Breaking News
Design How-To

M2M is DEAD--Long Live IoT

Long live IoT
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 3 / 3
More Related Links
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
Bert22306
User Rank
Author
re: M2M is DEAD--Long Live IoT
Bert22306   5/6/2013 9:22:30 PM
NO RATINGS
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.

eewiz
User Rank
Author
re: M2M is DEAD--Long Live IoT
eewiz   5/7/2013 6:19:11 AM
NO RATINGS
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

old account Frank Eory
User Rank
Author
re: M2M is DEAD--Long Live IoT
old account Frank Eory   5/7/2013 5:32:04 PM
NO RATINGS
They might be called a troll by some, but they also have a large R&D organization filing their own patents -- not just buying up others' patents and exercising them.

merlin749
User Rank
Author
re: M2M is DEAD--Long Live IoT
merlin749   5/9/2013 9:39:30 PM
NO RATINGS
Long on verbage and short on details. Still have to connect this IoT stuff somehow, if not cell towers, then what. There's not a wi-fi network everywhere. Satellites?

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Author
re: M2M is DEAD--Long Live IoT
Peter Clarke   5/13/2013 1:31:28 PM
NO RATINGS
@Merlin749 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.

Mr Quattro
User Rank
Author
re: M2M is DEAD--Long Live IoT
Mr Quattro   5/18/2013 11:43:16 AM
NO RATINGS
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.

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