IHS TECHNOLOGY

INSIGHT REPORT

M2M application platforms 2014

December 2014

ihs.com

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 competitive
landscape, 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 application
development and management for M2M use-cases. MAPs enable developers to abstract common features and
functionalities that are common across many M2M applications and focus more on features and functionalities that will
differentiate 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 will
continue to comprise a majority of the market throughout the forecast period. However, other regions will likely also
experience 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 management
applications for a variety of niche remote monitoring use-cases. Businesses in more vertically integrated application
segments have been slower to adopt MAPs as application service providers (ASPs) in these segments view application
development as a core competency.

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

Several intermediate stages of innovation towards IoT are occurring. These include bringing the app store concept to
M2M platforms, and enabling social M2M applications, both in the sense of mashing up M2M data with social media
data 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 over
the next few years. In particular, IHS predicts pure play MAP software vendors will experience the most pressure to
consolidate.

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 to
facilitate market development as well as increase pricing pressure on MAP vendors.

Contacts

IHSTM TECHNOLOGY

Sam Lucero, Sr. Principal Analyst

Sam.Lucero@ihs.com

Copyright 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 the
exception of any internal client distribution as may be permitted in the license agreement between client and IHS. Content reproduced or
redistributed with IHS permission must display IHS legal notices and attributions of authorship. The information contained herein is from sources
considered reliable but its accuracy and completeness are not warranted, nor are the opinions and analyses which are based upon it, and to the
extent permitted by law, IHS shall not be liable for any errors or omissions or any loss, damage or expense incurred by reliance on information or
any statement contained herein. For more information, please contact IHS at customercare@ihs.com, +1 800 IHS CARE (from North American
locations), or +44 (0) 1344 328 300 (from outside North America).

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

M2M application platforms (MAPs) traditionally focus on device management and

application 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, downloading
new firmware to the device, and troubleshooting the device. Application enablement provides capabilities such as
application development, managing application rules and alerts, and integrating the application into larger enterprise IT
systems.
Most MAP offerings do not focus exclusively on one or the other of these two areas, however. MAPs generally
concentrate on one area while including aspects of the second area. Modem makers are the typical providers of MAPs
that focus on device management. These modem makers provide routers and gateways and include companies such as
CalAmp (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. Such
MAPs reduce the complexity of developing and managing M2M applications in a heterogeneous hardware
environment. 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 a
MAP 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 to
connectivity. These providers, including Aeris (AerCloud), Numerex (FAST), and RACO Wireless (DevCloud), also
focus 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 International
acquired 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 is
not the only possible provider of device management functionality for the vendors devices, but most device vendors
are 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 a
heterogeneous device environment in M2M deployments. While new or smaller-sized deployments may rely
exclusively on one device vendor, few application developers will want to accept vendor lock-in in terms of the
remote modem devices they can deploy. IHS understands that the Digi International approach will permit a
heterogeneous 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 to
make this happen. There is already an analogous platform partnering model in place: many MAPs already integrate
with 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 overall
management of an application.
2014 IHS

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

Finally, splitting device management from application enablement provides for the possibility of best-of-breed
selectivity for application developers. First, device vendors can provide the best device management experience for
their own devices. In a heterogeneous device environment, an application developer will want to manage each set of a
vendors devices with that vendors device management platform. Similarly, abstracting device management of devices
from the development and management of the application itself may provide access to innovation from vendors
focused 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 away
from application developers
MAPs traditionally target M2M applications that are developed, deployed and managed as standalone siloes: all aspects
of the application, from the remote devices in the field to the application software at the head-end, are self-contained
and fit-for-purpose. Third-party MAPs help to reduce development costs and complexity by removing the need for the
application developer to custom design those aspects of the application that benefit from the MAPs features and
functionality.
More recently, the M2M market has been shifting away from closed application models to more open and
heterogeneous environments, taking cues from the mainstream smartphone and internet industries. Application stores
are one means of helping developers to more rapidly adopt, configure and deploy features alongside their core
applications. Examples of MAP vendors providing such application stores include: CalAmp, Multi-Tech Systems, and
RACO Wireless.
As with smartphone app stores, these M2M application stores will enable application developers to quickly identify
and download/integrate M2M applications (or services) to their core application. These capabilities remove the need to
custom design and develop every aspect of business logic for the application. Instead, the developer can concentrate on
those 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 that
vendors will open their stores to third-party app developers. Essentially, application stores abstract away from the
developer the last remaining pieces of the application that are not a core competency or differentiation. These pieces
represent finished business logic on top of the devices, services, and platforms that developers currently can source
from third-party vendors. This concludes a process that started with modems (to abstract radio development), moved to
M2M-tailored connectivity services, and then shifted to MAPs (to abstract underlying device management and
application development and management).
In particular, opening up the application stores to third-party application developers should help to encourage
innovation in the market in the same manner that smartphone app stores have helped to expand the capabilities and
appeal of smartphones to consumers. This shift to true Internet of Things (IoT) enablement platforms (described later in
this 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 devices
and M2M applications with other forms and sources of data. Initially, MAP vendors are enabling this ability in
two distinct ways. First, some MAPs are providing the ability to mashup machine data with social media data
feeds. Digi Internationals The Social Machine platform is a prime example of this trend. The Social Machine
essentially becomes part of a SalesForce.com customer relationship management (CRM) implementation
and enables a user to gain a more comprehensive view of the customer experience by integrating customer
2014 IHS

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

machine performance data with inputs from customer input via social media channels. IHS believes other
MAP 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 that
people have an online profile with services such as Facebook. In fact, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of
Facebook, stated at a January 2014 meeting of the Open Compute Project that Facebook itself should serve
as 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-party
applications 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 fundamental
challenge in the near term.
Most M2M and IoT deployments today are vertically integrated silos, often custom built and operated by one
organization for a specific purpose, with no interaction with third-party applications and devices. Consequently, many
ecosystem 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 developers
to 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 for
their applications and devices. A third party can then work with the developer directly to integrate a third-party application
with the initial application. This approach is not very scalable, as each integration effort requires the two parties to work
together directly.

Catalogs: Listings of publicly available APIs are a recent innovation related to open APIs. Companies such as
Connect2.me, Thingful and ThingSpeak provide open API directories. While useful, these also suffer from the scalability
issue, because third-party developers are still responsible for finding and connecting with relevant applications, services
and devices.

Closed ecosystems: Platform vendors open their platforms to third-party developers and serve as one-to-many
intermediaries between the different devices and services in their ecosystems. Currently, this happens mostly in the smart
home market. Google (Nest) and Apple (HomeKit) have both recently announced high-profile strategies in this area. This
approach 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 M2M
and IoT applications. These range from Z-wave and ZigBee to the developing OneM2M effort. While standards represent
a robust way to ensure interoperability, they rely on the exact discovery methods enabled by the standard. Developers
must 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 is
a more traditional, vertically integrated approach. It provides frameworks, protocols and tools, but it is up to the developer
to 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.

2014 IHS

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

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 to
multiple third-party applications/users of data. While MAP vendors report that socializing data sources and enabling
the mashup of multiple types and sources of data is happening now in the market, most vendors regard data brokering
as 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, the
ecosystem must ensure security and privacy, both for the owner of the data source and for the third-party user of that
data. Security is a general overarching challenge for the IoT and, indeed, larger IT industry at present. IHS believes the
industry is moving away from the idea of perimeter-based security to defense-in-depth, i.e. security at multiple layers
of the solution. This will increasingly involve hardware-based security in the remote device or modem, based on chipenabled 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 IoT
represents an expanded threat surface for application developers and users and the industry is still grappling with how
to resolve this challenge.
Second, how will third-party users of data compensate owners of data sources for access to their data? Today, owners
of 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 will
further 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 specific
idea of re-selling the resulting data flows to third parties calculated into the overall business case. For example, there
are suggestions in the M2M ecosystem that at least some usage-based insurance (UBI) deployments have struggled to
return a positive investment. In such cases, the low hanging fruit for developing compensation schemes could be in
explicitly 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. For
example, one fleet management company resells meteorological data collected from sensors on long-haul trucks to the
US National Weather Service. Weather data is unlikely to be a competitive differentiator for the fleet management
company and so is a saleable product rather than a confidential asset.

Cloud provisioning is the main MAP delivery model, but software-licensing models do
exist
Provisioning MAP functionality as a cloud service is by far the most common delivery model. Enterprise customers
generally 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 a
software instance on their own internal servers. Likewise, some very larger multinational customers decide it is more
efficient for them to run a MAP software instance internally in their own data centers, rather than to subscribe to an
external cloud service.
MNOs are also an important customer and partner for MAP vendors. In almost all cases, MNOs want a MAP software
instance running on their own internal data centers for the services that the MNOs then provide to their own endcustomers. Particularly in Europe, MNOs re-selling a MAP cloud service to their enterprise customers want the MAP
instance running directly in the MNO data center. This model helps to ensure enterprise customers and national
governments that data is secure and kept within national borders.
2014 IHS

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

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 communication
technology (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 the
M2M/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 it
difficult 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 to
develop and extend their strategies in the M2M/IoT market. This is exactly what PTC did in acquiring ThingWorx and
Axeda and what Verizon did in acquiring Hughes Telematics. (Hughes Telematics is the basis of additional Verizon
services beyond automotive telematics.) The Internet of Things has become a mainstream ICT consideration and while
most established ICT vendors are currently at the stage of re-positioning their traditional platforms as IoT enablers, it
is 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 managementfocused vendors. Application enablement-focused vendors are usually smaller and provide a more heterogeneous
solution. In contrast, device management-oriented vendors (typically device makers) tend to be larger and focused on
their own hardware solutions.
Mergers in the industry are less likely, given the small size and limited resources of many of these privately held
companies. If mergers do happen, it is more likely they will be pseudo-mergers where a private equity firm acquires
a number of smaller players to create a new competitor with greater scale and resources (while reducing competition
for the resulting entity.) IHS is not aware of any such roll ups by private equity firms occurring in the near future. Of
course, some of the current slate of MAP vendors could simply find the market grows too competitive, and
consequently 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 connectivity
services for M2M. Consequently, MNOs will be a key channel for MAP vendors. There are essentially three ways for
MAP 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 device
makers have told IHS that the MAP is becoming increasingly commoditized already.
2014 IHS

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

Second, MNOs can incorporate the MAP into a larger finished end-to-end (E2E) service offering. This is attractive to
MNOs because it positions them even higher up the value stack and potentially increases their share of value stack
revenue and ability to differentiate in the market. However, this approach has challenges as well. MNOs are typically
large, bureaucratic organizations with complex and slow productization processes. It can take an MNO 9 to 12 months
to bring a product to market. This complexity and length of time raises the possibility that the MNO will not be flexible
enough in responding to market needs and requirements. This is particularly the case given that many MNOs do not
have 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, an
MNO 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 developing
standards, specifications, and open-source software directly targeted to M2M/IoT applications. Such standards will
help the MAP community in two key ways. First, they will facilitate overall market development, by reducing market
frictions and making application development, deployment and management simpler, less costly, and less time
consuming. Second, standards will help MAP vendors interwork between themselves and other enterprise and telecom
IT systems in a more seamless manner. As mentioned above, the ability for device management-oriented vendors to
work 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 in
differentiating themselves in the market.
The most significant standardization efforts are those that attempt to create an overall framework for how M2M and
IoT applications should be developed, deployed, managed and interconnected with other applications. Such efforts
include:

oneM2M brings together seven leading regional telecom standards bodies, including ETSI and TIA, to
coordinate their respective development efforts.
AllSeen Alliance effort within the Linux Foundation to open source the AllJoyn code provided by
Qualcomm to enable open discovery and interworking among third-party devices. At present, the alliance is
very focused on in-home use-cases.
Open Interconnect Consortium recent initiative driven by Cisco, Intel, Mediatek and Samsung, among
others, 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 and
device management standards that are relevant to M2M and IoT. These range from connectivity standards such as
MQTT, CoAP, 6loWPAN, LTE Cat-0 and LTE-M to device management standards such as OMA LWM2M.

2014 IHS

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

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. As
Table 1 and Chart 1 illustrate below, the majority of this market opportunity lies in North America and Europe. The
majority of the vendors supplying MAP solutions are North American or European companies. These companies are
first targeting their home countries and regions. Over the forecast period, it is likely that these vendors, as well as local
competitors, will succeed in expanding further in the Asia-Pacific, Latin American, and the Middle Eastern and African
regions.
Table 1. MAP Revenue Forecast by Region, World Market, 2013 - 2018
(Thousands of USD)
Region
North America

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$177,981

$221,132

$263,203

$283,323

$302,690

$320,853

Grow th Rate
Share
Europe
Grow th Rate
Share
Asia Pacific
Grow th Rate
Share
Latin America
Grow th Rate
Share
Middle East & Africa
Grow th Rate

24.2%

19.0%

7.6%

6.8%

6.0%

74.2%

67.4%

57.7%

50.1%

44.1%

$39,272

$62,972

$100,044

$155,165

$208,439

$270,652

n/a

60.3%

58.9%

55.1%

34.3%

29.8%

17.5%

21.1%

25.6%

31.6%

34.5%

37.2%

$3,587

$6,854

$13,483

$26,516

$49,542

$69,118

n/a

91.1%

96.7%

96.7%

86.8%

39.5%

1.6%

2.3%

3.5%

5.4%

8.2%

9.5%

$1,973

$4,023

$7,816

$14,731

$25,375

$38,197

n/a

104.0%

94.3%

88.5%

72.3%

50.5%

0.9%

1.4%

2.0%

3.0%

4.2%

5.3%

$1,345

$3,040

$6,253

$11,294

$18,125

$28,739
58.6%

n/a

126.0%

105.7%

80.6%

60.5%

0.6%

1.0%

1.6%

2.3%

3.0%

4.0%

$224,157

$298,022

$390,798

$491,028

$604,172

$727,558

n/a

33.0%

31.1%

25.6%

23.0%

20.4%

Share
Grand Total

n/a
79.4%

Grow th Rate

Chart 1. M2M Application Platform (MAP) Revenue Forecast, World Market,

2013 - 2018

Revenue in USD Thousands

800 ,00 0

600 ,00 0

400 ,00 0

200 ,00 0

0
201 3
North A me rica

201 4
Eur ope

201 5

Asia-Pa cific

201 6

Latin America

201 7
Middle Ea st & Africa

Source: IHS

2014 IHS

201 8

2014 IHS

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

As illustrated below in Table 2 and Chart 2, IHS projects that the Asset Management market segment comprised the
vast 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 wireless
telemetry solution vendors, serving a multitude of niche remote monitoring use-cases, which IHS combines in the
overall Asset Management segment. Remote monitoring application developers are increasingly finding it easier to use
a 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 and
Utilities, and others, the application developers are typically application service providers (ASPs) that see the end-toend development of their applications as a key competitive differentiation. Consequently, non-Asset Management
segments 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)
Application
Asset Management
Grow th Rate

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$197,819

$248,550

$306,190

$360,660

$418,087

$474,368

n/a

25.6%

23.2%

17.8%

15.9%

13.5%

Share

88.3%

83.4%

78.4%

73.5%

69.2%

65.2%

Automotive

$14,234

$25,332

$43,574

$71,199

$103,918

$141,874

n/a

78.0%

72.0%

63.4%

46.0%

36.5%

6.4%

8.5%

11.2%

14.5%

17.2%

19.5%

Grow th Rate
Share
Digital Signage

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

$3,699

$5,960

$9,379

$13,749

$19,333

$26,192

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

$26,192
49.5%

Grow th Rate
Share
Energy & Utilities
Grow th Rate

Grow th Rate
Share
Retail & Payments
Grow th Rate
Share
Security
Grow th Rate
Share
Transportation
Grow th Rate
Share
Grand Total
Grow th Rate

2014 IHS

n/a

108.9%

96.7%

75.1%

55.1%

0.7%

1.1%

1.7%

2.3%

2.9%

3.6%

$560

$2,086

$5,667

$8,593

$12,688

$18,189

n/a

272.3%

171.6%

51.6%

47.7%

43.4%

0.3%

0.7%

1.5%

1.8%

2.1%

2.5%

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

$6,276

$12,815

$19,540

$25,533

$32,625

$40,743
24.9%

n/a

104.2%

52.5%

30.7%

27.8%

2.8%

4.3%

5.0%

5.2%

5.4%

5.6%

$224,157

$298,022

$390,798

$491,028

$604,172

$727,558

n/a

33.0%

31.1%

25.6%

23.0%

20.4%

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

Chart 2. M2M Application Platform (MAP) Revenue Forecast, World Market,

2013 - 2018

Revenue in USD Thousands

800 ,00 0

600 ,00 0

400 ,00 0

200 ,00 0

0
201 3

201 4

201 5

201 6

201 7

201 8

Asset Manage me nt

Automotive

Digital Signag e

Ene rgy & Utili ties

Healthcare

Retail & P aymen ts

Security

Transportation

Source: IHS

2014 IHS

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

2014 IHS

10

December 2014

IHS TECHNOLOGY | M2M application platforms 2014

Appendix
Table 3. MAP Vendor List
Vendor Nam e

Platform Nam e

2lemetry

ThingFabric

Abo Data

Plat-One

Aeris

AerCloud

Alcatel-Lucent

Motive

Amplia Solutions

OpenGate

Ayla Netw orks

The Ayla Platform

Berg Cloud

Berg Cloud

Bosch Softw are Innovations

Bosch M2M platform

CalAmp

Connect

Carriots S.L

Carriots

Cumulocity

Cumulocity IoT Platform

Device Insight

CENTERSIGHT

Digi International

Device Cloud by Etherios | The Social Machine

Esprida

Esprida LiveControl

Eurotech

Everyw are Cloud

Evrythng

EVRYTHNG Engine

Exosite

Exosite

ILS Technology, a Telit Company

deviceWISE

InterDigital

Standardized M2M SDP

M2M Data Corporation

SmartConnect

MachineShop

Connected Services Platform

Mesh Systems

MeshVista

Mformation

Mformation M2M Device Management platform

Multi-Tech Systems

CoreCDP

NEC Corp

CONNEXIVE

Novatel Wireless

N4A CMS | N4A Device Manager

Numerex

Numerex FAST

PTC (Axeda & ThingWorx)

Machine Cloud | ThingWorx

Qatar Mobility Innovations Center (QMIC)

Labeeb

RACO Wireless

DevCloud

SeeControl

SeeControl

SensorLogic (Gemalto)

SensorLogic Application Enablement Platform

Sierra Wireless

AirVantage

SyncWise (L1 Technologies)

SyncWise 360

Telenity

Canvas m2mEnable

Telenor Objects

Shepard

Thingsquare

Thingsquare

Tridium

Niagara Framew ork

Viagents

VI SixD

View biquity

View biquity

Xively by LogMeIn

Xively

2014 IHS

11

December 2014