There is a range for need. Smartphone as a door opener is a value added convenience. Early adopter applications need to have intrinsic value. This is an example where IoT is going astray. In this localized application there is no need for locks and smartphone to become IPv6 enabled. Having IPv6 enabled locks increases the potential for hacking.
>> Connected devices will evolve based on market needs and demands.
If you have a smartphone, you will know that the users are asking for these devices. People want to grant access to their doors via their phones. People want to turn off their light while away, etc. The need is already here with us.
>> By naming these upcoming technologies as "Internet of Things", we are somehow excluding ourselves "the humans" from this new evolution.
Humans are part of the mix. With biochips and implantable electronics, man can be an extension of the Internet. The challenge is that this transition will not be planned or ordered. It will be here before we all know it. Drug companies making drugs with some IP-nodes etc.
Internet is one schema for networks. Connected devices existed before the Internet. Mandating "Internet" requirements for connected devices is superflous and counterproductive -- for example, IPv6 addresses.
Connected devices will evolve based on market needs and demands.
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"?
>> 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?
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.