5 ms·

A Future Where All Objects Talk to the Internet

35 points by dylangs1030 15y ago

willyt 15y ago
If anyone from Twine is reading this, it would be really interesting if, along with twitter etc, these things could easily communicate with sites like https://pachube.com/ https://pachube.com/. I know it's possible to read the pachube api and configure it to do the the rest stuff manually using the http functionality but I'm sure you could simplify this a lot through the web interface, which looks great by the way.
- ennovates 15y ago
  or it'll be even more good if they just create way to let any website configure themselves without any problem. This way they can act as a medium for material objects and websites and can position themselves for a very gud product. They can even charge for exclusive support.
  - akarambir 15y ago
    would love to see that happen :)
dablue 15y ago
Cool, but this looks like THEY are in charge of the servers. If this is true, no thank you. I'd like to set up and control my own servers and be responsible for my own object's privacy. Facebook is invading people's privacy Twine is [trying] to invade people's objects' privacy. Nice try but no thanks! What happens if a hacker gets in and notices a filter like: When [person] leaves home, decrease heating thermostat down to 65F degrees If this action is triggered, the crooks will know which homes are vacant or occupied.
joezydeco 15y ago
For a moment I thought this was a sealed unit with wireless recharging. Then I could monitor rainfall, watch the temperature of a pool, or make a nice sous-vide cooking apparatus. Next rev, perhaps.
ajays 15y ago
I'll play the same tune I played the last time this was discussed: what is the cost? If the cost is above $30, I'm not sure I'd be interested. If they can bring the cost down to $10, that would be ideal. More generally speaking: how difficult is it to build one of your own? I'd like to build a sensor which is powered by, say, 2 AA batteries, has wifi and a, say, accelerometer. What would it run?
- joezydeco 15y ago
  It would be pretty cheap, except for the wifi part. Those modules seem to be running in the $50-$60 range for onesies, not including antenna (or making room on your PCB for a screened one)
  - ajays 15y ago
    Well, every module doesn't have to have wifi. It could be Zigbee, with a base station(s) that interface with wifi.
    - dkersten 15y ago
      True, though that gets back to your original point, since Zigbee tranceicesr are also (relatively) expensive. I am currently working on some wireless hardware myself and while my devices do not need to be connected to the internet, they certainly could be since they do need to connect to a computer. Currently I am using ~$15 bluetooth modules for devices that can cost more and won't have more than a few instances deployed in one place. I will probably use wifi for high-cost, many-instance devices and I am currently evaluating solutions for low-cost, many-instance (though currently I only need low bandwidth one way communication for these). So far I have had some success with cheap rf-link mopules such as these[1], but am investigating cheaper/smaller/more-full-featured alternatives[1]. My target for these devices is sub €10 (~$13), which includes cost of microcontroller, rf module, passive components, circuit board and packaging. My point is basically that sub-$10 may be possible depending on requirements - base station or standalone; one way or bidirectional transmission; point-to-point or broadcast; size requirements and so on. I think for some of the applications mentioned in the article, sub-$10 is very possible. Of course you lose the single general purpose device appeal, but perhaps a small number of more-specialised devices could be available and you can then mix and match, especially if everything works off a single base station. [1] http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10532 http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10532 they are ultra simple, but also quite bulky [2] 2.4Ghz RF transceivers from Nordic Semiconductor among others

35 points by dylangs1030 15y ago

If anyone from Twine is reading this, it would be really interesting if, along with twitter etc, these things could easily communicate with sites like https://pachube.com/ https://pachube.com/. I know it's possible to read the pachube api and configure it to do the the rest stuff manually using the http functionality but I'm sure you could simplify this a lot through the web interface, which looks great by the way.

ennovates 15y ago
or it'll be even more good if they just create way to let any website configure themselves without any problem. This way they can act as a medium for material objects and websites and can position themselves for a very gud product. They can even charge for exclusive support.
- akarambir 15y ago
  would love to see that happen :)

dablue 15y ago

Cool, but this looks like THEY are in charge of the servers. If this is true, no thank you. I'd like to set up and control my own servers and be responsible for my own object's privacy. Facebook is invading people's privacy Twine is [trying] to invade people's objects' privacy. Nice try but no thanks! What happens if a hacker gets in and notices a filter like: When [person] leaves home, decrease heating thermostat down to 65F degrees If this action is triggered, the crooks will know which homes are vacant or occupied.

joezydeco 15y ago

For a moment I thought this was a sealed unit with wireless recharging. Then I could monitor rainfall, watch the temperature of a pool, or make a nice sous-vide cooking apparatus. Next rev, perhaps.

ajays 15y ago

I'll play the same tune I played the last time this was discussed: what is the cost? If the cost is above $30, I'm not sure I'd be interested. If they can bring the cost down to $10, that would be ideal. More generally speaking: how difficult is it to build one of your own? I'd like to build a sensor which is powered by, say, 2 AA batteries, has wifi and a, say, accelerometer. What would it run?

joezydeco 15y ago
It would be pretty cheap, except for the wifi part. Those modules seem to be running in the $50-$60 range for onesies, not including antenna (or making room on your PCB for a screened one)
- ajays 15y ago
  Well, every module doesn't have to have wifi. It could be Zigbee, with a base station(s) that interface with wifi.
  - dkersten 15y ago
    True, though that gets back to your original point, since Zigbee tranceicesr are also (relatively) expensive. I am currently working on some wireless hardware myself and while my devices do not need to be connected to the internet, they certainly could be since they do need to connect to a computer. Currently I am using ~$15 bluetooth modules for devices that can cost more and won't have more than a few instances deployed in one place. I will probably use wifi for high-cost, many-instance devices and I am currently evaluating solutions for low-cost, many-instance (though currently I only need low bandwidth one way communication for these). So far I have had some success with cheap rf-link mopules such as these[1], but am investigating cheaper/smaller/more-full-featured alternatives[1]. My target for these devices is sub €10 (~$13), which includes cost of microcontroller, rf module, passive components, circuit board and packaging. My point is basically that sub-$10 may be possible depending on requirements - base station or standalone; one way or bidirectional transmission; point-to-point or broadcast; size requirements and so on. I think for some of the applications mentioned in the article, sub-$10 is very possible. Of course you lose the single general purpose device appeal, but perhaps a small number of more-specialised devices could be available and you can then mix and match, especially if everything works off a single base station. [1] http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10532 http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10532 they are ultra simple, but also quite bulky [2] 2.4Ghz RF transceivers from Nordic Semiconductor among others