Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Why Have We Yet to Be Enchanted by the Internet of Things?

posted by janrinok on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-all-a-bit-meh dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

One of the leading thinkers in the new computing sector known as the internet of Things (IoT) can't help but look at all the flashy, expensive, feature-packed gadgets on the market today – things like Google Glass or the Apple Watch – and keep coming away with the same thought: too many device makers keep getting it wrong.

Given the nature of his chosen field, serial entrepreneur David Rose – who's also a researcher with the MIT Media Lab, where he's taught for six years – might be expected to want the next generation of connected devices to pick up where smartphones leave off. Indeed, that seems to be the nature of the race to figure out what the next dominant computing platform looks like, whether it's Facebook snatching up Oculus or Microsoft working to bring its HoloLens to fruition.
...
In a book he published last year, Enchanted Objects: Design, Human Desire and the Internet of Things, Rose sums up his hope for the future of technology: he wants it be dominated less by glass slabs and more by tools and artefacts, just like his grandfather's space was filled with.

His grandfather, for example, never hunted for the one tool to serve as an all-purpose tool hub or for a tool that would eliminate the need for other tools. His shop was filled with hammers, screwdrivers, wrenches, clamps and more – and they all enchanted the young Rose because even in their simplicity, those tools could lead to a multiplicity of imaginative creations.

The Internet of Things could also, beyond proving a privacy debacle, be a walled garden whose walls reach to infinity.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Why Have We Yet to Be Enchanted by the Internet of Things? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 72 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2015, @02:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2015, @02:19AM (#210292)

    I don't think we have the right software skills yet to create the "Internet of Things" as envisioned by the futurists. First, how is this IoT going to exchange data? Have you looked into RDF? Or OWL? These specs have been around for a while, but they've never caught on as a common protocol. Of course, there are plenty of XML schemas out there: http://www.xmlschema.info/xml_schema_library.html [xmlschema.info] You could use any one of schemas with your IoT. But the Internet applications have moved from XML heavy protocols, like SOAP and the WS-* standards, to a more loosely defined JSON backed data exchange. How will the IoT exist when every device has its own data model for its API. How does your GE Dishwasher and your Whirlpool Washing Machine make sure they don't run at the same time your taking a shower?

    And let me just say, IPv6 is a train wreck. Seriously, it isn't backwards compatible with IPv4. The only way to integrate IPv6 and IPv4 is through a few hacky methods. So either the entire Internet leaves IPv4 behind or you're stuck in limbo with some devices on IPv6 and some on IPv4. And IPv6 isn't even that big of an improvement when it comes to protocol support. The amount of bits used to designate the protocol, e.g. TCP, UDP, etc., is the same size as IPv4, so there's no room to add additional protocols that would work with IP. This gets to be very important with the IoT as the interaction between different devices would benefit greatly from a variety of different types of protocols that could be customized for specific uses. But no, that can't happen because IPv6 is a crappy design.