5 ms·

The Internet of Things hype hasn't hit HN hard yet, but it seems to be ramping up. Is anybody else skeptical? The strongest push for IoT seems to be from the w

by freyr 12y ago

The Internet of Things hype hasn't hit HN hard yet, but it seems to be ramping up. Is anybody else skeptical? The strongest push for IoT seems to be from the wireless hardware manufacturers (Cisco, Qualcomm, etc.) and of course, they have the most to benefit from putting a wireless chip in everything. It's a wonderful solution to their problem of "How do we sell more chips?" Now Google and Apple are hopping on board. They also have something to gain; Apple sells more hardware, Google collects more information. But from a consumer's perspective, it seems like a solution in search of problem, and I haven't yet seen a single truly compelling use case that will impact a large segment of the population (turning heating/AC or lights on and off automatically is cool, but not that cool for most people when initial cost is factored in). Can somebody illuminate this for me?

alttab 12y ago
Right now its all buzzwords and vaporware. We are in 2004 talking about the "cloud." However, its coming, much like the cloud has.
- freyr 12y ago
  There's a critical difference. Although the cloud and the IoT both began with buzzwords and vaporware, the cloud had clear and compelling potential benefits for customers from the start. For every "cloud," there are many overhyped technologies that went nowhere, despite industry's best efforts to thrust them upon us.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  A lot of people here are sceptical but I keep looking for products on Amazon I just assume would already exist but don't. Three examples: I was recently looking for a door chime ("door bell") and since I have WiFi already all over the house I wanted something that could piggy-back off of that to increase range but also maybe send the notification to my phone or similar. Doesn't exist. Only ye-olde style RF doorbells no different than what they sold 50 years ago. I wanted a motion sensor that wasn't part of a security system, just a single stand alone motion detector which could send a text message ONLY during set hours (e.g. 11 pm to 6 am) when motion was detected. But nope, also doesn't exist (in fact there is a serious lack of variety in motion detectors, the closest I found was a Honeywell one which set off a doorbell when motion was detected, but cannot be shut off based on time of day). I want to know when the clothing dryer is done. I often don't hear it. I have WiFi, but yet I cannot receive an update digitally yet. Why? I cannot speak to everyone but for me personally I WANT this stuff. I'd happily buy this stuff. It doesn't exist. Where is it? Make it and I'll buy it.
  - alttab 12y ago
    Don't get me wrong I totally get it. When you plug your device into a message bus like you would a power cord into the wall, things begin to make sense. Here is how I see it coming together: - STANDARDS: The "message bus" needs to have essentially an HTTP protocol standard, that both producers and receivers on both ends can understand. - Hardware, appliances and objects generate their own implementation of an end-node adhering to the protocol. - Wifi Routers allow the firmware to run "master" nodes, that would have a mobile app and a web front end to configure and customize. But because having to VPN into your house to manage anything, or even have to have a VPN at all would be silly. So now we host it in the cloud and the devices simply pull. To design the APIs, platform, SDK, and hosting solution would look a lot like what Apple and Google are doing with their all-encompassing themed keynotes this year. I'm actually worried about interoperability more than anything.
    - x1798DE 12y ago
      >STANDARDS: The "message bus" needs to have essentially an HTTP protocol standard, that both producers and receivers on both ends can understand. I think a better analogy to what we need should be an HTTPS protocol standard. HTTP was designed in an era of slow computers when security and privacy were not particularly high on the list of developer priorities, and now we're seeing an agonizingly slow move towards universal HTTPS adoption. It'd be nice to actually start out with security-aware protocols for once.
  - jkestner 12y ago
    It's hard to meet every need when connectivity is still to expensive to try throwing in everything, but that's why we made a general connected object - your examples can be mostly met by http://supermechanical.com/twine http://supermechanical.com/twine, some with the breakout board to wire into existing circuits.
bduerst 12y ago
The Internet of Things won't be that useful until it starts tying in several external services. I imagine then there will be enough value added that it will go over the tipping point for consumer recognition. I'm personally waiting for my refrigerator to detect my food inventory, and auto-order grocery delivery once a week to restock itself. But seeing how Safeway, Shopping Express, Amazon Fresh, etc. don't even have an API yet, it's going to be a long wait.
- freyr 12y ago
  > I'm personally waiting for my refrigerator to detect my food inventory, and auto-order grocery delivery once a week I imagined this as well, and it would be pretty cool (although I actually enjoy grocery shopping). As you say, it's still a long way off. In addition to Internet connectivity and an API, fruit/vegetables/meat and all other refrigerated items would need some kind of tracking label (RFID perhaps) so that the refrigerator could automatically track levels. Scheduling delivery of refrigerated food might also be an issue (I'm not sure how existing online grocery delivery services handle this), as I don't want my dairy items sitting on my hot doorstep all day waiting for me to get home from work. This could be extended to pantry food items as well.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    I've thought about that too - you can create biodegradable passive-RFID tags to put on to packaging, and then have the trash bins read them as they are thrown out. Problem is the biodegradable RFID tags don't exist. A dutch company was researching them a few years ago but that ship sailed when the iPhone 5 came out without NFC. Google's project tango could be used with a standard library of objects, but that's still too early to tell if it's possible. Not to mention you'd be tied to Google's services and their whims.
    - azdle 12y ago
      A friend of mine actually made something kind of like that: https://github.com/danslimmon/oscar https://github.com/danslimmon/oscar Instead of using RFID, it's using barcodes. It's a little more manual, but same basic concept.
FroshKiller 12y ago
Personally, I'm stoked. The first connected home device I got was an Internet-connected thermostat when I got my home HVAC replaced two months ago. I had no idea I was getting that in the package, and I love it. Looking forward to the day when I no longer have to curse myself for forgetting to start the dishwasher when I'm away from home. Keep in mind that in terms of factoring in costs, yeah, that will be true at first. But it wasn't that long ago that you had to buy an aftermarket modem as part of the barrier to entry to getting online on your personal computer. In a few years, connectivity will be the new normal, and prices will adjust.
- rsync 12y ago
  "Looking forward to the day when I no longer have to curse myself for forgetting to start the dishwasher when I'm away from home." Is that a tech prediction, or an optimistic view of your future mental health ?
  - FroshKiller 12y ago
    Ha, aren't they often the same thing? In this case, I'll be happy to continue forgetting, because I'll be able to correct the mistake without going home. Kind of chilling, actually: The notion that this technology might make us more complacent with our weaknesses rather than empower us to be better.
    - wlesieutre 12y ago
      On the one hand, it'd be great if I could remotely double check that I turned off the stove and locked my front door. On the other, if you can remotely control these devices then I have to wonder about the security implications. Track records for most wireless device companies have not been good, and I don't want someone burning down my house. Maybe the plan here is to get everyone on a single standard that shoves good security practices down their throats? But you still have to rely on them implementing it correctly.
      - FroshKiller 12y ago
paletoy 12y ago
> But from a consumer's perspective, it seems like a solution in search of problem I think the company to look at is Philips. They really understand how to create appealing connected things. For example this article[1] that talks about their controllable color lights, cooking assistant and coffee maker, all controlled through an app to great benefit. And once something is connected, bluetooth becomes a limitation - say you want to choose coffee type at the living room with your guests ? or you want to watch the cooking assistant while being at the kids room ? Considering that the cost of full connection should be similar to bluetooth in the best case scenario , why settle ? [1]http://gigaom.com/2014/04/04/lights-cookers-and-coffee-a-deep-dive-into-philips-smart-home-dreams/ http://gigaom.com/2014/04/04/lights-cookers-and-coffee-a-dee...
- MrQuincle 12y ago
  What's the problem with Bluetooth here? No mesh networking? That has been in the pipeline for quite some time now, and will hit the market big time: http://www.csr.com/news/pr/2014/csr-mesh http://www.csr.com/news/pr/2014/csr-mesh Disclaimer: I've been part of a Dutch consortium with companies that developed their own mesh standards and did not understand that you need to "board the smartphone train". This is why I'm skeptical w.r.t. anything that does not just interface with smartphone technology.
toby 12y ago
I have a few "home automation" items in my house -- lights, thermostats, outlets, switches, etc. By far the most useful is the Z-Wave deadbolt on my front door. It means I never carry keys, I can give codes to friends or the contractor and get texted when they enter, I can set temporary codes for deliveries, etc. I never have to worry if I locked the door. I was surprised at the hype around Lockitron, since these have existed for a while. The main different seems to be that people prefer WiFi (since they already have it) even though it's a poor protocol for low-power and low-bandwidth.
jamesbritt 12y ago
The strongest push for IoT seems to be from the wireless hardware manufacturers Another area seems to be from those offering yet another (non-standardized) protocol or format such that they can then sell you tools and consulting tailored to their software. [I]t seems like a solution in search of problem ... Indeed. Most of the demos I've seen (e.g. turn on a light using Twitter) are easily doable in a number of ways, so the requirement for some IoT "solution" is dubious. But suppose we grant that such demos are mainly done because they are easy to comprehend, easy to show in a bite-size video clip. Still, there still needs to be something that extrapolates to a more significant use case. I'm not so sure these currently exist for most homes. Part of me thinks people are tagging "IoT" onto anything they can because it sounds sexy. Controlling my living room lights from my phone is not an example of the Internet of Things. Controlling fertilization for a farm based on smart sensors out in the fields? That I can see. Actual use-cases in the average home are less obvious, as is why people will want it.
bandushrew 12y ago
I believe that the main reason it is hard to see the benefits is that we dont yet have the interesting infrastructure inside that house that an IoT will allow. ie, I think it is actually too early in the IoT life cycle to really visualise the impact it will have. Let me explain - currently our lighting and applicances are designed entirely around the idea that they will be manually operated and standalone pieces of equipment. Once that assumption is taken away, and houses are built with a different assumption, suddenly magic begins to happen - imagine that instead of a few lights in the lounge, there was a ceiling and walls covered in thousands of LED lights that could be independently controlled via the internet. The average home could literally have lighting shows. An entire wall could be utilised as alternately a television or a photo viewer, even a wall in every room. etc, etc. Use your imagination here. The point is that the impact of an IoT on the average middle class house as they are built today is currently pretty small because neither the house nor the contents of the house were designed with an IoT in mind. Once we actually have an IoT houses will be build from the ground up with different assumptions . At least, that is my opinion. tl;dr: The IoT has a chicken and egg problem.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  I still don't see a compelling argument here. Who cares about having a "light show" in their house? What does that even have to do with the internet? We already have huge televisions that aren't very expensive. If we want the whole wall to be a TV, we can get a projector. A wall covered in individually-addressable LEDs is probably not going to be cheaper than a wall covered in televisions or just a big projector. The question the parent was asking was "Why hasn't anyone shown me a concept that makes me think, 'Now I want an internet of things in MY house!'?" Not, "Why haven't I seen quick adoption of these IoT concepts out there?"
  - bandushrew 12y ago
    "Who cares about having a "light show" in their house?" People do - "mood lighting" is already a thing, that is why we have dimmers on some light switches now. Going further than that we can change lighting color, create patterns etc. Many people, including myself and my kids, would LOVE to have that in their houses. But only if it was easy, it needs to come essentially for nothing, ie, to be builtin from the start. "What does that even have to do with the internet?" Internet Of Things I have always understood to mean "Things that we can talk to and control using our devices, possibly over the internet" but in terms of the internet as it is widely understood, not much really. I am not sure I understand the question? "We already have huge televisions that aren't very expensive. If we want the whole wall to be a TV, we can get a projector. A wall covered in individually-addressable LEDs is probably not going to be cheaper than a wall covered in televisions or just a big projector." Right, and who knows whether that specific leap of imagination is realistic, I certainly do not - but I was not trying to make you want a TV in your wall, or even arguing that it specifically was a good idea, it was merely one possible example to make a point. "The question the parent was asking was "Why hasn't anyone shown me a concept that makes me think, 'Now I want an internet of things in MY house!'?" Yes. and I was attempting to suggest that one possible reason is that our imagination is balking because we keep looking at what we have in our houses now - all of which is extremely functional and works fine according to our expectations and desires, which have been moulded by what is available and by what has always been available. ie, we are looking at our existing house infrastructure, the idea of an IoT and saying "but the Internet Of Things is not going to give me a faster horse, so why would I want it?". I think I am doing a bad job of explaining myself, so I will bow out :)
dmritard96 12y ago
Energy efficiency. IoT can bring more awareness to things for finer grain control which can take systems developed over 60 years ago and make them more aware and targeted. Shameless plug: http://www.flair.zone http://www.flair.zone We are aiming at lowering HVAC energy consumption by between 20 and 30%. Financial incentives are rather attractive ones. I will agree that there are going to be IoT whizbangs that are solutions in search of a problem, but there are bound to be a handful of actual problems that get addressed.

by freyr 12y ago

alttab 12y ago

Right now its all buzzwords and vaporware. We are in 2004 talking about the "cloud." However, its coming, much like the cloud has.

freyr 12y ago
There's a critical difference. Although the cloud and the IoT both began with buzzwords and vaporware, the cloud had clear and compelling potential benefits for customers from the start. For every "cloud," there are many overhyped technologies that went nowhere, despite industry's best efforts to thrust them upon us.
Someone1234 12y ago
A lot of people here are sceptical but I keep looking for products on Amazon I just assume would already exist but don't. Three examples: I was recently looking for a door chime ("door bell") and since I have WiFi already all over the house I wanted something that could piggy-back off of that to increase range but also maybe send the notification to my phone or similar. Doesn't exist. Only ye-olde style RF doorbells no different than what they sold 50 years ago. I wanted a motion sensor that wasn't part of a security system, just a single stand alone motion detector which could send a text message ONLY during set hours (e.g. 11 pm to 6 am) when motion was detected. But nope, also doesn't exist (in fact there is a serious lack of variety in motion detectors, the closest I found was a Honeywell one which set off a doorbell when motion was detected, but cannot be shut off based on time of day). I want to know when the clothing dryer is done. I often don't hear it. I have WiFi, but yet I cannot receive an update digitally yet. Why? I cannot speak to everyone but for me personally I WANT this stuff. I'd happily buy this stuff. It doesn't exist. Where is it? Make it and I'll buy it.
- alttab 12y ago
  Don't get me wrong I totally get it. When you plug your device into a message bus like you would a power cord into the wall, things begin to make sense. Here is how I see it coming together: - STANDARDS: The "message bus" needs to have essentially an HTTP protocol standard, that both producers and receivers on both ends can understand. - Hardware, appliances and objects generate their own implementation of an end-node adhering to the protocol. - Wifi Routers allow the firmware to run "master" nodes, that would have a mobile app and a web front end to configure and customize. But because having to VPN into your house to manage anything, or even have to have a VPN at all would be silly. So now we host it in the cloud and the devices simply pull. To design the APIs, platform, SDK, and hosting solution would look a lot like what Apple and Google are doing with their all-encompassing themed keynotes this year. I'm actually worried about interoperability more than anything.
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    >STANDARDS: The "message bus" needs to have essentially an HTTP protocol standard, that both producers and receivers on both ends can understand. I think a better analogy to what we need should be an HTTPS protocol standard. HTTP was designed in an era of slow computers when security and privacy were not particularly high on the list of developer priorities, and now we're seeing an agonizingly slow move towards universal HTTPS adoption. It'd be nice to actually start out with security-aware protocols for once.
- jkestner 12y ago
  It's hard to meet every need when connectivity is still to expensive to try throwing in everything, but that's why we made a general connected object - your examples can be mostly met by http://supermechanical.com/twine http://supermechanical.com/twine, some with the breakout board to wire into existing circuits.

bduerst 12y ago

The Internet of Things won't be that useful until it starts tying in several external services. I imagine then there will be enough value added that it will go over the tipping point for consumer recognition. I'm personally waiting for my refrigerator to detect my food inventory, and auto-order grocery delivery once a week to restock itself. But seeing how Safeway, Shopping Express, Amazon Fresh, etc. don't even have an API yet, it's going to be a long wait.

freyr 12y ago
> I'm personally waiting for my refrigerator to detect my food inventory, and auto-order grocery delivery once a week I imagined this as well, and it would be pretty cool (although I actually enjoy grocery shopping). As you say, it's still a long way off. In addition to Internet connectivity and an API, fruit/vegetables/meat and all other refrigerated items would need some kind of tracking label (RFID perhaps) so that the refrigerator could automatically track levels. Scheduling delivery of refrigerated food might also be an issue (I'm not sure how existing online grocery delivery services handle this), as I don't want my dairy items sitting on my hot doorstep all day waiting for me to get home from work. This could be extended to pantry food items as well.
- bduerst 12y ago
  I've thought about that too - you can create biodegradable passive-RFID tags to put on to packaging, and then have the trash bins read them as they are thrown out. Problem is the biodegradable RFID tags don't exist. A dutch company was researching them a few years ago but that ship sailed when the iPhone 5 came out without NFC. Google's project tango could be used with a standard library of objects, but that's still too early to tell if it's possible. Not to mention you'd be tied to Google's services and their whims.
  - azdle 12y ago
    A friend of mine actually made something kind of like that: https://github.com/danslimmon/oscar https://github.com/danslimmon/oscar Instead of using RFID, it's using barcodes. It's a little more manual, but same basic concept.

FroshKiller 12y ago

Personally, I'm stoked. The first connected home device I got was an Internet-connected thermostat when I got my home HVAC replaced two months ago. I had no idea I was getting that in the package, and I love it. Looking forward to the day when I no longer have to curse myself for forgetting to start the dishwasher when I'm away from home. Keep in mind that in terms of factoring in costs, yeah, that will be true at first. But it wasn't that long ago that you had to buy an aftermarket modem as part of the barrier to entry to getting online on your personal computer. In a few years, connectivity will be the new normal, and prices will adjust.

rsync 12y ago
"Looking forward to the day when I no longer have to curse myself for forgetting to start the dishwasher when I'm away from home." Is that a tech prediction, or an optimistic view of your future mental health ?
- FroshKiller 12y ago
  Ha, aren't they often the same thing? In this case, I'll be happy to continue forgetting, because I'll be able to correct the mistake without going home. Kind of chilling, actually: The notion that this technology might make us more complacent with our weaknesses rather than empower us to be better.
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    On the one hand, it'd be great if I could remotely double check that I turned off the stove and locked my front door. On the other, if you can remotely control these devices then I have to wonder about the security implications. Track records for most wireless device companies have not been good, and I don't want someone burning down my house. Maybe the plan here is to get everyone on a single standard that shoves good security practices down their throats? But you still have to rely on them implementing it correctly.
    - FroshKiller 12y ago

paletoy 12y ago

> But from a consumer's perspective, it seems like a solution in search of problem I think the company to look at is Philips. They really understand how to create appealing connected things. For example this article[1] that talks about their controllable color lights, cooking assistant and coffee maker, all controlled through an app to great benefit. And once something is connected, bluetooth becomes a limitation - say you want to choose coffee type at the living room with your guests ? or you want to watch the cooking assistant while being at the kids room ? Considering that the cost of full connection should be similar to bluetooth in the best case scenario , why settle ? [1]http://gigaom.com/2014/04/04/lights-cookers-and-coffee-a-deep-dive-into-philips-smart-home-dreams/ http://gigaom.com/2014/04/04/lights-cookers-and-coffee-a-dee...

MrQuincle 12y ago
What's the problem with Bluetooth here? No mesh networking? That has been in the pipeline for quite some time now, and will hit the market big time: http://www.csr.com/news/pr/2014/csr-mesh http://www.csr.com/news/pr/2014/csr-mesh Disclaimer: I've been part of a Dutch consortium with companies that developed their own mesh standards and did not understand that you need to "board the smartphone train". This is why I'm skeptical w.r.t. anything that does not just interface with smartphone technology.

toby 12y ago

I have a few "home automation" items in my house -- lights, thermostats, outlets, switches, etc. By far the most useful is the Z-Wave deadbolt on my front door. It means I never carry keys, I can give codes to friends or the contractor and get texted when they enter, I can set temporary codes for deliveries, etc. I never have to worry if I locked the door. I was surprised at the hype around Lockitron, since these have existed for a while. The main different seems to be that people prefer WiFi (since they already have it) even though it's a poor protocol for low-power and low-bandwidth.

jamesbritt 12y ago

The strongest push for IoT seems to be from the wireless hardware manufacturers Another area seems to be from those offering yet another (non-standardized) protocol or format such that they can then sell you tools and consulting tailored to their software. [I]t seems like a solution in search of problem ... Indeed. Most of the demos I've seen (e.g. turn on a light using Twitter) are easily doable in a number of ways, so the requirement for some IoT "solution" is dubious. But suppose we grant that such demos are mainly done because they are easy to comprehend, easy to show in a bite-size video clip. Still, there still needs to be something that extrapolates to a more significant use case. I'm not so sure these currently exist for most homes. Part of me thinks people are tagging "IoT" onto anything they can because it sounds sexy. Controlling my living room lights from my phone is not an example of the Internet of Things. Controlling fertilization for a farm based on smart sensors out in the fields? That I can see. Actual use-cases in the average home are less obvious, as is why people will want it.

bandushrew 12y ago

I believe that the main reason it is hard to see the benefits is that we dont yet have the interesting infrastructure inside that house that an IoT will allow. ie, I think it is actually too early in the IoT life cycle to really visualise the impact it will have. Let me explain - currently our lighting and applicances are designed entirely around the idea that they will be manually operated and standalone pieces of equipment. Once that assumption is taken away, and houses are built with a different assumption, suddenly magic begins to happen - imagine that instead of a few lights in the lounge, there was a ceiling and walls covered in thousands of LED lights that could be independently controlled via the internet. The average home could literally have lighting shows. An entire wall could be utilised as alternately a television or a photo viewer, even a wall in every room. etc, etc. Use your imagination here. The point is that the impact of an IoT on the average middle class house as they are built today is currently pretty small because neither the house nor the contents of the house were designed with an IoT in mind. Once we actually have an IoT houses will be build from the ground up with different assumptions . At least, that is my opinion. tl;dr: The IoT has a chicken and egg problem.

x1798DE 12y ago
I still don't see a compelling argument here. Who cares about having a "light show" in their house? What does that even have to do with the internet? We already have huge televisions that aren't very expensive. If we want the whole wall to be a TV, we can get a projector. A wall covered in individually-addressable LEDs is probably not going to be cheaper than a wall covered in televisions or just a big projector. The question the parent was asking was "Why hasn't anyone shown me a concept that makes me think, 'Now I want an internet of things in MY house!'?" Not, "Why haven't I seen quick adoption of these IoT concepts out there?"
- bandushrew 12y ago
  "Who cares about having a "light show" in their house?" People do - "mood lighting" is already a thing, that is why we have dimmers on some light switches now. Going further than that we can change lighting color, create patterns etc. Many people, including myself and my kids, would LOVE to have that in their houses. But only if it was easy, it needs to come essentially for nothing, ie, to be builtin from the start. "What does that even have to do with the internet?" Internet Of Things I have always understood to mean "Things that we can talk to and control using our devices, possibly over the internet" but in terms of the internet as it is widely understood, not much really. I am not sure I understand the question? "We already have huge televisions that aren't very expensive. If we want the whole wall to be a TV, we can get a projector. A wall covered in individually-addressable LEDs is probably not going to be cheaper than a wall covered in televisions or just a big projector." Right, and who knows whether that specific leap of imagination is realistic, I certainly do not - but I was not trying to make you want a TV in your wall, or even arguing that it specifically was a good idea, it was merely one possible example to make a point. "The question the parent was asking was "Why hasn't anyone shown me a concept that makes me think, 'Now I want an internet of things in MY house!'?" Yes. and I was attempting to suggest that one possible reason is that our imagination is balking because we keep looking at what we have in our houses now - all of which is extremely functional and works fine according to our expectations and desires, which have been moulded by what is available and by what has always been available. ie, we are looking at our existing house infrastructure, the idea of an IoT and saying "but the Internet Of Things is not going to give me a faster horse, so why would I want it?". I think I am doing a bad job of explaining myself, so I will bow out :)

dmritard96 12y ago

Energy efficiency. IoT can bring more awareness to things for finer grain control which can take systems developed over 60 years ago and make them more aware and targeted. Shameless plug: http://www.flair.zone http://www.flair.zone We are aiming at lowering HVAC energy consumption by between 20 and 30%. Financial incentives are rather attractive ones. I will agree that there are going to be IoT whizbangs that are solutions in search of a problem, but there are bound to be a handful of actual problems that get addressed.