Dan Hon commented:
The thing - ha - about the internet-of-things is that it's a weird descriptor.
from a consumer point of view, for most things, why would it have wifi if it couldn't be connected, in some way, to the internet? Which is sort of the position that all of this IoT business is a temporary blip and that instead you'll just be looking for "doorbells" or "lightbulbs" or "locks" and you won't really get a choice about whether they "come with internet" or not.
I'll go with that. The internet won't stay trapped behind glass. -- That was a useful encapsulation to explain what we were doing with Berg Cloud.
Of course lightbulbs should be networked. But my hunch is that - with connectivity - we'll find new products that means that we no longer focus on light bulbs per se. Maybe connectivity will mean that we'll buy "lighting," verbs not nouns.
I guess the scale of the difference I mean is like software. Which, when networked, became social. Our global village.
And it won't necessarily be an "internet" and an "internet of things" but still, just, and only, the internet, at least I hope so, because the whole point of the internet - or at least, just one of the points of the internet is that things can link from one thing to another thing and that's why the superset - the internet of networks of things - will be the one that wins. Hopefully.
So I have some very rough mental models that I use, now I'm officially exploring the Internet of Things.
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.We don't talk about Web 2.0 any more, but that's what the deployment phase of the web was, for almost a decade.
I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. ... Plastics.What? Pacemakers or wind turbines? Well, yes. All of the above.
Here's the working definition I have in my notebook: We see the internet of things wherever a physical thing is connected by some kind of data carrying link to a computer capable of running software.
I'm casting a wide net -- we've built a lot of infrastructure (train platform signage, building facilities) that we don't call IOT but it is. Or it's close to being so. Why is this good?
So given my working definition, I need to refer to two types of connectivity:
I can think of lots of things that would benefit from connectivity without backhaul. I'd like to be able to orchestrate the behaviour of all the lightbulbs in my house, for example; remote control from the open internet is a bonus.
Then back to Dan's original point...
and that's why the superset - the internet of networks of things - will be the one that wins. Hopefully.
Hopefully. Maybe. But where my mental model takes me is to draw analogies with dumb unconnected stuff... my home. And I like that there are doors, that close, and windows that are see-through but with curtains; I can leave the phone off the hook and pull the plug on the wi-fi. There are switch by walls where my hand finds them, and those hidden at the back of the cupboard by the stove. These aren't just security models -- they're ways of making sense of the stuff I have in my life.
Still I go back the connected lightbulb and it's eventual value. To discover the it might require building out the whole Internet of Things first... the World Wide Web was already 7 years old by the time Blogger.com launched and so discovered the real value of the medium.
And maybe that'll require the open internet and all that implies. I hope so too but I think we have to make that case from value, because it's not necessary.