As the software guy in question who made the comment I stand by it : "IoT is only a hot topic because silicon vendors are pushing it, so they can sell more 32-bit SoCs."
I predict the internet of things will exist by definition when embedded devices talk directly to and from a user's smart phone. Until then, all this business of going to the cloud and back to a smart phone is just a workaround. The user wants seamless interaction with the technology in the environment and the handheld communicator aka smart phone or mini tablet is the window into this interaction.
That is "how" it will arrive. "When" it will arrive depends on business forces and end user demand. After all, I'm still required to implement pulse dialing on modern telecommunications devices, and that was supposed to be phased out decades ago; and Apple apparently is having trouble streaming on-demand music to users, because Sony Entertainment won't allow a "skip" button for internet radios. Users cling to old technology and gorillas construct moats even when users prefer easy integration across technology fields.
The 32-bit SOC vendors see a new land in which to create moats, using new lower cost silicon. Except SOC vendors don't have a good a problem to solve with their new silicon, because: users aren't yet ready for the technology, and communication providers (especially cellular) are too busy pinching pennies and fortifying their walls to keep users in. If the two ends aren't ready for innovation then you know what happens. Let's not even mention the telehealth market which is frozen in a lattice of insurance providers, government subsidy, big pharma, religion, user diseducation, ... and the technology is supposed to innovate?
If we ever get the "internet of things, where every light has it's own IP address, it will be IP48 that will handle it, or possibly IP64 may have a broad enough address field to last another two years. At some point the whole thing becomes a silly exercise in general goofiness.
And just because everything could be connected, eventually it will be connected-by hackers, probably. And is security needed? just consider what wouold happen if some hacker decided to make all of the electric ovens in California switch on and off at the same time, every minute or so. Or if they added in all of the air conditioners. It would probably take out the whole west6ern grid in a short time, and we already know how long a recovery there takes.Si the Io T needs very much to have a lot of limitations embedded in it.
Rich, Absolutely right that there is a lot of confusion about this concept. It is true that the Internet of Things is already here, to some extent, and there are interesting new examples in the areas of energy conservation and medical applications. But the real juice, sophisticated algorithms that adapt to data and make intelligent decisions, is really just in its infancy. Or at least, I think that's the current thinking.
I think a lot of connectivity we're seeing -- often in the factory setting -- could be construed as a version of the Internet of Things. The term may be similar to "the cloud," where there were tons of instances of cloud computing before the term appeared.
The remote control is probably a bad example because I instantly thought that an evil network or sponsor would love to take control of your remote and prevent you from changing channels, mess with your volume or prevent you from muting during a particular commercial. Think of how websites already try hard to hijack your PC to do the same thing.
A local network, sure, but not everything needs global visibility.
Debera, regarding security, it depends on the application. There are many cases where I doubt anyone would hack in and I really don't caree if they do, and in these instances, I don't want to pay extra for extra security. For example, if my TV's remote was on the INternet, I doubt someone would be trying to hack in to change my channels. Obviously there are cases where this isn't true.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.