IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/itsp17/168505.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Speaker Wars begins: Which applications will be the killer content for smart speaker?

Author

Listed:
  • Koo ,Hyunmo
  • Kim, Seongcheol
  • Nam, Changi

Abstract

Smart speakers have become next big thing in IoT industry. However, there is not enough discussion about which application would be killer content in smart speaker market. To boost market participation and the growth of the market, there should be a research predicting killer service in the smart speaker. This study uses an AHP model and framework to assess the priority for applications in smart speakers. This study compares three types of applications – Music, News, E-commerce – to investigate the priority.

Suggested Citation

  • Koo ,Hyunmo & Kim, Seongcheol & Nam, Changi, 2017. "Speaker Wars begins: Which applications will be the killer content for smart speaker?," 14th ITS Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, Kyoto 2017: Mapping ICT into Transformation for the Next Information Society 168505, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:itsp17:168505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/168505/1/Koo-Kim-Nam.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Benston, 2000. "Consumer Protection as Justification for Regulating Financial-Services Firms and Products," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 17(3), pages 277-301, September.
    2. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    4. Baumgartner, Stefan & Winkler, Ralph, 2003. "Markets, technology and environmental regulation: price ambivalence of waste paper in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2-3), pages 183-195, December.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L. & Shang, Jennifer S., 2011. "An innovative orders-of-magnitude approach to AHP-based mutli-criteria decision making: Prioritizing divergent intangible humane acts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(3), pages 703-715, November.
    6. Kim, Suwon & Kim, Seongcheol, 2016. "A multi-criteria approach toward discovering killer IoT application in Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 143-155.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Yu-li & Huang, Luyan & Yan, Wenjia & Wang, Xinghan & Zhang, Ruochen, 2022. "Privacy in AI and the IoT: The privacy concerns of smart speaker users and the Personal Information Protection Law in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 144-156.
    2. Hwang, ShinYoung, 2021. "The impact of Google's in-app commission fee changes on the local app ecosystem: A case study of Korea," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238030, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    3. Isabella M. Lami & Stefano Moroni, 2020. "How Can I Help You? Questioning the Role of Evaluation Techniques in Democratic Decision-Making Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Kim, Suwon & Kim, Seongcheol, 2016. "A multi-criteria approach toward discovering killer IoT application in Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 143-155.
    5. Alicja Lenarczyk & Marcin Jaskólski & Paweł Bućko, 2022. "The Application of a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Indication of Directions of the Development of Renewable Energy Sources in the Context of Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Lim, Chulmin, 2018. "An AHP-based evaluation of car navigation apps in Korea," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190404, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    7. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    8. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    9. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    10. Emanuele Massetti & Lea Nicita, 2010. "The Optimal Climate Policy Portfolio when Knowledge Spills across Sectors," CESifo Working Paper Series 2988, CESifo.
    11. Giancarlo Giudici & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2019. "The creation of cleantech startups at the local level: the role of knowledge availability and environmental awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 815-830, April.
    12. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    13. Pathiraja, Erandathie & Griffith, Garry & Farquharson, Robert & Faggia, Rob, 2019. "The Cost of Climate Change to Agricultural Industries: Coconuts in Sri Lanka," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(05), December.
    14. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    15. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    16. Orsatti, Gianluca & Pezzoni, Michele & Quatraro, Francesco, 2017. "Where Do Green Technologies Come From? Inventor Teams’ Recombinant Capabilities and the Creation of New Knowledge," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201711, University of Turin.
    17. Jae Yun Jeong & Inje Kang & Ki Seok Choi & Byeong-Hee Lee, 2018. "Network Analysis on Green Technology in National Research and Development Projects in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, April.
    18. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2019. "An Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process—Slack Based Measure-Data Envelopment Analysis Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Logistics Service Providers Considering Undesirable Performance Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Yu-Hong Ai & Di-Yun Peng & Huan-Huan Xiong, 2021. "Impact of Environmental Regulation Intensity on Green Technology Innovation: From the Perspective of Political and Business Connections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-23, April.
    20. Xinxin Liu & Xiaosheng Wang & Haiying Guo & Xiaojie An, 2021. "Benefit Allocation in Shared Water-Saving Management Contract Projects Based on Modified Expected Shapley Value," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(1), pages 39-62, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:itsp17:168505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.itsworld.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.