Breaking News
News & Analysis

Industrial Internet Group Launches

Founders aim to accelerate IoT interoperability
3/27/2014 01:20 PM EDT
4 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Author
Re: Self interest?
Anand.Yaligar   3/30/2014 11:54:05 AM
NO RATINGS
One look at the names of the companies in the list of the members of this new consortium and I can't help but feel that one of the main hurdles that will have to be crossed will be that of setting aside self interests and working for the good of everyone. Most, if not all, of these companies have histories of putting their own interests first before those of everyone else and it is therefore going to be interesting to see if they are going to change that this time round. Let us hope they can!

Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Author
Re: Nice move
Anand.Yaligar   3/30/2014 11:44:20 AM
NO RATINGS
Pooling together all these players in the development of a collaboration framework for faster IoT development is a great step in the right direction and one that should show some fruits if well implemented both in the short and long run. That said, I still feel that if full interoperability across different platforms is to be achieved then more players need to be brought into the consortium. Serious players such as Google and the like could prove to be serious roadblocks if they are not included in the mix.

chanj0
User Rank
Author
Real Problems...
chanj0   3/28/2014 2:24:08 PM
NO RATINGS
"This is not just about paper standards, but creating real test beds that show products working together to solve real problems,"

The statement is so truth. I think it is very important to define what are real problems and whether IoT is the right approach to address it. In addition, although a clear definition of IoT will come with time, the industry shall try to confine the areas of interest.


To my understanding of IoT, it shall as well be categorized to address problems in different industries such as 

1) Medical.

2) Logistic.

3) Traffic and transportation.

4) Weather and environment.

5) ...

After all, I don't agree a pacemaker is an important product of IoT.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
To do list
rick merritt   3/27/2014 2:42:19 PM
NO RATINGS
What's on your to-do list for these giants? Will you join?

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed