IoT Is the Third Big Technology 'Wave' In the Last 50 Years, Says Harvard 196
dcblogs writes: The Internet of Things (IoT) may be more significant in reshaping the competitive landscape than the arrival of the Internet. Its productivity potential is so powerful it will deliver a new era of prosperity. That's the argument put forth by Michael Porter, an economist at the Harvard Business School and James Heppelmann, president and CEO of PTC, in a recent Harvard Business Review essay. PTC is a product design software firm that recently acquired machine-to-machine firm Axeda Corp. In the past 50 years, IT has delivered two major transformations or "waves," as the authors describe it. The first came in the 1960s and 1970s, with IT-enabled process automation, computer-aided design and manufacturing resource planning. The second was the Internet and everything it delivered. The third is IoT. That's a strikingly sweeping claim and there will no doubt be contrarians to Porter and Heppelmann's view. But what analysts are clear about is that IoT development today is at an early stage, perhaps at a point similar to 1995, the same year Amazon and eBay went online, followed by Netflix in 1997 and Google in 1998. People understood the trend at the time, but the big picture was still out of focus.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shill says shilled product is the "next big thing," let's listen!
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Now I have a TWO phrases to despise. "The Cloud" and "Internet of Things"
Re: (Score:2)
Only two? I got a boatload. Although now I just look at those phrases as tools in a game played to separate fools from money. In the end, they're only Rorschach ink blots showing the con men the fastest path between the marks' hopes and fears.
As usual, normal technology caveats apply. Don't discard wheat needlessly, but do your best to look in places where the wheat/chaff ratio is relatively high. And that ain't IoT.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Web 5.0 will be called The Cloud of Things or simply The CloudThingNet, or the ThingNet seeing as....
Web 2.0 was about user feedback and social media; Web 3.0 was about application-rich web content, and Web 4.0 was about Cloud computing.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
I'm sympathetic to the marketroids on this one. Most people think a "computer" is a thing with a keyboard and display (hence the strange confusion over whether a phone or tablet is a "computer"). And people do understand that a network is a way for computers to talk to each other.
But the idea that you might have a microprocessor in a light bulb is plain weird to most people, hence the new name. And at least it's better than "the washing machine network". Now if only they would turn their thinking caps to
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
I swear, every time I hear somebody says "Internet of things" I immediately want to punch them in the face.
The good news is that you actually can punch people in the face over the Internet of things!
(At least depending on what kinds of actuators those things have.)
IoT goes hand in hand with IPV6 (Score:3)
Once everything can get a public IP, you can do cool things like ping your grandfather's pace maker....
ping grandpa .... ...
No response.
"GRANDPA!!!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Networked is not the same. Internet connected or something like that might be better.
Also, networked _might_ imply wired for some, while IoT is more in the line of wireless, standalone.
Internet enabled is good, but already means other old, unrelated things.
It is a new trend, that is actually gaining some momentum right now, cheap systems on chip, BLE, and stuff, and it needs a name, so others what you are talking about. IoT is as good a name as any other. It doesn't really bother me, even if it's silly.
No r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
If this is the shape of things to come then there will obviously will be plenty of work for security experts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh we get it, it's just kind of silly. IP cameras have been around before this terminology was in use, and there was never any confusion within the surveillance industry about what made them distinct from traditional surveillance cameras, even among amateurs doing DIY setups. And they haven't adopted this new terminology either, because a "Internet of Things Camera" sounds retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
"Today I bought one of those new Internet-Of-Things-Thermostats, and installed a Internet-Of-Things-Outdoor-Thermometer." Things friends and relatives will now say to us and expect us to pretend to be impressed with.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the connection goes down before you turn the bugger off.
Dead-man timeout, you say? LOLELEVENTYONES! What's that burning smell?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah and there were virtual machines talking to other virtual machines and abstracting away resources long before anyone thought of the word "cloud".
Simple shorthands like "cloud" or "internet of things" are needed because the suit-wearing people who decide where money gets allocated often prefer fuzzy thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
You're certainly right. If anything that's why they're bad, because now those same suit wearing people are spending money on anything/everything called "cloud" even though many of those things aren't within the strict definition of cloud computing, and thus don't offer the actual benefits that true cloud computing offers.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! IoT is a terminology for suit-wearing people so they can agree on almost what they are talking about when they decide to invest some money in a startup. I don't know why everyone seems surprised, upsetted or annoyed by this new terminology. This is the whole story of the Information Technology since the ages. Why are they expecting something different here?
My mayor loves IoT because he can talk about something he doesn't understand but have a fuzzy image of what it is and how it could help improve
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
IoT isn't the server-client model of your web-cameras. It's the 1995 idea of barcode scanners on every fridge that re-ordered milk when you ran out.
If your things talk to you, it's server-client. If your things talk about you, then it's IoT.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your effort to specify the internet-of-things as a well defined set is noble, but I wouldn't give the term that much credit. It's already a mushy buzzword that spills over into other technologies, and despite anyone's best efforts will never be used in any consistent manner. It overlaps everything from home automation, to remote crowd sensing, to simple devices that act as their own servers.
Your definition takes things touted as an internet-of-things and places them outside of that. The thermostats being called part of the internet-of-things are nothing more than a server that you can connect to remotely and control, and include some "smart" functions to make energy use more efficient. Many of them do not implement any standard home automation protocols that would allow the integration you speak of. In this respect they are just a standlone server you connect to with your phone/computer as a client.
Your definition basically narrows it down to things that communicate in a peer to peer fashion, no different than what existing home automation protocols do. "Internet-of-things" is just a buzzword that is popularizing what has already been possible for quite awhile. Oh yes, your camera senses motion and triggers lights? Guess what, there's already a standard for that that predates the internet-of-things concept.
Additionally, your definition of IP cameras either falls into or out of your definition of internet-of-things depending on how you use them. Yes they can act as a standalone server, not different than remotely accessible thermostats. Often you network them to a server and manage/monitor them remotely through the server. Otherwise it would be maddening to access every single device separately.
Additionally some support home automation protocols such as X10, which places them squarely into your definition of IoT because that allows them to be integrated with other devices in exactly the way you describe. Some cameras are poor at motion detection, and so you can rig recording/notifications of the cameras based on a dedicated motion sensor device.
IoT will fall into the same trap as a cloud computing. The terminology will be vastly misused to market things which cover very different paradigms.
Re: (Score:2)
Your effort to specify the internet-of-things as a well defined set is noble, but I wouldn't give the term that much credit. It's already a mushy buzzword that spills over into other technologies, and despite anyone's best efforts will never be used in any consistent manner. It overlaps everything from home automation, to remote crowd sensing, to simple devices that act as their own servers.
You are confusing the definition of the word with the use of the word. They can be directly conflicting and still both be valid. Ask an Electrical Engineer working on signal processing the definition of "broadband" and the answer will be directyl contradictory to the FCC's definition. I've used a 100Gbps connection that was "technically" baseband, not broadband. And I've used a 14.4 kbps modem that was technically "broadband" (both by the EE definition), while the FCC would reverse those definition.
IoT
Re: (Score:2)
"The level of connectivity to things is what makes the difference."
I made that distinction already in the different deployments of IP cameras. They are perfectly capable of this and have been used in this way utilizing automation protocols.
"IoT is defined as internet connected things talking to eachother, without needing a human or central server to poll them"
Many automation protocols are peer-to-peer and do not require polling. Some IP cameras can be deployed along side other protocol compliant devices i
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't have any IP cameras. I don't want anything triggering the lights except me turning on the switch. I don't have a home server, and if I did have one, I certainly wouldn't want it turning on the oven. I know whether I plan to bake something, and it doesn't. Barcode scanners on refrigerators were a silly idea in 1995, and the idea hasn't gotten any less silly just because it's now wireless.
This all sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't make my life better. The default for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, no TV and proud of it! I only watch what I can stream over the internet. :) Which these days is almost everything.
(Actually I do own a TV, but not to watch TV programs. The only things connected to it are various game consoles.)
You know, just because someone sees no value in the particular technology you're trying to hype, it doesn't automatically follow that they're a "Luddite" who has to be "dragged into the future kicking and screaming." Sometimes it's because the hype really is just hy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When I hear "Internet of Things", I think, "Twitter Enabled Refrigerator"
It's that too, but that's not what the (more serious) suits are excited about. The suits are typically excited about increasing profits for stuff that already exists, or about new business to business inventions.
Imagine for instance connecting everything in a factory in such a way that you can sit at a screen in a control room and detect or predict problems ahead of time. You could also have a risk function that quantifies risk. Sensors might for instance detect weak but unusual vibrations in a machine. Oth
Re: (Score:3)
When I hear "Internet of Things", I think, "Twitter Enabled Refrigerator"
It's that too, but that's not what the (more serious) suits are excited about. The suits are typically excited about increasing profits for stuff that already exists, or about new business to business inventions.
Imagine for instance connecting everything in a factory in such a way that you can sit at a screen in a control room and detect or predict problems ahead of time. You could also have a risk function that quantifies risk. Sensors might for instance detect weak but unusual vibrations in a machine. Other sensors might detect that you only have spares in stock for one repair of that machine. The risk function has a model of how the factory works and the model shows that the machine is vital and that production will be significantly reduced if it breaks down, which means that you're looking at a fairly high economic risk. The system could then suggest potential fixes, like stocking up on more spares, or running the machine more slowly until the next scheduled maintenance.
I think this sort of setup is already in place in many factories, but it will get more common and more advanced in the future.
Actually, what I think have the "suits" excited is the ability to things like identify what's in your refrigerator at any given time so they can send targeted ads to your (tracked) mobile device to buy crap you don't want while you're buying stuff you need. And to monitor your video/audio consumption habits for similar reasons (seamless ad insertion, product placements, etc., etc.).
When anything and everything can send data to the Internet, who do you think will be receiving such data?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, what I think have the "suits" excited is the ability to things like identify what's in your refrigerator at any given time so they can send targeted ads to your (tracked) mobile device to buy crap you don't want while you're buying stuff you need. And to monitor your video/audio consumption habits for similar reasons (seamless ad insertion, product placements, etc., etc.).
When anything and everything can send data to the Internet, who do you think will be receiving such data?
That is mainly a problem if you sign up to get something for free. I don't expect that a company that makes 50 bucks net profit off of a fridge is going to risk their reputation in order to make a tiny bit more money by selling my data.
I'm more worried that the NSA would hack into an accelerometer intended to detect vibrations of the compressor and use it as a microphone to spy on my kitchen.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is mainly a problem if you sign up to get something for free. I don't expect that a company that makes 50 bucks net profit off of a fridge is going to risk their reputation in order to make a tiny bit more money by selling my data.
I'm more worried that the NSA would hack into an accelerometer intended to detect vibrations of the compressor and use it as a microphone to spy on my kitchen.
If you think that manufacturers have such small profit margins, you're kidding yourself. And cross-licensing deals with big data aggregators could be huge money for that scum.
Also, those scenarios aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People have been talking about networking non-PC "things" together ever since people became acquainted with computers.
IoT as a term represents nothing more than the beginning of the "Marketing of Things".
At the same time, once marketeers get their hands on things, they have generally landed in some way. So, although the term annoys me, it may be a precursor of good things to come. Aside from the annoying sales and marketing babble that will be accompanying it, of course.
Lord, save me from buzzwords (Score:3)
Yeah, bluetooth is cool. Everything's connected. I can control my toaster with my Harmony remote. But this is NOT bigger than the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
My favourite thing with Bluetooth connections is when you connect all you get are codewords. Holding a phone and a speaker. Go to pair them and suddenly the speaker is actually a 947842v.2. WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there are all the oddball ways of pairing items. Some just pair with the nearest device that is discoverable, some will demand you use "0000" or "1234" for a pairing code.
Ideally, if the device isn't too small (pairing a BT headset for example), it would be nice to have some form of e-Ink display where when pairing, the device could show its name discoverable by BT as well as a random six digit PIN. Once paired, the display would blank. Ideally, some way of both devices having PINs entered on
Re:Lord, save me from buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I have had a coffee maker for 20 years that will make my coffee 10 minutes before my alarm goes off and I will have hot coffee in the morning.
I rarely use that feature, even though it is awesome and only requires me to dump in coffee grounds and push a button at night. Otherwise I have to do that and wait 10 minutes for my coffee in the morning. Big whoop.
So why would I use 95% of the promised IoT benefits, most of which are not as awesome as having hot, fresh coffee first thing in the morning. How lazy am I supposed to be?
Yes, there are some cool things which I will use in the IoT, but most of what is touted as revolutionary is just stuff that isn't hard to do anyway.
Grrr, techno coffeemakers (Score:3)
We need a coffee luddite movement.
Re: (Score:3)
"Corinthian Leather"!
Re:Lord, save me from buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But we already do that. I work in a highly automated factory and I've been doing that for the past 15 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi! I'm from $InsertFavoriteBoogymanHere!
I just pwned your system from a coffee shop in $InsertFavoritePrefix_STAN.
Thanks for making my day!
Now you need five while collar workers to secure your blue collar destroying system.
Progress as promised! [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Flatheads were well known for spreading their seed about; I would not be surprised if there was a little bit of Lord Dimwit in all of us.
Porter Schmorter already (Score:2)
I was going to say that his earlier stuff was OK, but then he went a bit bonkers. However I was getting confused Tom Peters.
Nonetheless, I think his value chain diagram is a digram for a diagram's sake.
As for competitive advantage, I think the notion of it has been around for a long time.
Simpsons (Score:3)
Right, the IoT (Score:5, Insightful)
I did not read the article, I quit reading the IoT articles some time ago. Seems they all revolve around the wonderful new advertising and data collection methods that arise as people adopt the IoT.
The day my toaster tells me about the great new pop tarts I could be eating, is the day I take a large axe to it and give it a reprogramming it will never forget.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if it tells you the pop tarts you are about to eat have been recalled due to salmonella poisoning?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Edible RFIDs are old, where have you been? They are also for old people. Gotta make sure the dementia-seniors take their meds.
Re: (Score:2)
Still stuck in the (18)90s with that boring old log splitter? You need a new SmartAxe by Spishak! It keeps track of your swings per minute (SPM), live tweets your rain of destruction, and presents you with a curated ad experience for products to replace the ones you've destroyed. The SmartAxe, by Spishak! Because Fuck Cavemen (tm).
Re: (Score:2)
If you do popcorn in the microwave it should tell you that you're an utter fucking philistine, that's what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. Use a decent clean frying pan and stay awake while you're doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to assign me my favorite color while you are at it?
Re: (Score:3)
IdIoTs (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, an article hyping a fork of the internet that is all...hype!
Let's say 2-10% of the total population use devices to actually control or monitor web-connected appliances. That's not where the market is.
It's all about the 100% of the population are subjected to an unending bombardment of ads on their refrigerator and microwave screens, based on personal data profiles garnered from same-said appliances associated with other known user info. Universal real-time context-based marketing. SCORE!
This isn't about technology. It's about marketing, pure and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Nail, head, hit.
As for the "third wave" after computers and the Internet, I can strongly speculate on what that will be... and that will be a run from the Internet on a large scale.
WANs that are air-gapped from the Internet will be something that is coming our way. Right now, the technology is nascent because previous networks were designed to get stuff connected with security as an afterthought. However, we will be seeing various items split from the Internet, similar to the US's SIPRNet and NIPRNet. So
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's not just about marketing, it's also about influence and control of agencies over every aspect of your life. Think of all the doors this opens for control. Example: You can use a web cam to see the contents of your Fridge to know what to order. Someone else wishing to portray you as an alcoholic can look in your fridge and see you have beer and use this for evidence (even if it's not true), and the now mandated Government Health insurance can use the contents of your fridge to deny payments d
Re: (Score:2)
Fad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd want to know if 10 windows in the house are open and somebody turned on the AC, or a closet light has been left on since morning.
I work in the energy efficiency indu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree these are not something most grandmas are going to use anymore than they would have used a smartphone in 2005 or even today. That doesn't mean th
Re: (Score:2)
would you pay 1100.00 for a refrigerator without IoT or 900.00 with? how about car insurance for 800.00 a year without IoT or 500.00 a year with? and hey, how come himmy32's fridge never tells NYPD ^H^H^H^H aunt may what he's having for dinner? maybe he's storing something other than food, probable cause and defending society from malnourishment what not.
I wish I were so wrong.
This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me go through each of the predicted applications [wikipedia.org] of the Internet of Things and see how much, or how little, effect it will have.
Environmental monitoring - Will protect you from a tsunami once a decade. Otherwise, makes no difference to your life.
Infrastructure management - Will make your train run a couple percent faster. Barely noticeable.
Industrial applications - Will let Walmart cut a few more cents off their prices and still make a profit. Barely noticeable.
Energy management - Will cut a few dollars off your electric bill. Barely noticeable.
Medical and healthcare systems - Will get you faster to the hospital when certain medical crises occur. May lead to better treatment of some chronic diseases, once a few decades of research is done based on the resulting data.
Building and home automation - Will change the world just as much as X10 did. Remember them?
Transport Systems - See infrastructure and industry above.
Large scale deployments - May save a little money. Unclear what this category even means.
Compare that to the effects of the internet on business on society. Here are a few of the first ones I can think of:
- Internet purchases
- Telecommuting and eased outsourcing
- Almost replaces the newspaper, travel agent, and snail mail industries
- Social media as a major activity for most people - formation of new geographically-dispersed communities
There's just no reasonable comparison. Even the hype for the IoT is smaller than many of the demonstrable effects for the real internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Industrial applications - Will let Walmart cut a few more cents off their prices and still make a profit. Barely noticeable.
Retail profit margins are razor thin as it is. The reason they make so much money is the volume. If they can shave a few cents off of each of the billion products they sell each year, that's tens of millions of dollars! That's very noticeable!
Of all the possible applications for the IoT, industrial applications are by far the most promising for that reason. Some industries are so competitive that successful companies look at fractions of a percent improvements as major investment opportunities. Indu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If my life, and the lives of 15-20,000 other people are spared (see death toll of Fukushima Tsunami), then that makes a fairly large difference, economically speaking - if I'm killed when I'm 30, versus living to the ripe old age of 80, and that same pattern plays out across 15,000 other people? An extra 50 years on my life? That certainly makes a difference in MY life, and in the economic
Security (Score:2)
How does the IoT handle security problems? That seems the biggest stumbling block.
"Dumb" things have an important advantage in that they can't be hacked and remotely controlled - especially without your knowing.
The current maintenance nightmare of securing networked devices is already overwhelming (me) and the effects of being hacked are already incredibly expensive. I'm not sure the value gained from IoT is worth it.
Perhaps if the devices were not update-able and only sent and recieved particular commands.
Re: (Score:3)
The current maintenance nightmare of securing networked devices is already overwhelming (me) and the effects of being hacked are already incredibly expensive. I'm not sure the value gained from IoT is worth it.
It's only a problem if you care. Just sit back, relax, let us worry about security.
Sit back, it's OK, really it is. Would you like a nice message? There's an app for that you know.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm beginning to think that there basically is no security on the Internet. What security there is is a facade only.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the rub... IoT sounds like 1990s thinking where the goal is to get stuff connected, and worry about security later.
IoT -might- be useful, but what is needed is for a LAN/WAN approach, with a central monitoring device that handles all the local devices, with a hardened external interface, perhaps even an independent NIC that does the firewall rules [1]. The monitoring device would either poll or receive traps from the BlueTooth devices, then handle the info either by sending it to a preconfigured des
'Age of prosperity' - how? (Score:3)
... so powerful it will deliver a new era of prosperity. That's the argument put forth by Michael Porter, ...
This is not 'an argument', it's a postulate. How does he actually imagine that this fabled 'IoT' (note the fancy capitalisation, an infallible sign that This Is True, for certain values of true). Let's go all the way back to the fundamentals of economy: value is produced by adding labour to natural resources, right? You dig iron ore out of the ground, heat it up and slap it with a hammer - now you have a tool, which is valuable (slightly simplified, I know). Where does the value come from in this IoT? Advertising? Outsourcing? Or does he just mean that the already wealthy will be better able to concentrate what limited wealth there is in their bankaccounts? Value, whichever way you define it, does not come out of thin air and communication.
Let's hear some real arguments, please.
Wave, or buzzword bingo? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, "Internet of Things" is at present a purely marketing term, and something bandied about by people who are telling us how awesome the future will be and what we'll be using.
Is it a real thing? Is this what people actually want? Or is this just hype and bullshit?
Me, I'm more thinking this falls into the category of most forms of prognostication, isn't as inevitable or desired as people think, and a whole bunch of people are making money by talking about "Interwebs of Stuff".
It's hard not to see this as so much marketing crap, and something for the analysts to talk about that, as usual, they have no idea if it's real or not but need to sell their services.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that making a "smart" appliance adds too much cost in a market where most people can't take any advantage of it. As long as you need special everything, it's just not worth it. Part of the problem is that everything needs its own wireless module, which aren't trivial and instantly brings all sort of funny hacking scenarios into play. Ideally you'd have some kind of "smart wiring" which hooks everything straight to a home central, that way even a really cheap micro-controller could do the job
loT stands for Lot of Trolls? (Score:2)
IoP (Score:2)
Oh it WILL have way more impact (Score:2)
Way more than the internet, dot.com, the cloud and all that jazz combined. With idiots buying some new appliances 'cause they are now "all connected" and manufacturers not giving half a shit about making them secure in any way, with a government thrown in that wants to regulate everything and anything you do, say and think and just waiting for an excuse to regulate the living shit out of anything internet related, this WILL have way more impact on our lives than anything that came before.
Well, I think it's neat... (Score:2)
Imagine, a vast collection of Things [tumblr.com] connected electronically! Maybe next we can have an Internet of Itts! [blogspot.com]
Responsibility (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Legal liability for appliances and their cock ups is handled in much the same way as it is now.
If my toaster starts a fire and burns down my house, the insurance cuts me a check immediately while they handle the legal battle with GE (toaster manufacturer) and UL (Underwriters Laboratory who signed off on the device safety). The same legal protections for technology in appliances should be in effect. If my dishwasher gets malware (or just includes it by default) and causes my refrigerator to stop working and spoil my food, the insurance cuts me a check for my losses and to replace the defective appliances, and handles the legal issues.
2) Device interoperability needs to be as easy as antiquated analog systems.
You could hook up a TV with RCA or coax connections and be watching off a VCR or DVD player in minutes. It's ridiculous that HDMI is rarely so straightforward (it occasionally works this simply). Resolution, aspect ratio, audio stream selection, and DRM phone home setup is retarded.
3) Pick a device class to be the central hub, management, and gatekeeper. I suggest home wifi routers or a cheap, simple network bridge device.
4) Full control of permissions and actions by devices with simple to understand language.
If I don't want my washing machine downloading ads for Tide and Purex, it better f---ing not download ads. Same goes for usage tracking uploads.
5) Power usage should not significantly go up. If anything, connected devices should be able to lend clues as to how little changes can make my home greener and/or lower utility bills. Example: washing machine suggests running wash cycle at 8 PM to get out of peak usage billing. It sends me an SMS if I select, to let me know to put the clothes into the dryer.
6) Device electronics / control should be isolated to prevent the additional complication from increasing failure rate.
It's stupid, bad engineering that the more features a home appliance has, i.e. the more premium it is, the more consumers see failures. If the toaster can't get online, it better still make my toast when I press the button.
Re: (Score:2)
lol (Score:2)
Salesman says "This thing I'm selling is the next big thing!!"
Slashdot editors fall for it.
l
Thank God! ... (Score:2)
Its productivity potential is so powerful it will deliver a new era of prosperity.
Seriously, how did we, as a species, ever get by without an Internet-connected refrigerator that can track milk usage? Or a WiFi thermostat? Like a fool, I've simply set mine to a low of 70 and high of 78, letting my 16 SEER heat-pump auto-switch as needed. Curse my short-sightedness; I have been blinded by my comfortable room temperatures!!
IoT = Internet of Trolls (Score:2)
The things that need sensors to operate properly and or safely already have them.
Things that don't at best stand to benefit only marginally and at questionable ROI to their users.
The only point of salivating over IoT is selling gimmicks and excuses to spy on everyone and everything for profit. To quote TFA "and after-sale service and by creating the need for new activities such as product data analytics and security."
How does the customer benefit from that? They don't... was never the point.
Killer app (Score:2)
I sure hope I can use the IoT to control a monorail!
IoT is NOT new. (Score:2)
It's simply the latest wave of the "On the Internet!" fad.
Viewing webpages ON THE INTERNET
Watching movies ON THE INTERNET
Banking ON THE INTERNET
Buying dog food ON THE INTERNET
Your car ON THE INTERNET
Your refrigerator ON THE INTERNET
Your thermostat ON THE INTERNET
Your toilet ON THE INTERNET
While the gear geek in me thinks "Cool! We can do that!"
The rest of me really, SERIOUSLY questions other ramifications brought on by "Everything ON THE INTERNET". Like privacy. And security.
Think of "Your security syste
Re: (Score:2)
why is your pacemaker directly on the internet? why is any of this stuff directly on the internet? Grandpa tapping his phone against his chest so the pacemaker can upload to his phone to send to his doctor would be neat. and make it so the pacemaker can only recieve instructions from a secure device at the Cardiologist's office.
nobody is saying set your toilet to send a tweet everytime you drop a deuce and do a chemical analysis on it (though the chem analysis may be handy from a health perspective in a hospital)
That's the thing, that's IS what they're saying. Everything online.
Without really stopping to ask if the stuff BELONGS online in the first place, what data it could be bleeding, and what kind of consequences there are to security breaches.
More accurate: PoT (Score:2)
I Have Doubts (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn IoT (Score:3)
Please stop the Big Data wet dream of sensors all over collecting information they have no business having. The security nightmare of millions of half-ass secured devices leaking data 24 hrs a day is not a good thing for society. There could be plenty of value in certain devices communicating, but on an intranet only and with very limited extranet access only if and when appropriate. The current model where things just get stuck on the internet with no limitations is the wrong approach for the consumer and the health of the internet.
What a horror! (Score:2)
Re:What is this "IoT"? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I have a hundred devices that are easily hacked because they are never once updated? Yeah, sounds great. Now I can have so random hacker own my house and set it on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell I don't even want smart devices. My fridge has lasted 16 years with zero issues. It's as dumb as a stump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
obvious (ab)use case : (Score:2)
I have to admit, it would be nice if my fridge would automatically re-order things I'm running out of and want always stocked.
I would not be nice if my fridge ordered 50,000 pizzas because the script kiddie down the block H@XX0R3D some NSA-mandated vulnerability.
/IoT
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a consequence, you'll have to enter into it how much milk you drank each time.
Nonsense, my milk will come in a smart package that automatically reports to the fridge how much is left in the package and an RFID tag so that the smart fridge and smart garbage can will know when I've thrown it away.
Of course all of this is open to a variety of legal and illegal forms of abuse, but I was only commenting that there is a desireability for some features of the IoT.
Re: (Score:2)
# It's like raiaiain on your wedding day...
Re: (Score:2)