a niche, fad, or fizzle, and reached beyond those first few early adopters.

In this analysis, I’m diving into several key broad dominant trends in technology device usage across American adults. In separate analyses, I’ll drill deeper into the next level of TUP data, revealing which market segments are making the most decisive changes. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Basic cell phones, Consumer research, Desktops, Devices, Market Sizing, Mobile Phones, Notebooks, Operating systems, Printers, Smartphones, Trends, TUP 2016, TUPdate

What is the penetration of home-owned computing devices? (MetaFAQs)

Mobile phones dominate home-owned connected devices as the ones used by the greatest number of U.S. adults. As of our MetaFacts TUP 2016 US survey, 87% of U.S. adults used a smartphone or basic cell phone that was home-owned. Slightly trailing mobile phones, 81% of adults use a home PC. Media tablets are a distant third place, at 63% of U.S. adults.

MetaFacts defines home-owned devices as those which were acquired with personal funds. As released in our other MetaFacts TUP research, a substantial share of U.S. adults also use employer-provided, self-employment, school-owned, public, or other devices which are owned by someone other than themselves.metafacts-mq0137-250-dev_key-2017-02-22_09-32-36

Within mobile phones, home-owned smartphones outnumber home-owned basic cell phones, with nearly two-thirds (72%) of U.S. adults using a smartphone and just over one-fourth (27%) using a basic cell phone.

Among home PCs, desktops and Microsoft Windows PCs dominate. Home notebooks have grown to reach almost half (49%) of U.S. adults. Although the tech-savvy consider Windows XP and Vista PCs to be passé and even dangerously unprotected from malware, 4% of U.S. adults are still actively using Home PCs with these operating systems. While adoption of tech products can often be rapid, retirement of older technology from the active installed base can take much longer than many may expect. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Basic cell phones, Consumer research, Convertibles, Desktops, Devices, e-Book Readers, Market Research, Market Sizing, MetaFAQs, Mobile Phones, Multiple Devices, Notebooks, Smartphones, Statistics, Tablets, TUP 2016

Are most hearables being used by young males? (MetaFAQs)

Wireless headsets have been available for more than a decade, and are strongest among two age and gender groups. These hearables-active groups are also have above-average shares of VR Headset early adopters.metafacts-metafaqs-mq0100-120drxhear-2017-02-13_08-31-37

The strongest segments for active hearables use include younger males – age 18-44 and youngish females – age 25-34. Penetration is above one in four among males 25-34 (27%) and among males age 35-44 (26%). Among females, hearables usage peaks among females age 25-34, at 15%.

Looking ahead, we expect these same age & gender groups to continue as the strongest users of hearables, and don’t expect other segments to be as keen on hearables.

Continue reading

Comments Off on Are most hearables being used by young males? (MetaFAQs)

Filed under Communication, Demographics & Econographics, Entertainment, Forward-Leaning, MetaFAQs, Mobile Phones, Smartphones, TUP 2016, Usage Patterns, Video calling