The Internet of Things and Humans 55
An anonymous reader writes "Speculating the future of human computer interaction, Tim O'Reilly contemplates how humans and things cooperate differently when things get smarter. He says, '[S]o many of the most interesting applications of the Internet of Things involve new ways of thinking about how humans and things cooperate differently when the things get smarter. It really ought to be called the Internet of Things and Humans ... is Uber an #IoT application? Most people would say it is not; it’s just a pair of smartphone apps connecting a passenger and driver. But imagine for a moment the consumer end of the Uber app as it is today, and on the other end, a self-driving car. You would immediately see that as #IoT. ... Long before we get to fully autonomous devices, there are many “halfway house” applications that are really Internet of Things applications in waiting, which use humans for one or more parts of the entire system. When you understand that the general pattern of #IoTH applications is not just sensor + network + actuator but various combinations of human + network + actuator or sensor + network, you will broaden the possibilities for interfaces and business models."
Re:#lot? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
some kind of twitter twat babble? Sad because the author's picture shows he should be much too old and mature to bother with such rubbish
In Montreal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...so the roving crews know where not to drive...
Dumbest trend ever (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet of things is probably the worst thing that is being pushed right now, even worse than the cloud.
Re: (Score:3)
They're basically mututally exclusive. How can the trend be both; big intelligence in the cloud AND have lots of little intelligence in your home. They're mutually exclusive marketing tropes, and we're somehow expected to buy into both at the same time.
Re:Dumbest trend ever (Score:4, Funny)
Yep, IoT is the latest buzzword... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, looks like IoT is what cloud stuff was about five-six years ago. We already are in firefighting mode with enough security issues. Do we need to add a larger attack surface?
With the track record of security, we should assume that every device can be seized and used by an attacker. That refrigerator? Shut off while on a trip. The stove? Turned on to start a residential fire with the "smart" fire alarms turned off.
Lets have some security advances first, then people can have their Internet connected
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, that refrigerator and stove will be commandeered to send more spam!
No thanks (Score:2)
I'm quite capable of driving myself, including shifting gears. I don't need or want to rely on software to get me where I'm going. It's bad enough we have rearview cameras being shoved down our throats because people are too lazy or fat to turn around and look behind them, we don't need more technology to try and solve a human problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what I've seen, to make humans lazier.
I'm not a luddite, but this continual drumbeat that technology solves all ills is quite clearly shot down when we see the downward spiral of common sense and critical thinking on a daily basis as a direct result of technology.
Re: (Score:1)
Internet of things (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
so far the internet of things is like the late 90's
when you can do the same thing with a computer using more effort and more money but it's cool because you are doing it with a computer and on the internet
or for the crazy OCD freaks out there who need things to be absolutely perfect or they go bipolar
Re: (Score:3)
Even without the surveillance it is a turnoff because of the unnecessary liberal use of digital electronics in lieu of simple time-proven mechanisms rendering previously robust products more fragile and shorter-lived.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
why, what identifiable disease has been caused by this? the only identifiable cause of rising cancer rates is longer lifespan in world's population.
"Web 2.0" is a decade old now (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, IoT advocates imagine within a few short years this magical IoT will create a system of intercommunicating hardware that will somehow work perfectly.
Yeah ok.
Re:"Web 2.0" is a decade old now (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that it's not in my best interest for them to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I step on my scale [withings.com], it tells me if I need to carry an umbrella today (based on the weather forecast it downloaded). Then it sends my weight etc. to my iPhone where it's merged with information from my fitness wristband [jawbone.com] and my diet tracker [myfitnesspal.com]. Based on that, I get suggestions like "you've been going to bed a little later than usual. You should catch up." or "drink more water today" or "try to walk this much further than you did yesterday".
I think that's not so shabby.
There will be an inevitable reaction against this. (Score:1)
And no, it will not be mindless Luddite sentiment. I enjoy the entirely visceral feel of driving a car or motorcycle equipped with a manual transmission. And the idea of internet enabled toasters and refrigerators are absurd.
Re:There will be an inevitable reaction against th (Score:5, Funny)
yeah, but imagine your fridge linked to Fresh Direct or the Amazon grocery delivery service and automatically ordering food for you whether you want it to or not. Epicness
or you can put your bread into the toaster at night and then use your phone to toast it the next morning before you get out of the shower so you don't have to do it manually
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised to see solenoid activated locks on my fridge requiring sitting through a 5 minute ad from Safeway in order to open the door... only to find that a hacker turned the temperature of the fridge up so everything is spoiled inside...
Or even worse, the fridge won't open until the chip on a new gallon of milk is scanned because it will "expire" anything and block access at an arbitrary date, similar to how ink in some inkjets expire.
Re: (Score:2)
And the idea of internet enabled toasters and refrigerators are absurd.
A lot of stuff that I read on the Internet . . . looks like it has been posted by toasters an refrigerators.
The problem with tech these days, is that too many people are jumping in because they think it is a gold mine. All they need to do, is throw a bit of money and time at it, and they will be the next Gates, Bezos or, aptly named, Zuckerberg ("pile of sugar", in German). I think there will be some very excellent ideas in there with all the trash and gimmicks. But the ratio of crap to good will be abo
Taking Humans Out of the Equation (Score:2)
#IoT is more-or-less a synonym for Sky-Net in it's infancy.
Think about it: The devices and appliances get smarter by studying humanity. Watching, collecting data, adjusting response, eliminating (or suggesting the elimination of) steps in the chain.
How long before humans get edited out completely, and the machine simply builds itself around us? How long after that before we're no longer needed in the flow-chart of its designs?
Just food for thought, here. I don't like the idea of my fridge coordinating with
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, have you ever sat at a stoplight and waited... and waited, for the light to change when nobody is coming from any other direction? It not only wastes your time, it's a waste of our resources and contributes to our pollution problems. This is the kind of problem that having better communications between devices or devices and humans can solve.
Gaaaahhhh ... (Score:2)
.... make it stop!
Computers are things. It's always been an "Internet of Things".
"Internet of Things" is as stupid as if we suddenly started saying "highway of cars". It's both true and free of meaning at the same time ... which I suppose is a weird sort of achievement.
And no, calling it HoC wouldn't make "highway of cars" any more hip. Just stupider.
IoT not quite ready yet... (Score:2)
Ha ha, apparently proselytizing about the "Internet of Things" is trendy again. Don't hold your breath kids; until IPv6 is a thing that's really a thing, enjoy your "small home network of things", where your game console, thermostat and toaster have 192.168.x.x IP addresses dangling from your cablemodem, and require a 3rd-party cloud service to mediate contact with your neighbor's toaster.
Seriously though... if anybody but major datamining companies are going to get remotely enthusiastic about this IoT shen
Hashtags (Score:2)
Can the Internet of Things stop people from using inappropriate hashtags in long-form content? If so, then please sign me up.
What are the benefits? (Score:2)
Are there any benefits to having everything connected to just one vast address space? I certainly can't spot them. I think this is a solution to a problem that has already been solved in another (and better) way.
Although I may concede that it could potentially be useful to have a larger address space, I think it would be massively stupid to start frittering it away on insignificant frivolities like an "internet of things". I mean, would you want your fridge to have 'friends' on Facebook or start tweeting ab