11 ms·

whenever I see a headline of the formula, "What's next in X" I immediately think to myself, "probably not what this article thinks it is." That said, yeah, som

whenever I see a headline of the formula, "What's next in X" I immediately think to myself, "probably not what this article thinks it is." That said, yeah, some of the handwriting is on the wall. I think IoT will be the next big hit, not because people want it or will use any of it, but because that's all anyone is going to be selling. Samsung, LG, GE, et al. aren't going to give us a choice. It won't be a big dramatic change like self-driving cars. It will be a slow trickle of toaster fridges that we don't notice until we are out trying to replace a washing machine one day and can't find one without a self-ironing board attached that wants to connect to our bed to know when to wake up the coffee pot that makes your egg-white substitute omelet and makes sure your shirt is wrinkle free at exactly the moment your shower dries you off and combs your hair. And while all of us nerds are busy disabling all that crap so we can just clean some underwear, Wall Street will be declaring that IoT is here and winning! What they won't mention is that it's winning because there's nothing else left to buy.

dzhiurgis 11y ago
What you've ironically described is home automation facilitated by IoT. Cheap IoT devices can be installed just about any manufacturing and agricultural device. Heck, you'll be able to monitor each individual plant health. Your car will be able to notify of failing components before they actually failed (FFT and irregular frequency monitoring).
- ianamartin 11y ago
  Well, that's the dream IoT is selling. But the reality is that most of it won't work. The big brands that the vast majority of consumers recognize and are willing to buy and can afford are simply not competent to deliver the dream. They will make the devices work just well enough to gather your personal data and stop there. For most of the rest of our lifetimes, IoT will be the same shitshow of incompatible nightmares as plug-and-play was for Windows throughout most of the 90s. But it will win, and it will be the next big thing for a similar reason: not because it's good or because it works well, but because that's all anyone is selling.
  - wmat 11y ago
    You can't spell "idiot" without "iot".
    - late2part 11y ago
      Intentionally Deficient...
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Yup. I found when I took on doing home automation for myself, it involved a lot more electrical work, and a lot more code than the consumer is up for, to make it do what I actually want. The one-off consumer devices inspire the dream but don't deliver on it.
- knob 11y ago
  >(FFT and irregular frequency monitoring Got any links for this? It's a topic I'm interested in.
  - dzhiurgis 11y ago
    http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/1/607/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/1/607/pdf IIRC Australian railways are implementing this.
ryanmonroe 11y ago
If no people want or will use IoT connected devices, what motivation do companies have to sell only IoT devices? I don't understand the logic behind this prediction (only IoT products available, but no one wants them). It seems a bit like predicting that in the future people will still prefer to write on paper, but no companies will sell paper anymore, only tablets. Maybe there's a key motivating factor I'm missing?
- eximius 11y ago
  Big executive hears about it, thinks its 'the next big thing' and poors money into it. A second big executive hears that the previous company is doing it and they have to stay competitive. Their next flagship product has it and coincidentally does well. They attribute it to IoT and all of their products have it in a year. Then it spreads across the industry and no one has choice anymore.
  - ryanmonroe 11y ago
    I don't think multinational corporations are going to change their entire product line entirely on the basis of gossip about "the next big thing". Maybe some would, but surely not all. A decision like that would have to be made after doing some serious market research and testing sales of products with that feature against sales of products without it. If corporation A switched to only IoT devices and customers didn't want that, surely Corporation B which hasn't made the switch would gain more market share, then A would take note and switch back. There's too much money to be made by being the one company that still offers what consumers want. I don't understand this fear that profit-driven corporations will suddenly decide to add costly features in a world where no one wants them.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      The history of consumer computing - especially the existence of the word "crapware" - suggests the opposite happens. Corps tend to offer what execs think consumers want, based on a consumer model which is irrationally similar to an idealised version of the exec - who inevitably seems to think more is better, for very noisy values of "more". Which is why printer driver installers, smartphones, operating systems, and hardware products all acquire barnacle encrustations of crapware that literally no consumer wants. IoT could easily be more susceptible to this than desktop and mobile computing. Corps that truly understand their customers are incredibly rare. Many corps seem to get along by throwing crap at the wall and hoping some of it sticks. Genuine customer insight is practically a superpower.
monk_e_boy 11y ago
I don't agree. There are plenty of things in my life that could be hooked up to some online AI to make them smarter. Anything with a lock. Just figure out that I'm me and open. If I leave lock up. Open up for anyone on my authorised list. More cameras pointed at stuff. Our local club (100 members) purchased a weather station and decent camera and pointed it at the sea so we can all check the wind and surf. Cool. More of these cheaper please. We have Woo devices that we attach to kiteboards, these measure jump height, duration and G force. These are then synced to a phone and internet, so not quite IoT but close. More of these please. Attach them to anything that moves (shoes, kites, surfboards, swim fins, soccer balls, bike) more data is fun. GoPros, most people I know have these. They need to be better hooked up to the internet. I think there are a ton of IoT that will make sense and people will buy. Just because you don't see the value in a toaster hooked up to the 'net, doesn't mean the IoT is dumb. I think it's great.
- daveguy 11y ago
  The big problem I have with IoT is that none of this requires online AI. What part of having an authorized list or identifying you requires internet access? The IoT will take off when services are run on site. When the processing power is available from a small appliance box and companies advertise security and reliability associated with local processing it will catch on. What happens to your smart lock of your internet connection goes out? What about if the server that holds your whitelist is compromised?
  - azinman2 11y ago
    That's why vanadium exists (and is being invented). Http://v.io
  - taneq 11y ago
    Exactly. If there's one thing I hate about the direction of tech these days, it's this headlong rush to gratuitously shackle all of our previously-independent devices to a mesh of online services. My bike lock (to use this example) should NOT require an internet connection, and should not depend on some web service (run by a super trendoid startup which might not exist in six months time) to fulfill its function. And don't get me started on phone apps which shift some trivial processing off into "the cloud" as a thinly veiled excuse to upload all of your personal data to the company's servers so they can then flog your details off to some advertising company. /rant
sbov 11y ago
I think some are genuinely useful. Smart water sprinkler controllers seem generally useful. I used to forget to use our non-smart controller's "rain delay" all the time. We also have an alert system setup to let us know when the outside temperature would meet the heating or cooling requirements of the thermostat. This is pretty useful in southern California. A single switch to kill all your lights when you leave/go to bed is useful. But at $35 per smart switch you're going to shell out a lot of cash for this convenience. My biggest issue with IoT as it is currently evolving is how reliant on the manufacturer they are to keep working. I would be surprised to see some of these devices working in 5 years, much less 20 or 30.
- prawn 11y ago
  I'm surprised we haven't seen more brainstorming about how we can make these devices (now and future) less reliant on individual companies whether they're start-ups or giants. Maybe an open standard that is provided as part of your ISP package but can be moved from one to another?
jug 11y ago
Yes, we recently talked about IoT devices here at work, but the thing is, it wasn't ignited by people who had even heard or knew the "IoT" moniker. It's hard to tell what will be a hit from my world since I'm so deep into IT that I often lack the perspective, but that one was a good test of how it's already been entering consumer mindsets.

dzhiurgis 11y ago

What you've ironically described is home automation facilitated by IoT. Cheap IoT devices can be installed just about any manufacturing and agricultural device. Heck, you'll be able to monitor each individual plant health. Your car will be able to notify of failing components before they actually failed (FFT and irregular frequency monitoring).

ianamartin 11y ago
Well, that's the dream IoT is selling. But the reality is that most of it won't work. The big brands that the vast majority of consumers recognize and are willing to buy and can afford are simply not competent to deliver the dream. They will make the devices work just well enough to gather your personal data and stop there. For most of the rest of our lifetimes, IoT will be the same shitshow of incompatible nightmares as plug-and-play was for Windows throughout most of the 90s. But it will win, and it will be the next big thing for a similar reason: not because it's good or because it works well, but because that's all anyone is selling.
- wmat 11y ago
  You can't spell "idiot" without "iot".
  - late2part 11y ago
    Intentionally Deficient...
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Yup. I found when I took on doing home automation for myself, it involved a lot more electrical work, and a lot more code than the consumer is up for, to make it do what I actually want. The one-off consumer devices inspire the dream but don't deliver on it.
knob 11y ago
>(FFT and irregular frequency monitoring Got any links for this? It's a topic I'm interested in.
- dzhiurgis 11y ago
  http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/1/607/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/1/607/pdf IIRC Australian railways are implementing this.

ryanmonroe 11y ago

If no people want or will use IoT connected devices, what motivation do companies have to sell only IoT devices? I don't understand the logic behind this prediction (only IoT products available, but no one wants them). It seems a bit like predicting that in the future people will still prefer to write on paper, but no companies will sell paper anymore, only tablets. Maybe there's a key motivating factor I'm missing?

eximius 11y ago
Big executive hears about it, thinks its 'the next big thing' and poors money into it. A second big executive hears that the previous company is doing it and they have to stay competitive. Their next flagship product has it and coincidentally does well. They attribute it to IoT and all of their products have it in a year. Then it spreads across the industry and no one has choice anymore.
- ryanmonroe 11y ago
  I don't think multinational corporations are going to change their entire product line entirely on the basis of gossip about "the next big thing". Maybe some would, but surely not all. A decision like that would have to be made after doing some serious market research and testing sales of products with that feature against sales of products without it. If corporation A switched to only IoT devices and customers didn't want that, surely Corporation B which hasn't made the switch would gain more market share, then A would take note and switch back. There's too much money to be made by being the one company that still offers what consumers want. I don't understand this fear that profit-driven corporations will suddenly decide to add costly features in a world where no one wants them.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    The history of consumer computing - especially the existence of the word "crapware" - suggests the opposite happens. Corps tend to offer what execs think consumers want, based on a consumer model which is irrationally similar to an idealised version of the exec - who inevitably seems to think more is better, for very noisy values of "more". Which is why printer driver installers, smartphones, operating systems, and hardware products all acquire barnacle encrustations of crapware that literally no consumer wants. IoT could easily be more susceptible to this than desktop and mobile computing. Corps that truly understand their customers are incredibly rare. Many corps seem to get along by throwing crap at the wall and hoping some of it sticks. Genuine customer insight is practically a superpower.

monk_e_boy 11y ago

I don't agree. There are plenty of things in my life that could be hooked up to some online AI to make them smarter. Anything with a lock. Just figure out that I'm me and open. If I leave lock up. Open up for anyone on my authorised list. More cameras pointed at stuff. Our local club (100 members) purchased a weather station and decent camera and pointed it at the sea so we can all check the wind and surf. Cool. More of these cheaper please. We have Woo devices that we attach to kiteboards, these measure jump height, duration and G force. These are then synced to a phone and internet, so not quite IoT but close. More of these please. Attach them to anything that moves (shoes, kites, surfboards, swim fins, soccer balls, bike) more data is fun. GoPros, most people I know have these. They need to be better hooked up to the internet. I think there are a ton of IoT that will make sense and people will buy. Just because you don't see the value in a toaster hooked up to the 'net, doesn't mean the IoT is dumb. I think it's great.

daveguy 11y ago
The big problem I have with IoT is that none of this requires online AI. What part of having an authorized list or identifying you requires internet access? The IoT will take off when services are run on site. When the processing power is available from a small appliance box and companies advertise security and reliability associated with local processing it will catch on. What happens to your smart lock of your internet connection goes out? What about if the server that holds your whitelist is compromised?
- azinman2 11y ago
  That's why vanadium exists (and is being invented). Http://v.io
- taneq 11y ago
  Exactly. If there's one thing I hate about the direction of tech these days, it's this headlong rush to gratuitously shackle all of our previously-independent devices to a mesh of online services. My bike lock (to use this example) should NOT require an internet connection, and should not depend on some web service (run by a super trendoid startup which might not exist in six months time) to fulfill its function. And don't get me started on phone apps which shift some trivial processing off into "the cloud" as a thinly veiled excuse to upload all of your personal data to the company's servers so they can then flog your details off to some advertising company. /rant

sbov 11y ago

I think some are genuinely useful. Smart water sprinkler controllers seem generally useful. I used to forget to use our non-smart controller's "rain delay" all the time. We also have an alert system setup to let us know when the outside temperature would meet the heating or cooling requirements of the thermostat. This is pretty useful in southern California. A single switch to kill all your lights when you leave/go to bed is useful. But at $35 per smart switch you're going to shell out a lot of cash for this convenience. My biggest issue with IoT as it is currently evolving is how reliant on the manufacturer they are to keep working. I would be surprised to see some of these devices working in 5 years, much less 20 or 30.

prawn 11y ago
I'm surprised we haven't seen more brainstorming about how we can make these devices (now and future) less reliant on individual companies whether they're start-ups or giants. Maybe an open standard that is provided as part of your ISP package but can be moved from one to another?

jug 11y ago

Yes, we recently talked about IoT devices here at work, but the thing is, it wasn't ignited by people who had even heard or knew the "IoT" moniker. It's hard to tell what will be a hit from my world since I'm so deep into IT that I often lack the perspective, but that one was a good test of how it's already been entering consumer mindsets.