2016 M2M revenues are estimated to be approximately $23 billion and will continue to grow at around 30 percent per year. $23 billion is certainly a big number, but it is but a rounding error when looking at the Internet of things. So just how big of an opportunity are we looking at? Let me share a few numbers. Think 50 billion devices by 2020. It is hard to comprehend how large that is. Let me help to put this into perspective. If you activated a new IoT device every second, you would reach 50 billion in close to 1600 years. I don’t know about you, but I would not care to wait that long for the market to take off. We will address this more in a minute.
So where are we getting this idea of tens of billions of devices? It comes from a couple of companies you may have heard of that are in a great position to know more than most – Ericsson and Cisco.Now some may suggest that since some vendors have much to gain, that you need to take these figures with a grain of salt. It’s like the old adage – never ask your barber if you need a haircut. But it does not necessarily mean that his answer is wrong.In fact, other data suggests that this estimate could be modest.
A recent paper by the World Bank and General Electric estimate what they call the Industrial Internet is a $32 Trillion opportunity. That’s right, trillion with a “T.” That’s a lot of money, even to politicians. To quote the report, this opportunity is created by the convergence of the global industrial system with the power of advanced computing, analytics, low cost sensors and connectivity. It is the deeper meshing of the digital world with the world of machines.
A fascinating concept in this paper is the concept of 1%.Through sensors or IoT being integrated into aviation, power, healthcare and transportation, industry can experience savings of $200Billion with just a 1% improvement. As Peter Drucker once said, what gets measured gets managed. Since the Internet of Things allows us to measure everything, it now allows us to manage everything – almost literally. Or for those things to manage themselves.
It can still be hard to wrap one’s mind around such a fundamental change in business landscape. But the technology industry has a long history of provoking those shifts. Let me turn back the clock all the way to 1982 The first CD player was sold in Japan, ET and Chariots of Fire was in theaters, and Michal Jackson’s Thriller album was released. It was also the time when AT&T ruled the earth, or at least the US market.
If you remember, AT&T voluntarily gave away its entire wireless spectrum to the baby Bells. Incredible but true. At the time there were about 75,000 subscribers worldwide, and they did this because their strategists calculated that best case, by the year 2000 there would only be one million US cellular subscribers.The actual number was 100,000,000, and ten years later it was 300,000,000 connections. In other words, the brightest, most knowledgeable telecom people in the world underestimated the market by a factor of 100.It is absolutely within the realm of the possible that we’re doing the same thing again.
So we can feel good about the IoT opportunity is real, but how do we achieve this vision without waiting 1600 years?
It comes down to three things – standards, platforms & intellectual property. Let’s take them one at time.
In a brand new survey from IHS, released here today at this conference, almost 90% of respondents listed standards, architecture and interoperability as the number one challenge to mass adoption.How do we activate, let alone integrate billions of devices without standards? Would we even have a mobile industry today if devices did not have a standard way to connect to the network? In 2012 global mobile phone sales were 1.6 billion units. Imagine 30 times that number of IoT devices without standards.
The other reason standards are essential to fuel the growth we’re expecting is that connecting so many devices is not going to be about the devices themselves, but about the ease of connecting, activating and integrating them, and then building applications that can make use of that mountain of data and the related synergies. Interoperability and the ability to engage the broader value chain, rather than a few specialized providers, are the keys to scalability. And those market dynamics are based on standards.
The practical necessity of non-standard implementations is currently unavoidable since OneM2M is still being defined. Some believe that they can use this delay of standards to make their own proprietary standard the de facto industry approach. You should be concerned about this, because if you are not on the inside of that ecosystem, you will feel the pain down the road. Industry fragmentation makes this problem worse.
The reality is that no stand-alone effort can possibly succeed against a standards-based approach, partly due to the very nature of how standards are developed. The standardization process in effect creates a worldwide, massive R&D project – a crowdsourcing – that incents engineers and inventors around the globe to discover the best answers to the hardest problems.It is phenomenally difficult, if not impossible, for any individual company to compete against that type of research structure. That’s especially the case for something as multifaceted as Internet of Things and wireless connectivity generally, where a single technology is made up of such a large number of constituent problems and challenges. And everyone benefits from that research – existing companies, certainly consumers, but also new companies that can find new ways of doing business because the core technical challenges have been solved.
Standards naturally lead us to platforms because you implement the standard through technology. I first entered this industry many years ago as a consultant with a major systems integrator. A hot topic of conversation at industry gatherings is about how to get the IoT profit pool, because it is not in simple connectivity.Systems integrators have found the profit pool – it is in custom integration of proprietary M2M / IoT technology platforms. Part of this is caused by the lack of a one stop shop – you can’t just go to the IoT store in the mall and take care ofprovisioning, device management and deploy an application environment. The current model is simply unsustainable, and there will be no scale without standards.
Which brings us to the next piece of the puzzle – intellectual property. Simply put, developing and advancing the standards that will trigger the explosion of connected devices will be a significant effort, one that by necessity will involve many, many companies and the brightest wireless research teams around the world. It will also require investment on the part of the companies that will work to solve the technical challenges that will unlock the Internet of Things.
In other words, a deliberately miseleading title, just to get people's attention. The truth is, M2M is far from dead, and the Internet is its ENABLER. It makes the possibility of deploying M2M solutions, in a big way, that much easier.
M2M means "machine to machine." As silly a name as that is, given that it's ALWAYS been machine to machine anyway, restricting the meaning of M2M even more makes no sense at all. M2M can be made to work with or without using the Internet as its signal interface standard. Using the Internet just allows M2M to be more ubiquitous.
While I totally agree with the point about interoperable standards, that the idea is hardly new, right? It's just applied to computing devices, that's all. "Everyone knows" that interoperable standards matter, because just about everyone in the developed world, at least, has long been familiar with indoor plumbing, telephones, electricity, radio and TV, automobiles, photography, etc. There are hosts of standards that had to be developed for all of these. Computers are just one more category of product.
Patent trolls writing tech articles BSing to real engineers on whats the future of tech :) LOL.
Its more like, what should be the future of tech, so that we can extract more money out of your work by doing nothing :D
What about television white space (TVWS) spectrum.
The only problem is you have to build out the network but it is reportedly good for up to 10-km and can support low-energy nodes that can last 10 years on a single battery at a chip cost of $2..source Keith Clarke [no relation], vice president of embedded processors at ARM.
Peter - you make a good point! But as Mandy Rice-Davies almost said - "I would say that". The last few km connectivity has been an obstacle for a commercially feasible deployment of ubiquitous machine communications. I'm using the more generic machine communications because as alluded to above in reality the intelligence comes when you connect multiple nodes to a network. The problems come when you apply commercial reality to what is technically possible. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Zigbee, 2G, 3G, LTE - all have some of the qualities needed for effective machine communications. But Weightless (weightless.org) marries the best of each (Bluetooth price points and power consumption with 3G/4G reach) in an optimised for IoT protocol. There are lots of facets to this argument but the outline cost, range, power consumption parameters are the game changers with Weightless.
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.