Many relatively small and little known players in a market that is leaping from its first major mainstream design wins to everywhere in the Intewrnet of Things. This is a receipe for disruption methinks. Next up, analog companies such as Maxim tooling their fabs for MEMS
Rick: The Internet of things is definitely disruptive. Today we're talking about the shift from PCs to tablets. This is more about the shift to refrigerators, bathroom mirrors, health delivery systems, automobiles, and every other thing we come in contact with each day.
You're a vet, so tell me: Certainly we'll see some devices -- there are already smart refrigerators, for example -- but do you think we will see the IOT within the next decade, or is this one of those inspiring visions that will end up proving to be cost ineffective? What's your best guess?
But the IoT revolution is not really included in this analysis.
As to whether the IoT revolution will happen.
Yes it will; piece by piece in those places where it makes economic sense or where it is mandated.
Already your mobile phone is in a dialog with the mobile phone infrastructure and GPS all the time it is switched on to ascertain position, availability and nearest basestation, that is even when you are not making a call.
From this you move on to the ideas of tyres talking to the vehicle, powered by the flexing of the tyre in motion, is one, providing information on pressure and tyre wear; cars talking to adjacent cars as part of accident mitigation is another.
Many applications will be enabled by the possibility of piggy-backing on the amortized smartphone and mobile phone infrastructure, albeit at risk of congesting those networks. So imagine a legion of things that report in to your smartphone and then send messages up the line.
The ultimate question then becomes one of convenience versus privacy and off-gridness. Do you want tens or hundreds of your things talking to others (potentially spending your money and effectively talking about you) behind your back?
What is frightening about all this "Robin said. Gyroscopes and microphones are set to benefit more than average in the short time followed by integrated inertial measurement units (IMUs); pressure sensors used for vertical positioning; and RF MEMS for improved multiband, multiprotocol performance" is the ease with which it is now possible to construct an inertial navigation system. Although there are many countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons capability, even given the weapon and the primary delivery system, their capability becomes a really serious danger when they can accurately deliver the warhead. That is where most of the difficult, time consuming and costly development problems rest. Now it would appear low cost COTS inertial navigation systems are becoming available to all and sundry.
Peter-Agreed always a threat accurate or inaccurate. However, the more distant the country the greater the need for accuracy. If the potential threat is from a close neighbour, for example as might be the case with Israel or South Korea and the receiving country is small, then given the warhead and the primary delivery vehicle, ballistic accuracy is enough to give rise to the great concerns expressed by those coountries. The North korean threats against the USA would require a mucher higher degree of accuracy to be effective and possible.
My recent contact with some of the electronics now used by the aircraft modelling community and what they are doing with it is quite remarkable. I was shown one example of a system that transferred coordinates from a mobile phone into the guidance system of a model aircraft prior to its flight. It may be that drones (model aircraft) with biological weapon payloads might be a greater threat than nulclear, especially in respect of problems with near neighbours. Easy to construct in secret, difficult to detect in flight and the esential low cost guidance components easy to obtain as highlighted in your article. I assume that there is some ban in place with respect to shipments to some countries.
As a certain editor-in-chief of mine once taught me "never assume."
I suspect that as handsets are readily available in every county on earth, so the inertial MEMS sensors (accelerometers and gyroscopes) and GPS units are also readily available and probably not considered with a separate ban.
Peter, this is really something to think about. Your conversation only highlights that the smartphone are very inefficient at doing things at the moment and the main cultprit is the software. Software capabilities are very limited at the moment and software codes from one platform to another are very difficult to be compatible. Do you think that more development will happen in software domain.
Still their 2Q results was in red and situation does not seem good for the rest of the year. Probably ST needs to streamline their process and cut the operational cost as the MEMS market is going to be more competitive.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.