Breaking News
News & Analysis

IoT Landscape Defies Mapping

...so let's try it anyway
7/1/2013 08:05 AM EDT
17 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Net_chief
User Rank
Rookie
Efforts to assimilate embedded devices into the Internet are futile!
Net_chief   7/1/2013 11:17:21 PM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
The claim for being first with networked embedded control devices helongs to Echelon [http://www.echelon.com/company/] - dating some 20 years. Efforts to assimilate embedded devices into the Internet are futile! :-) [as the market fragmentation demonstrations.]

pteich
User Rank
Rookie
IoT popular discourse focuses on things over infrastructure
pteich   7/1/2013 11:19:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi Rick, we wrote the white paper behind the article *precisely* because most folks focus on the "things" - the endpoints - endpoint development environments (Arduino, Berg), endpoint wireless connectivity solutions ( Broadcom and NXP...the sensor equivalent of broadband's famed "last mile"), endpoint security, endpoint sensors, etc. [hopefully Roger likes my use of "endpoint" all over this sentence].

When you envision IoT futures, those "things" must be connected somehow to the other hot topic, Big Data, the cloud-based analytics that generate the contextual smarts for new ambient and wearable systems.  But the connective infrastructure is often left out of the discussion.

We didn't miss these other activites, we deliberately side-stepped them to focus a portion of the discussion on larger organizations and companies who are taking the first steps toward building the pervasive connective infrastructure that affordable services will depend on to enable smaller, more power efficient wearable and embedded tech to be smarter than their power and price budgets would otherwise allow.

Please click through Pat's article to our paper.  And then let's talk about mapping out the large scale features of an ambient computing future.  End-to-end solutions must have a middle... ;v)

Paul Teich, Moor Insights & Strategy

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: IoT Landscape Defies Mapping
KB3001   7/2/2013 12:04:11 PM
NO RATINGS
It is true that the term IoT englobes many technologies and interpretations. In a way it reflects the exciting realm of possibilities we now have. I worry about security issues to be honest and I think many are under-estimating this real problem.

 

BTW, check out the mbed platform for IoT applications: http://mbed.org/cookbook/IOT

LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
Past becomes prologue
LarryM99   7/2/2013 1:29:13 PM
NO RATINGS
While reading your post I flashed back to the late '80s and early '90s when I was explaining to confused executives what this new "Internet" thingie was and what it meant to their businesses. This iteration is even more far-reaching, but the basic principles of distributed sensing and computation apply. IoT is in one respect an advancing wave of connected sensors and smart devices, but it is also an incremental expansion of the Internet. Rather than replacing what has gone before it will force it to evolve. Big data analysis will need to be able to handle truly massive amounts of data in real time. Networks will need to handle cross-flows peer to peer and outside-in data flows as effectively as they currently handle data flows that are primarily from servers to the edge of the network.

Business model changes are going to be interesting to watch as well. I heard a network equipment exec at one conference talking about how they were enabling an ISP business model that he referred to, without any trace of irony, as being a "Two-faced business model". The idea was that the ISP could trace the origin of data flows to enable them to charge Netflix, Google, etc. based on how much data they originated in addition to charging their customers to access those flows. How does this change when Google is aggregating data flows from millions of sensors?

mcgrathdylan
User Rank
Blogger
Poorly defined
mcgrathdylan   7/2/2013 2:11:42 PM
NO RATINGS
It seems to me that part of the problem with IoT at this early stage is that the concept is not totally defined. I still think IoT means different things to different people. It's early days for IoT, but there is a lot of work needed in standardizing on technologies.

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
Re: Poorly defined
goafrit   7/2/2013 3:09:16 PM
NO RATINGS
Technicsally, they can standardize the process by simply defining it as anything that has an IP and connected to the web. That is a clear description the community can use.

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
Re: Past becomes prologue
goafrit   7/2/2013 3:12:29 PM
NO RATINGS
>> The idea was that the ISP could trace the origin of data flows to enable them to charge Netflix, Google, etc. based on how much data they originated in addition to charging their customers to access those flows

That will be the battle of the next decade. The way my internet connection slows down when the college kid that stays closer by returns to when he is gone demonstrates that Netflix and co may have to support the pipes that keep them in business. If they do not and the network owners refuse to innovate, their business model will be in jeopardy.

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
Re: Efforts to assimilate embedded devices into the Internet are futile!
goafrit   7/2/2013 3:14:42 PM
NO RATINGS
>> Efforts to assimilate embedded devices into the Internet are futile!

Why do you think so? I generally think that the business of Internet assimilation is straightforward with the IP being the key part. If the device has the IP defined, it can get it. That is different from making money in a crowded business but technically it is not hard.  What is that a futile endeavor? 

krisi
User Rank
CEO
5 years
krisi   7/2/2013 8:45:48 PM
NO RATINGS
The mess is natural as everyone tries to get a foothold in this market. It will all sort of itself eventually. Give it 5 years

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
To be expected
Bert22306   7/4/2013 7:13:27 PM
NO RATINGS
There are many aspects to this IoT, so naturally you're going to have lots of organizations scrambling in lots of directions. I think the biggest failing in this thinking, though, is the notion the the IoT is something new. It's not. It's nothing more than continued evolution of the Internet. Gradually more and more of the same.

There's a very good book on Internet Protocols called "Internetworking with TCP/IP," by Douglas E. Comer. My edition is dated 1991. Up front, it states that the Internet essentially started in 1980, and had grown to "hundreds" of individual networks, and 20,000 computers, by 1987. By 1990, that had grown to 3000 networks and 200,000 computers.

Surely, where we stand today would have been considered "the Internet of things," with a 1991 perspective. Used to be that access to the Internet was only via remote terminals connecting to large mainframes, via some sort of telephone or other connection. Wouldn't direct IP connections to PCs, tablets, smartphones, sensors, machinery, all of which exist today, have been aptly called "Internet of Things"?

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
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.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week