Hey Rich, I agree we're getting there on the Internet of things. As more devices have connectivity, they naturally become part of the IoT. This happening more and more at plants these days, whether it's remote monitoring of devices or remote maintenance review. The first time I saw the concept was during the dot com days when dot com'ers were predicting a completely connected home. So far, that's not really necessary. But the concept took off in plants because connectivity can improve efficiency and improve optimization. That makes for real motivation.
Rob, the first time I wrote about the Internet of Things I was with EE Times, and much of the talk centered on the home, as you suggested. The idea seems to have matured since then, but I think eventually we will come back to that concept.
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.
Thanks Richard for reminding us about IOT. No doubt these days we are soo much dependant on it that we merely forget to think about it this is one of the great revolution in the industry . Initially there was a lot of hype of IOT but now this technology has grown up and is matured but with every advantage there is responsibility as well IOT conains alot of information with information there is always security constraints .Security is the major flaw of this technology. If any of your information is present in it then it is very easy for any one to make conclusions about you and get your information as well.
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.
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.
Rich, while the IoT is a very important and exciting area, which the silicon vendors do love, there is a tendency to take it too far some times. In reality you won't have everything connected to everything. Would you really want to? By looking at the scale from the most extenive set of possible connections you come up with a system that is much too complex to be justified for the utility that is gained. On the other hand, there are natural communities of things that, when connedted, give some useful result. This might include the appliances in my house and the smart meter.
As an example of a non-useful connection, take a game controller and your clothes washer. Even though someone may come up with some convoluted use for this, it is not really necessary or useful.
There was an interesting blog on the Freescale site regarding sensor fusion and the IoT. This is where the real need for those 32-bit MCUs comes in. That will be interesting to watch.
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.
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?
Truchard will be presented the award at the 2014 Golden Mousetrap Awards ceremony during the co-located events Pacific Design & Manufacturing, MD&M West, WestPack, PLASTEC West, Electronics West, ATX West, and AeroCon.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.