Also remember:<p><pre><code> The "S" in IoT stands for Security.
</code></pre>
(Not my line, but applies here).<p>So security, or rather the usual lack thereof, will be a thing to keep an eye on.
I think the biggest problem of IoT right now is the perception of what's possible... We've been building internet connected devices for decades, but that's still what people perceive as IoT ('we put a chip'-movement). However, I think the true opportunity for IoT lays in the combination of the cost of sensors going down, the range of sensors going up, and the advent of machine learning.<p>With cheaper and longer-range sensors we can create vast sets of data on a scale that we haven't seen before, and with machine learning we can extract useful information from this data. With that premise it's also not hard to see why IoT in the consumer market is not such a big success, but you see big industrial players pour billions into IoT projects [1].<p>There's some other concerns of course too, like the impact that all this data might have on society and that the state of IoT security reflects the state of web security around 1999. If you're interested in that, I did a talk about the subject last week at the AMSxTech conference (20 minutes) [2].<p>[1] <a href="http://tech.newstatesman.com/iot/general-electric-billion-dollar-iot-startup" rel="nofollow">http://tech.newstatesman.com/iot/general-electric-billion-do...</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwWmgbRxwU&t=7s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwWmgbRxwU&t=7s</a>
I believe in IoT. What I don't really believe in are 'smart devices' as they are currently being sold.<p>The major benefit of IoT is for the people able to harvest the data, there is generally little added value for the end consumer.<p>I see the first major growth area in industry, and I see this happening now. Major manufacturers are adding data acquisition to all their processes.<p>The second major growth area might be the public sector. Smart Cities are building up hype and I'll think we'll hear a lot more about these kinds of initiatives in the near future.<p>As for the consumer sector, I don't see major benefits for the consumers, but from a producer's viewpoint, adding telemetry to their devices might give them valuable information. So I think we'll see everything becoming 'smart', but not for our own benefit (and hopefully not on our bill).
IoT has it's place. But but the current bread of "Smart(TM) devices" is all but smart, and in many cases security and privacy threat. A toaster doesn't need WiFi. Not all IoT devices need a internet connection and phone home by default. In the end IoT is something which is around for decades. Industry devices are connected over Ethernet at least for one decade, that's normal. But the are usually firewalled off the internet, and can only be accessed in an internal LAN.<p>So it will be interesting if Smart devices as one area of IoT keep staying in the current phase or will evolve in 1) more LAN centric, more open industry standard or 2) sending even more things home and analyse the data in a datacenter.
I think I am going to brand myself an "IoT Consultant". Get me a share of those Dollar$/Euroz/Renminbis.<p>Anyone else done that? Any IoT Consultants out there?
A shameless plug for my recent talk at PyCaribbean 2017 on the topic of MicroPython, IoT, ESP8266 and MQTT.<p>It covers broad topics that a beginner to IoT will find interesting. It's a 45 minute talk so it only covers what can be covered in that timeframe.<p>Please forgive the lack of polish. I am not a natural public speaker.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ctB8VMm6RA&t=9s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ctB8VMm6RA&t=9s</a>
Every time some research company makes a bold prediction <i>six years</i> ahead I can only think of this:<p>> In 1997 Intel was the king of the hill; in that year it first announced the Itanium or IA-64 processor. That same year, research company IDC predicted that the Itanium would take over the world, racking up $38 billion in sales in 2001. Wow! Everybody paid attention.<p>Six years is an awfully long time in this industry.
Does anyone who doesn't stand to profit from high-ball guesstimates believe in "the market in [A] will grow from [B] billion to [C] billion in just [D] years" projections?
If you add an ethernet port to your coffee maker and it doesn't increase any sales, are these reports counting it as a growth in the IoT market and loss in the older market?<p>Who's pushing this stuff? Is everyone trying to hitch a ride on some buzz, or are there relatively few companies hiring PR firms to trick gullible investors into giving them money?<p>It's hard to tell, but it looks like Proctor and Gamble introduced the term. Their stock price shot up within a year of Google Trends showing increasing interest in the term. I wonder if they're the ones hiring PR firms, or if it's all organic at this point.
Security will improve as technology improves but the main challenge of IoT is that unlike traditional software running on common hardware - upgradability and configuration is difficult due to the small form factor and awkward interface, hence why many IoT providers are going cloud first which makes sense from consumer level while it does not make sense from privacy point of view.<p>INSERT:<p>Btw while your toaster does not need to connect to your wifi many people forget what is the true value proposition here and why these devices need internet access - software - dumb devices that use the hardware only as operating shell but uses software to provide the smarts. In other words a toaster with WiFi connection will not provide you with a better toast but a toaster on your wifi might be able to serve toasted bread with broken hardware that is mitigated through a software upgrade.<p>The toaster example is extreme. I know! However if you look at Tesla you can apply the same principle at micro and macro level, i.e. the tesla already has the hardware for self-driving but it lacks the smarts yet - i.e. the software. Tesla converted the business of selling cars to a business of selling software - and that is way more valuable than just the car itself.
I can see how IoT is extremely useful in industrial and infrastructure applications (e.g. monitoring leaks in pipes). I can see how if I was a retail store I'd wanted to track everyone moving through my shops. But ... are there any compelling consumer applications? Lights that change color don't count. Connected thermostats---I've never understood the appeal.
So there was a nice little JRPG series by the name of Mega Man Battle Network (Rockman.EXE in Japan) [0]<p>Aside from its obligatory antagonists, the world presented in it seemed more or less like a utopia. What I <i>really</i> wanted to come true from it was how every device – from doghouses to alarm clocks to ovens – had a standard interface that you could "jack in" to with the "Navi" (AI avatar) in your smartphone-like PET (Personal Terminal)..<p>In current world terms, ideally that would be like:<p>• Every electronic appliance will have an standardized wireless interface, with no physical controls other than maybe hard reset/power buttons.<p>• Whenever you get a new device you'd physically tap it with your phone/wearable to register it on your Apple/Google/Microsoft/other cloud account.<p>• You'd get different tiers of controls for each appliance based on your physical distance and the level of authentication on your primary phone/wearable. e.g. to unlock your front door you have to be standing right there (like how unlocking a MacBook with Apple Watch works) but you can turn the lights on/off from across the world if you've unlocked your phone and entered your cloud password – and only from that phone.<p>• Personal Assistants (I hope they get to be called Navis at some point) would be interchangeable and customizable – like ringtones and wallpapers – each with its own visual avatar and personality. You could even have multiple Navis, each with its own duties; a butler-like personality for controlling your home, and a chirpy R2D2-like robot that handles everything else.<p>We can see some of that happening with Apple's HomeKit and its integration with Siri, and of course their competitors' offerings.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_Battle_Network" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_Battle_Network</a>
I tell people as a joke that back when I did device / integration work we didn't call it IOT we called it TCP. Really. Discrete values over wonderware sql or modems transmitting level readings. If course it wasn't internet scale but it worked. Just a new take on it.
As others have pointed out, the current state of the IoT market is nothing short of crazy, e.g., regarding security, device ownership, and, ironically, connectivity. I wonder if this isn't a perfect time to finally monetize the mountain of distributed OS research from the past three decades.<p>After all, most of you "smart sensors" are actually fairly general purpose computers, and there is no reason why you shouldn't be using all of them, all the time, for computing. Additionally, distributed OSses usually came with secure, low-overhead protocols built-in, which people in the IoT sector seem to be struggling with...
What's a good way of getting into IoT? Is there a "TensorFlow Hello World" to get started with things? What basics should I definitely not miss and what hot areas are out there?
Software <i>be</i> eating up the world. :)
Next iteration: smart <i>nano-agents</i> capable of healing virus infected networks without need for traditional human programming.