"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
3) Traffic and transportation.
4) Weather and environment.
After all, I don't agree a pacemaker is an important product of IoT.
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.
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!
A Book For All Reasons Bernard Cole3 comments Robert Oshana's recent book "Software Engineering for Embedded Systems (Newnes/Elsevier)," written and edited with Mark Kraeling, is a 'book for all reasons.' At almost 1,200 pages, it ...