> trying to vendor-lock you Isn't that the point of this? We've got AWS IoT, Artik, Xively, Google Cloud IoT.. I've looked at a few and they basically all do

> trying to vendor-lock you Isn't that the point of this? We've got AWS IoT, Artik, Xively, Google Cloud IoT.. I've looked at a few and they basically all do the same thing in a slightly different, incompatible way. If we get something that enough people agree is "the standard" then maybe you can define a single device schema and connect to any of those services interchangeably. > I don't see much incentive for IoT vendors to accept standard protocols But we see already this is not the case. Cloud providers give MySQL/ Postgres compatible storage, Docker deployments... Consider that customers are already faced with "do I want to tie my product to this cloud backend" when it could be "oh good Artik supports the ""IoT standard"" let's go." There's still tons of incentive to stick with one platform. > Now W3C wants to tie IoT into the web. ... JavaScript is not a language suited for this task Not sure what you mean about JavaScript, they use JSON to represent the schema, and WebSockets as the transport but presumably you could use a websocket library written in any language. Personally I did hope to see MQTT bindings and/or weight thrown behind CoAP but maybe those will come along later.