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.
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.
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
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.