m2m applications platforms report 2014

7/24/2019 m2m Applications Platforms Report 2014

1/11

IHS TECHNOLOGY INSIGHT REPORT

M2M application platforms 2014December 2014 ihs.com

ContactsSam Lucero, Sr. Principal [email protected]

IHS TM TECHNOLOGYCopyright notice and legal disclaimer 2014 IHS. No portion of this report may be reproduced, reused, or otherwise distributed in any form without prior written consent, with theexception of any internal client distribution as may be permitted in the license agreement between client and IHS. Content reproduced orredistributed with IHS permission must display IHS l egal notices and attributions of authorship. The information contained herein is f rom sourcesconsidered reliable but its accuracy and completeness are not warranted, nor are the opinions and analyses which are based upon it, and to theextent permitted by law, IHS shall not be liable for any errors or omissions or any loss, damage or expense incurred by reliance on information orany statement contained herein. For more information, please contact IHS at [email protected], +1 800 IHS CARE (from North Americanlocations), or +44 (0) 1344 328 300 (from outside North America) .

A fragmented market starts to consolidate

Sam Lucero , Senior Principal Analyst

This report assesses the market for M2M application platforms (MAPs), including the vendor/provider competitivelandscape, key adoption trends, and market forecasts presented in US dollar revenues for the period from 2013 to 2018.IHS defines MAPs as primarily cloud-based services that facilitate and optimize device management and applicationdevelopment and management for M2M use-cases. MAPs enable developers to abstract common features andfunctionalities that are common across many M2M applications and focus more on features and functionalities that willdifferentiate their products and services in the market. MAPs differ from the related concept of M2M connection platforms (MCPs) in that MAPs focus on management of the remote device and facilitating application development,while MCPs focus on management of the cellular connection to the device.

Key judgements IHS forecasts that the MAP market will grow from about $225 million in 2013 to over $725 million in 2018.

Regionally, market growth has come primarily from North America and Europe. IHS predicts that these two regions willcontinue to comprise a majority of the market throughout the forecast period. However, other regions will likely alsoexperience high growth from small base volumes in 2013.

Most MAP revenue over the forecast period will come from the use of MAPs to develop and deploy asset managementapplications for a variety of niche remote monitoring use-cases. Businesses in more vertically integrated applicationsegments have been slower to adopt MAPs as application service providers (ASPs) in these segments view applicationdevelopment as a core competency.

Although MAPs have traditionally focused on enabling device management and vertically integrated applications, there isa growing trend toward enabling Internet of Things (IoT) functionality. IHS defines IoT functionality, in part, as enablingheterogeneous sources and users of data.

Several intermediate stages of innovation towards IoT are occurring. These include bringing the app store concept toM2M platforms, and enabling social M2M applications, both in the sense of mashing up M2M data with social mediadata streams, as well as providing remote devices with virtual, digital profiles.

There are approximately 40 MAP vendors at present and it is likely that this large base of vendors will consolidate overthe next few years. In particular, IHS predicts pure play MAP software vendors will experience the most pressure toconsolidate.

A number of standardization and open sourcing efforts are underway, including those from oneM2M, the Eclipse

Foundation, the AllSeen Alliance, the Open Interconnect Consortium, and IEEE P2413. These efforts will both help tofacilitate market development as well as increase pricing pressure on MAP vendors.


2/11

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

2014 IHS 2 December 2014

M2M application platforms (MAPs) traditionally focus on device management andapplication enablement

M2M application platforms (MAPs) currently focus on one of two areas: device management or application

enablement. Device management includes features such as monitoring the status of the remote device, downloadingnew firmware to the device, and troubleshooting the device. Application enablement provides capabilities such asapplication development, managing application rules and alerts, and integrating the application into larger enterprise ITsystems.

Most MAP offerings do not focus exclusively on one or the other of these two areas, however. MAPs generallyconcentrate on one area while including aspects of the second area. Modem makers are the typical providers of MAPsthat focus on device management. These modem makers provide routers and gateways and include companies such asCalAmp (Connect), Digi International (Device Cloud by Etherios | The Social Machine), and Multi-Tech Systems(CoreCDP). Their goal is to lower barriers to adoption of their hardware by making management of the devices easier.

Independent software vendors (ISVs) are the typical providers of MAPs focused on application enablement. SuchMAPs reduce the complexity of developing and managing M2M applications in a heterogeneous hardwareenvironment. Such vendors include 2lemetry, Cumulocity, and Axeda.

Cellular core network infrastructure vendors also typically provide MAPs that focus on application enablement.Vendors such as Alcatel-Lucent (Motive), NEC (Connexive), and Ericsson (Connected Vehicle Cloud; a variation on aMAP with a specific focus on automotive telematics) are all remote device agnostic.

Finally, M2M-focused MVNOs are also increasingly moving up the value stack and offering MAPs in addition toconnectivity. These providers, including Aeris (AerCloud), Numerex (FAST), and RACO Wireless (DevCloud), alsofocus on application enablement.

Should MAP vendors combine device management and application enablement in

the same platform?IHS does not believe that MAP vendors need to combine device management and application enablement in the same platform. Nevertheless, some vendors have chosen to combine these two functions. For example, Digi Internationalacquired Etherios to add The Social Machine (application enablement) to the Device Cloud (device management).However, there is a natural fault line between device management and application enablement. The device vendor isnot the only possible provider of device management functionality for the vendors devices, but most device vendorsare seeking to offer device management functionality for their products.

In addition to the obvious desire for device vendors to reduce barriers to using their products, it is beneficial to enable aheterogeneous device environment in M2M deployments. While new or smaller-sized deployments may relyexclusively on one device vendor, few application developers will want to accept vendor lock-in in terms of theremote modem devices they can deploy. IHS understands that the Digi International approach will permit aheterogeneous remote device environment.

Splitting device management from application enablement poses few technical difficulties, in the estimation of IHS.Different platforms from different vendors can typically work together, although the vendors will need to cooperate tomake this happen. There is already an analogous platform partnering model in place: many MAPs already integratewith leading M2M connection platforms (MCPs) from providers such as Jasper, Ericsson as well as various MVNOs,in order to provide single screen SIM and cellular connectivity management functionality as part of the overallmanagement of an application.


3/11



Finally, splitting device management from application enablement provides for the possibility of best-of-breedselectivity for application developers. First, device vendors can provide the best device management experience fortheir own devices. In a heterogeneous device environment, an application developer will want to manage each set of avendors devices with that vendors device management platform. Similarly, abstracting device management of devicesfrom the development and management of the application itself may provide access to innovation from vendorsfocused on M2M/IoT at a system level, rather than at a device management level.

Application stores represent the final stage in abstracting non-core functionality awayfrom application developers

MAPs traditionally target M2M applications that are developed, deployed and managed as standalone siloes: all aspectsof the application, from the remote devices in the field to the application software at the head-end, are self-containedand fit-for-purpose. Third-party MAPs help to reduce development costs and complexity by removing the need for theapplication developer to custom design those aspects of the application that benefit from the MAPs features andfunctionality.

More recently, the M2M market has been shifting away from closed application models to more open andheterogeneous environments, taking cues from the mainstream smartphone and internet industries. Application storesare one means of helping developers to more rapidly adopt, configure and deploy features alongside their coreapplications. Examples of MAP vendors providing such application stores include: CalAmp, Multi-Tech Systems, andRACO Wireless.

As with smartphone app stores, these M2M application stores will enable application developers to quickly identifyand download/integrate M2M applications (or services) to their core application. These capabilities remove the need tocustom design and develop every aspect of business logic for the application. Instead, the developer can concentrate onthose aspects of business logic that are truly a differentiating factor in the market.

Initially, MAP vendors will populate their application stores with their own applications. Over time, IHS expects thatvendors will open their stores to third-party app developers. Essentially, application stores abstract away from thedeveloper the last remaining pieces of the application that are not a core competency or differentiation. These piecesrepresent finished business logic on top of the devices, services, and platforms that developers currently can sourcefrom third-party vendors. This concludes a process that started with modems (to abstract radio development), moved toM2M-tailored connectivity services, and then shifted to MAPs (to abstract underlying device management andapplication development and management).

In particular, opening up the application stores to third-party application developers should help to encourageinnovation in the market in the same manner that smartphone app stores have helped to expand the capabilities andappeal of smartphones to consumers. This shift to true Internet of Things (IoT) enablement platforms (described later inthis report) will further leverage third-party app developer innovation.

MAPs will enable social M2M applications

An important step towards the Internet of Things (IoT) is the ability to mashup data from connected devicesand M2M applications with other forms and sources of data. Initially, MAP vendors are enabling this ability intwo distinct ways. First, some MAPs are providing the ability to mashup machine data with social media datafeeds. Digi Internationals The Social Machine platform is a prime example of this trend. The Social Machineessentially becomes part of a SalesForce.com customer relationship management (CRM) implementationand enables a user to gain a more comprehensive view of the customer experience by integrating customer


4/11



machine performance data with inputs from customer input via social media channels. IHS believes otherMAP vendors also want to offer mashups with social media feeds, as well.

Second, some MAP vendors are enabling every device to have a digital identity in the same way thatpeople have an online profile with services such as Facebook. In fact, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO ofFacebook, stated at a January 2014 meeting of the Open Compute Project that Facebook itself should serveas an underlying platform for the Internet of Things. MAP vendors taking this approach include:EVRYTHNG, MachineShop, and Xively.

Internet of Things (IoT) enablement is an important new strategy for MAP vendors

One of the prime concepts of the IoT is applications discovering and using services and data from third-partyapplications and devices (when allowed). Industry will have to resolve numerous security and business model issues before this can happen on a large scale. Simply enabling device discovery and connection is a more fundamentalchallenge in the near term.

Most M2M and IoT deployments today are vertically integrated silos, often custom built and operated by oneorganization for a specific purpose, with no interaction with third-party applications and devices. Consequently, manyecosystem efforts focus on disaggregating the layers of these silos so that platform vendors and value-added service providers can offer common building blocks to application developers. These efforts enable the application developersto stop working on the plumbing and focus on their core competencies and differentiation.

Enabling access to third-party data sources occurs along a spectrum, as follows:

Open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs): Developers make application-programming interfaces available fortheir applications and devices. A third party can then work with the developer directly to integrate a third-party applicationwith the initial application. This approach is not very scalable, as each integration effort requires the two parties to worktogether directly.

Catalogs: Listings of publicly available APIs are a recent innovation related to open APIs. Companies such asConnect2.me, Thingful and ThingSpeak provide open API directories. While useful, these also suffer from the scalabilityissue, because third-party developers are still responsible for finding and connecting with relevant applications, servicesand devices.

Closed ecosystems: Platform vendors open their platforms to third-party developers and serve as one-to-manyintermediaries between the different devices and services in their ecosystems. Currently, this happens mostly in the smarthome market. Google (Nest) and Apple (HomeKit) have both recently announced high-profile strategies in this area. Thisapproach more scalable, but limited to and by the market reach and control of the platform provider.

Standards: A number of standards exist or are in development for wireline, short-range wireless and cellular-based M2Mand IoT applications. These range from Z-wave and ZigBee to the developing OneM2M effort. While standards representa robust way to ensure interoperability, they rely on the exact discovery methods enabled by the standard. Developersmust also comply with such standards and interoperability concerns that have plagued ZigBee for years, for example.

Open-source software: Open-source software is a step beyond the what to do of standards to the how to do it.Efforts such as Eclipse M2M and the AllSeen Alliance provide an actual code base for developers to use. Eclipse M2M isa more traditional, vertically integrated approach. It provides frameworks, protocols and tools, but it is up to the developerto synthesize these into an application. The degree of interoperability between applications varies as a result. HyperCat

provides a lightweight specification for automated discovery, based on currently available open-source software.


5/11



IoT enablement leading to data brokering and data federation

The next step in creating a true Internet of Things platform is providing secure data brokering and data federation tomultiple third-party applications/users of data. While MAP vendors report that socializing data sources and enablingthe mashup of multiple types and sources of data is happening now in the market, most vendors regard data brokeringas a very recent development with little current traction in the market as of October 2014.

For data brokering and data federation to happen at a large scale, significant challenges must be resolved. First, theecosystem must ensure security and privacy, both for the owner of the data source and for the third-party user of thatdata. Security is a general overarching challenge for the IoT and, indeed, larger IT industry at present. IHS believes theindustry is moving away from the idea of perimeter-based security to defense-in-depth, i.e. security at multiple layersof the solution. This will increasingly involve hardware-based security in the remote device or modem, based on chip-enabled secure elements, security of the network and transport layers, and security within the data center as well. Also,IoT applications will need to focus on the physical security of remotely-deployed devices. In general, the IoTrepresents an expanded threat surface for application developers and users and the industry is still grappling with howto resolve this challenge.

Second, how will third-party users of data compensate owners of data sources for access to their data? Today, ownersof data sources usually do not incur the cost of deploying remote infrastructure in order to sell that data to third parties.The variability among M2M and IoT applications in terms of data types, frequency, level of criticality and so on willfurther complicate the development of commonly accepted economical and practical compensation schemes.

The compensation challenge may resolve itself over time as owners of data start their deployments with the specificidea of re-selling the resulting data flows to third parties calculated into the overall business case. For example, thereare suggestions in the M2M ecosystem that at least some usage-based insurance (UBI) deployments have struggled toreturn a positive investment. In such cases, the low hanging fruit for developing compensation schemes could be inexplicitly providing an additional revenue stream to the data owner to enable a positive business case.

This is likely to happen first in industries that do not view their data as a proprietary competitive advantage. Forexample, one fleet management company resells meteorological data collected from sensors on long-haul trucks to theUS National Weather Service. Weather data is unlikely to be a competitive differentiator for the fleet managementcompany and so is a saleable product rather than a confidential asset.

Cloud provisioning is the main MAP delivery model, but software-licensing models doexist

Provisioning MAP functionality as a cloud service is by far the most common delivery model. Enterprise customersgenerally find this an easier way to utilize MAP functionality. However, in some industries where a high degree of

security and privacy is required, as in healthcare, some enterprise customers may prefer to have the MAP delivered as asoftware instance on their own internal servers. Likewise, some very larger multinational customers decide it is moreefficient for them to run a MAP software instance internally in their own data centers, rather than to subscribe to anexternal cloud service.

MNOs are also an important customer and partner for MAP vendors. In almost all cases, MNOs want a MAP softwareinstance running on their own internal data centers for the services that the MNOs then provide to their own end-customers. Particularly in Europe, MNOs re-selling a MAP cloud service to their enterprise customers want the MAPinstance running directly in the MNO data center. This model helps to ensure enterprise customers and nationalgovernments that data is secure and kept within national borders.


6/11



There are too many MAP vendors currently and the market will consolidate

IHS is tracking approximately 40 MAP vendors at present (not including the large information and communicationtechnology (ICT) vendors like GE, IBM, Oracle and SAP, which are repurposing existing platforms for IoT purposes.)Please see Table 3 in the appendix for the full list of vendors and their platforms. In our discussions with those in theM2M/IoT ecosystem, there is a common perception that the base of suppliers is too large.

There are three key challenges with the current proliferation of vendors. First, in the near term there is not enough business to sustain so many players, although in the future the IoT will certainly be an enormous market opportunity.Second, this proliferation leads to too much fragmentation in technical approaches, especially given the current lack of broad service layer standards. Third, many of these vendors are smaller companies, and many small companies find itdifficult to compete in a crowded environment due to a lack of resources.

IHS believes that most consolidation will consist of established ICT vendors acquiring smaller private MAP vendors todevelop and extend their strategies in the M2M/IoT market. This is exactly what PTC did in acquiring ThingWorx andAxeda and what Verizon did in acquiring Hughes Telematics. (Hughes Telematics is the basis of additional Verizonservices beyond automotive telematics.) The Internet of Things has become a mainstream ICT consideration and whilemost established ICT vendors are currently at the stage of re-positioning their traditional platforms as IoT enablers, itis likely that they will move towards acquisition for further technical enhancement and specialization.

Furthermore, acquiring firms will target application enablement-focused vendors, rather than device management-focused vendors. Application enablement-focused vendors are usually smaller and provide a more heterogeneoussolution. In contrast, device management-oriented vendors (typically device makers) tend to be larger and focused ontheir own hardware solutions.

Mergers in the industry are less likely, given the small size and limited resources of many of these privately heldcompanies. If mergers do happen, it is more likely they will be pseudo-mergers where a private equity firm acquiresa number of smaller players to create a new competitor with greater scale and resources (while reducing competitionfor the resulting entity.) IHS is not aware of any such roll ups by private equity firms occurring in the near future. Ofcourse, some of the current slate of MAP vendors could simply find the market grows too competitive, andconsequently either shut down their businesses entirely, or sell off assets at fire-sale prices.

Partnering with MNOs is a key path to market for MAP vendors

MNOs are taking a leading role in organizing ecosystems around M2M and IoT solution development and deployment.This is part of the overall effort by MNOs to move up the value stack from simply providing managed connectivityservices for M2M. Consequently, MNOs will be a key channel for MAP vendors. There are essentially three ways forMAP vendors to go to market with MNOs.

First, MNOs can simply offer a MAP vendors platform as a horizontal service to the MNOs end-customers. This can be structured as:

an acquisition , as in the case of Verizon and Hughes Telematics a re-sell approach, as in the case of AT&T and Axeda a co-sell approach, where the MNOs enterprise sales team likely takes the lead in securing deals, but the MAP

vendor sells directly to the end-customer

This approach is the easiest to implement but may be difficult over the long term. Similar to how M2M connection platforms (MCPs) are becoming a required utility in the cellular M2M market for MNOs, rather than a differentiator,it is likely that MAPs will also cease to be a differentiator as a bare horizontal service. Various MNOs and devicemakers have told IHS that the MAP is becoming increasingly commoditized already.


7/11



Second, MNOs can incorporate the MAP into a larger finished end-to-end (E2E) service offering. This is attractive toMNOs because it positions them even higher up the value stack and potentially increases their share of value stackrevenue and ability to differentiate in the market. However, this approach has challenges as well. MNOs are typicallylarge, bureaucratic organizations with complex and slow productization processes. It can take an MNO 9 to 12 monthsto bring a product to market. This complexity and length of time raises the possibility that the MNO will not be flexibleenough in responding to market needs and requirements. This is particularly the case given that many MNOs do nothave significant domain expertise in many of the vertical markets into which they wish to launch E2E offerings.

A more optimal approach may be to chart a path between the first and second paths described above. In other words, anMNO could partner with other ecosystem participants, including MAP vendors, to develop applications that are 80%finished. This would leave room to flexibly respond to customer needs in providing the finished solution to market,ideally in a configurable rather than a customizable manner.

Standards will both help and hurt the MAP market

The standards development environment for M2M and IoT is complex. There are many organizations developingstandards, specifications, and open-source software directly targeted to M2M/IoT applications. Such standards willhelp the MAP community in two key ways. First, they will facilitate overall market development, by reducing marketfrictions and making application development, deployment and management simpler, less costly, and less timeconsuming. Second, standards will help MAP vendors interwork between themselves and other enterprise and telecomIT systems in a more seamless manner. As mentioned above, the ability for device management-oriented vendors towork more closely with application enablement-oriented vendors is, overall, a positive development for the market.

However, standards will also increase the pace of commoditization of MAPs and raise the bar for MAP vendors indifferentiating themselves in the market.

The most significant standardization efforts are those that attempt to create an overall framework for how M2M andIoT applications should be developed, deployed, managed and interconnected with other applications. Such effortsinclude:

oneM2M brings together seven leading regional telecom standards bodies, including ETSI and TIA, tocoordinate their respective development efforts.

AllSeen Alliance effort within the Linux Foundation to open source the AllJoyn code provided byQualcomm to enable open discovery and interworking among third-party devices. At present, the alliance isvery focused on in-home use-cases.

Open Interconnect Consortium recent initiative driven by Cisco, Intel, Mediatek and Samsung, amongothers, to develop an open specification for device discovery, interconnection and secure management.

IEEE P2413 an IEEE working group seeking to define an architectural framework for the IoT. Eclipse Foundation developing open-source tools and frameworks for M2M and IoT application

development, deployment and management.

In addition to the efforts to standardize overarching frameworks listed above, there are a number of connectivity anddevice management standards that are relevant to M2M and IoT. These range from connectivity standards such asMQTT, CoAP, 6loWPAN, LTE Cat-0 and LTE-M to device management standards such as OMA LWM2M.


8/11



Market sizing and forecast section

IHS projects that the MAP market will grow to nearly $730 million in 2018, up from about $224 million in 2013. AsTable 1 and Chart 1 illustrate below, the majority of this market opportunity lies in North America and Europe. Themajority of the vendors supplying MAP solutions are North American or European companies. These companies arefirst targeting their home countries and regions. Over the forecast period, it is likely that these vendors, as well as localcompetitors, will succeed in expanding further in the Asia-Pacific, Latin American, and the Middle Eastern and Africanregions.Table 1. MAP Revenu e Forecast by Region, Wo rld Market, 2013 - 2018(Thousands of USD)Region 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018North America $177,981 $221,132 $263,203 $283,323 $302,690 $320,853

Grow th Rate n/a 24.2% 19.0% 7.6% 6.8% 6.0%Share 79.4% 74.2% 67.4% 57.7% 50.1% 44.1%

Europe $39,272 $62,972 $100,044 $155,165 $208,439 $270,652Grow th Rate n/a 60.3% 58.9% 55.1% 34.3% 29.8%

Share 17.5% 21.1% 25.6% 31.6% 34.5% 37.2% Asia Pacific $3,587 $6,854 $13,483 $26,516 $49,542 $69,118


Latin America $1,973 $4,023 $7,816 $14,731 $25,375 $38,197Grow th Rate n/a 104.0% 94.3% 88.5% 72.3% 50.5%Share 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 3.0% 4.2% 5.3%

Middle East & Africa $1,345 $3,040 $6,253 $11,294 $18,125 $28,739Grow th Rate n/a 126.0% 105.7% 80.6% 60.5% 58.6%Share 0.6% 1.0% 1.6% 2.3% 3.0% 4.0%

Gr and Total $224,157 $298,022 $390,798 $491,028 $604,172 $727,558Grow th Rate n/a 33.0% 31.1% 25.6% 23.0% 20.4%

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

North America Europe Asia-Pacific Latin America Middle East & Africa

Chart 1. M2M Application Platform (MAP) Revenue Forec ast, Wor ld Mark et,2013 - 2018

Source: IHS 2014 IHS

R e

v e n u e

i n U S D

T h o u s a n

d s


9/11



As illustrated below in Table 2 and Chart 2, IHS projects that the Asset Management market segment comprised thevast majority (88.3%) of the MAP market in 2013 and it will still comprise a majority of the market (65.2%) in 2018.This is due to two key factors. First, many of the vendors started as wireline industrial automation and wirelesstelemetry solution vendors, serving a multitude of niche remote monitoring use-cases, which IHS combines in theoverall Asset Management segment. Remote monitoring application developers are increasingly finding it easier to usea MAP rather than to develop generic device management and business logic themselves.

Second, and conversely to the point above, in unified application segments, such as Digital Signage, Energy andUtilities, and others, the application developers are typically application service providers (ASPs) that see the end-to-end development of their applications as a key competitive differentiation. Consequently, non-Asset Managementsegments have been slower to adopt MAPs as a means to facilitate application development and deployment.

Table 2. MAP Revenue Forecast by Application, World Market, 2013 - 2018(Thousands of USD)

Ap pl icati on 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Asset Management $197,819 $248,550 $306,190 $360,660 $418,087 $474,368


Automotive $14,234 $25,332 $43,574 $71,199 $103,918 $141,874Grow th Rate n/a 78.0% 72.0% 63.4% 46.0% 36.5%Share 6.4% 8.5% 11.2% 14.5% 17.2% 19.5%

Digital Signage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Grow th Rate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aShare 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Energy & Utilities $3,699 $5,960 $9,379 $13,749 $19,333 $26,192Grow th Rate n/a 61.2% 57.4% 46.6% 40.6% 35.5%Share 1.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.8% 3.2% 3.6%

Healthcare $1,569 $3,278 $6,448 $11,294 $17,521 $26,192Grow th Rate n/a 108.9% 96.7% 75.1% 55.1% 49.5%Share 0.7% 1.1% 1.7% 2.3% 2.9% 3.6%

Retail & Payments $560 $2,086 $5,667 $8,593 $12,688 $18,189Grow th Rate n/a 272.3% 171.6% 51.6% 47.7% 43.4%Share 0.3% 0.7% 1.5% 1.8% 2.1% 2.5%

Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Grow th Rate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aShare 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Transportation $6,276 $12,815 $19,540 $25,533 $32,625 $40,743Grow th Rate n/a 104.2% 52.5% 30.7% 27.8% 24.9%Share 2.8% 4.3% 5.0% 5.2% 5.4% 5.6%

Gr and Total $224,157 $298,022 $390,798 $491,028 $604,172 $727,558Grow th Rate n/a 33.0% 31.1% 25.6% 23.0% 20.4%


10/11



0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Asset Management Automotive Digital Signage Energy & Utilities

Healthcare Retail & P aymen ts Security Transportation

Chart 2. M2M Application Platform (MAP) Revenue Forec ast, Wor ld Mark et,2013 - 2018

Source: IHS 2014 IHS

R e v e n u e

i n U S D

T h o u s a n

d s

Conclusion

The MAP market is currently at a very early stage of development, and will likely have a penetration rate in the singledigits in the M2M market throughout the forecast period. As the market grows and matures, the large base of vendorswill continue to consolidate, especially the pure-play MAP software ISVs. The upcoming introduction of standards atthe service layer will both help the market to grow as well as further the underlying trend toward MAPs becoming autility, if not a full commodity. Finally, there will be a shift from facilitating tightly integrated vertical M2Mapplications, to enabling true IoT deployments, with heterogeneous sources and users of data.


11/11



Appendix

Table 3. MAP Vendor List

Vendor Name Platform Name

2lemetry ThingFabric Abo Data Plat-One Aeris AerCloud Alcatel-Lucent Motive Amplia Solutions OpenGate Ayla Netw orks The Ayla PlatformBerg Cloud Berg CloudBosc h Sof tw a re Innov ations Bos ch M2M platf ormCalAmp ConnectCarriots S.L CarriotsCumulocity Cumulocity IoT PlatformDevice Insight CENTERSIGHTDigi International Dev ic e Cloud by Etherios | The Soc ial Mac hineEsprida Esprida LiveControlEurotech Everyw are CloudEvrythng EVRYTHNG EngineExosite ExositeILS Technology, a Telit Company deviceWISEInterDigital Standardized M2M SDPM2M Data Corporation SmartConnectMachineShop Connected Services PlatformMesh Systems MeshVista

Mformation Mformation M2M Device Management platformMulti-Tech Systems CoreCDPNEC Corp CONNEXIVENovatel Wireless N4A CMS | N4A Device Manager Numerex Numerex FASTPTC (Axeda & ThingWorx) Machine Cloud | ThingWorxQatar Mobility Innovations Center (QMIC) LabeebRACO Wireless DevCloudSeeControl SeeControlSensorLogic (Gemalto) SensorLogic Application Enablement PlatformSierra Wireless AirVantageSyncWise (L1 Technologies) SyncWise 360

Telenity Canvas m2mEnableTelenor Objects ShepardThingsquare ThingsquareTridium Niagara Framew orkViagents VI SixDView biquity View biquityXively by LogMeIn Xively

m2m applications platforms report 2014

Documents