In response to a Tweet I recently posted about my #YellowJeepProject weight loss journey, Shannon O’Keefe suggested that I should take a look at the QNX Jeep Wrangler Reference vehicle. What a cool way to show off the “QNX CAR Platform for Infotainment“!

The QNX CAR Platform for Infotainment is a unique set of pre-integrated and optimized technologies from QNX Software Systems and dozens of ecosystem partners. Designed for flexibility, this unique platform provides development teams with a variety of options for building reliable world-class infotainment systems that keep pace with ongoing advancements in mobile device markets.

All of a sudden, I sensed a great convergence between my interest in the Internet of Things and my personal love for Jeeps.  What a great idea to have such leading edge, Internet-ready technology showcased in a vehicle that has become symbolic of freedom and adventure.  I’m sure those innovative folks who designed the first Jeep 72 years ago didn’t have a clue of what we are seeing now! It is stuff like this that moves us closer and closer to make connected cars a reality.

I enjoyed a subsequent exchange with Paul Leroux,  who authored the blog post about the Jeep reference vehicle.  I learned that both Shannon and Paul had offered their own garages to park the Jeep, so I knew better than to request that privilege.  I hope to see it sometime while it is on tour, or somehow wrangle (pun intended) a trip to its home base in Ottawa.

A short video about the making of the QNX reference vehicle is fun to watch.  Now, I could only convince the QNX folks to paint the Jeep yellow!

My last post addressed my baby steps with wearable IoT devices.  The IoT device in this post is a bit more stationary.

Last year, I installed an attic fan to help drive hot air out of my attic.  This is part of my ongoing effort to minimize energy costs due to the famous Arizona (dry) heat.  Controlled by a simple thermostat, the fan comes on automatically when the temperature in my attic exceeds about 90 degrees.

Two problems: 1) In the hot Arizona summer, it runs virtually all of the time, and 2) the fan is not very quiet, despite my attempts to muffle the noise, so it tends to disturb the quiet of the night.

So, I looked for a solution to allow me to turn the fan off remotely if I got tired of the rumbling noise in the middle of the night.  The makers of my new alarm system claimed to have a great solution that would allow me to control the fan via the same iPhone interface I use to arm, disarm and monitor the alarm system.  But alas, I was faced with a device purchase, installation fees and monthly enhancements to my alarm bill.

So … I decided to purchase a WeMo switch  which proved to be less expensive, with no monthly fees, and an absolute breeze to install.  Now I can easily turn the fan on or off from my iPhone from anywhere in our home WiFi network.  The fan is shown below, plugged into the WeMo device, which plugs into the standard electrical outlet.

The second photo shows the WeMo iPhone app.  Simply elegant.  It just works.  My next project is to learn how to work with the WeMo device remotely using IFTTT.

 

Today I read an informative paper published by GigaOM Research entitled, “The Internet of Things: A Market Landscape.”  I find The Internet of Things to be the most interesting area of technology and business in my professional world today.  This paper did an excellent job of providing an overview of the IoT landscape and highlighting both opportunities and challenges.

A few things that I found intriguing:

IoT is not just new technology:

The internet of things is not a single technology trend. Rather, it is a way of thinking about how the physical world at large and the objects, devices, and structures within it are becoming increasingly interconnected.

The market is moving rapidly to mind-boggling scale:

1. Some 31 billion internet-connected devices will exist by 2020, according to Intel.
2. A family of four will move from having 10 connected devices in 2012 to 25 in 2017 to 50 in 2022.
3. Mobile subscriptions will exceed the number of people in the world by early 2014.

Identity is first on the list of important characteristics:

For things to be manageable, they need to be identifiable either in terms of type or as a unique entity. … Identification by type or by instance is fundamental to the internet of things.

The power of IoT comes from connectivity, not just individual components:

The internet of things is an ultra-connected environment of capabilities and services, enabling interaction with and among physical objects and their virtual representations, based on supporting technologies such as sensors, controllers, or low-powered wireless as well as services available from the wider internet.

The biggest challenges?  Security, monitoring and surveillance:

Computer security, say the experts, boils down to protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of both data and services. With the internet of things looking set to create all manner of data, from heart rate and baby monitors to building management systems, there is clearly going to be a great deal to protect. …

The internet of things enables the whole world to be monitored. …  the potential for the inappropriate use of such technologies — for example, to spy on partners or offspring — will grow. In the business context as well, the role of the internet of things offers a wealth of opportunity but also of abuse.

The bottom line?  The possibilities are vast, the challenges daunting, but IoT is happening.  It will be great to go along for the ride.

Oh, the irony of our crazy industry!  Back in 2009, I blogged about a book entitled, “The Big Switch:  Re-wiring the World, from Edison to Google,” by Nicholas Carr.  This book proposed that the shift from traditional data center computing to a utility-based computing model will follow the same general trend that electricity generation followed – from a model of each individual factory maintaining its own electricity generation capability to our current utility-based electricity generation and grid delivery model. 

Today I read an intriguing article, “What’s threatening utilities: Innovation at the edge of the grid,” which proposed:

… utilities are structured to treat electricity as a commodity, produced in central power plants and delivered to consumers over long distances in a one-way transaction, with price and reliability of supply the sole concerns.  None of that is working anymore. Lots of forces are conspiring to put the current arrangement under stress, but the most important, in my mind, is a wave of innovation on the “distribution edge” of the grid.

Just think … at the same time as utility-style cloud computing is being hyped as the greatest trend in technology, the electrical utility industry is being decentralized to accommodate both generation and consumption at the edge!

One thing is certain.  Wait a few years and things will change some more!

Paul Madsen posted an excellent article today, “Identity, Application Models and the Internet of Things,” recommending that the prevailing application development model move back to the browser and away from native apps.  He references another excellent article by Scott Jenson, “Mobile Apps Must Die,” which holds that because we use so many native mobile apps, they are “becoming too much trouble to organize and maintain,” and that the native app model, “just can’t take advantage of new opportunities.”

Paul observed how, with the prevailing native app model, the “Internet of things would push us to have 1000s of native applications on our devices, but that would place a completely unrealistic management burden on the User.”

I agree that managing large numbers of apps is becoming very burdensome and counterproductive. Each airline I fly has its own app. Each store I frequent has its own app.  I have apps upon apps upon apps.

I propose, however, that just focusing back on browser apps doesn’t completely solve the problem, particularly with the Internet of Things.  A big problem is the narrow siloed focus of so many apps.

I recently bought a Fitbit device to track all the steps I take and stairs I climb.  It is a nice little device that syncs automatically with an app on my iPhone.  I can also use that app to record food I eat and water I drink along with the automatic recording of steps and stairs.  

However, the app covers only a fairly narrow silo of functionality.  If I want to record other vital statistics (e.g blood pressure or blood glucose), it takes another app.  If I want to record my workout at the gym with any degree of granularity, it takes another app.  Of course, every app has a different concept of my identity. Not good.

Paul’s discussion of a an app to monitor his toaster begs the question – why should I have an app (either web or otherwise) for every device in my house?  Doesn’t it make more sense to have a “home management” app that accommodates toasters, fridges, thermostats, smoke alarms or whatever other Internet connected things may be available?

I propose that we need a new app paradigm that retains the great user interface characteristics of native apps, the “just in time” model of discovery and use that Paul and Scott recommend, coupled with a more integrated approach to solving real life, but more complex use cases.

 

Today, I read an interesting white paper, “Big Data in M2M: Tipping Points and Subnets of Things,” published by Machina Research. From the introduction:

This White Paper focuses on three hot topics in the TMT space currently: Big Data and the ‘Internet of Things’, both examined through the prism of machine-to-machine communications. We have grouped these concepts together, since Big Data analytics within M2M really only exists within the context of heterogeneous information sources which can be combined for analysis. And, in many ways, the Internet of Things can be defined in those exact same terms: as a network of heterogeneous devices.

The white paper does a good job of exploring the emerging trends of the Internet of Things, potential business opportunities and challenges faced.

As one could expect, “authenticity and security of different kinds of data,” was identified as a big challenge:

Big Data is about “mashing up” data from multiple sources, and delivering significant insights from the data. It is the combination of data from within the enterprise, from openly available data (for example, data made available by government agencies), from data communities, and from social media. And with every different source of data arises the issues of authenticity and security. Machina Research predicts that as a result of the need for data verification, enterprises will have a greater inclination to process internal and open (government) data prior to mashing-up with social media.

The following diagram shows the increase security risk as more data from external sources is collected and analyzed.

This yet another indicator of how Identity and Access Management will be critical in the successful evolution of the Internet of Things.

Last week, T.Rob Wyatt authored an intriguing post, “Futurist’s Groundhog Day.” I found it by following Phil Windley‘s tweeted recommendation:

Futurist’s Groundhog Day: http://t.co/pq75vMPZsS #vrm

It wasn’t long before Doc Searls tweeted,

The best #VRM post, ever: http://t.co/IiQrMR12Ox, by @tdotrob, honored here: http://t.co/xERNWkA6Sp

I agree that the post addressed the VRM concept very well, but I particularly liked T.Rob’s description about how technology, once broadly accepted, “disappeared into the fabric of life.”

First, a historical observation:

The first electric motors were envisioned to replace steam motors within the same architecture: one big motor, lots of belts and pulleys. But what actually happened was that electric motors disappeared into the fabric of life. There’s one on my wrist as I write this. There are roughly 30 within arm’s reach of my chair. Electric motors are invisible. We don’t think of them as motors, we think of them as a watch, hard drive, CD/DVD player, printer, sprinkler valve, drill, toy, fan, vacuum cleaner, etc.

Next, a prediction:

In the near future a “smart switch” will just be a switch. A “smart” anything will just become that thing and the old version will become a “dumb thing.” The instrumentation will no longer be a novelty but will recede invisibly into the fabric of life. When steam engines were replaced by electric motors, it was hard to imagine a time when motors would fit on your wrist. It’s just as difficult today to imagine why we’d want sensors and actuators in all our devices and objects but let’s table that and stipulate that it happens.

And further observation about when sensors become ubiquitous:

In the very near future your casual behavior and activities will be trackable with the precision and detail only possible today in the confines of a lab. Every device, object or surface will potentially be a sensor. The physical constraints assumed by the current legal framework and that balanced the power of individuals against corporate and government interest are disappearing. The digital representation of you that was once a rough tile mosaic is coming into focus for vendors and government as a hi-def, crystal image.

In my lifetime, it has been great to see so much technology emerge as novelty and then become commonplace. Think pocket calculators, microwave ovens and mobile phones.  Now, the Internet of Things, including ubiquitous sensors, is emerging.  We can expect IoT to grow, become commonplace and then “recede invisibly into the fabric of life.”

Hence, T.Rob’s challenge:

IoT is coming so embrace it.  It is inevitable and it is closer than you think.  If you start with 50 billion instrumented things (or trillions if you are ambitious) and work backward, what do we need to build to pave the road between here and there?

Exciting stuff.  Just think – every one of those billions of devices will have an identity (or identifier, depending on your point of view).  Sign me up for the journey.

I really enjoyed the post  Rohan Pinto tweeted about this morning – Scott Morrison’s “ We can’t let the Internet of Things become the Tyranny of Things.” Scott stated:

My belief is that the Internet of Things (IoT) will succeed or fail based on its capacity for creating its own economy. But counting devices and multiplying by people isn’t quite the right math to satisfy this equation. The real key to IoT success is how open – and more significantly, how accessible – the technology is to independent innovators.

I liked Scott’s examples of bad IoT design …

seemingly every year some earnest manufacturer actually demonstrates yet another realization of this dubious vision, which usually consists of little more than a screen stuck onto the door like some giant fridge magnet. This is IoT designed by a committee …

When I purchased my last TV, I also bought the same manufacturer’s BluRay player in the hope I could get away with one remote and hiding the latter in a closed cabinet. Boy, was I naïve.

… but his good examples were also instructive:

Take a walk into the living room and you will find an excellent example of IoT meeting its potential. IoT done right is the netfNest. A brilliant team of ex-Apple employees found a completely moribund corner of everyday technology and transformed it. They created an irresistible object of desire that quietly adapted a ponderous machine of steel and natural gas into an Internet connected device. It’s brilliant. … 

IoT done right is twiNetflix, an innovator that came up with an open API that allowed all manner of devices to integrate using simple web-based protocols. Netflix could have easily screwed this one up. They might have decided to design arcane, binary protocols optimized to support minimalist devices. Instead, they opted for open and well-documented APIs that leverage existing web understanding. The effect was to make integration accessible instead of intimidating – and in doing so, Netflix tapped into a vast developer population. The result was a Cambrian explosion of applications and devices streaming the service. You would be hard pressed to find a modern TV, disk player, or media streamer that doesn’t now have a Netflix logo somewhere on the box.

Yep, I have a plethora of ways to connect to Netflix at my house. I haven’t yet invested in the four Next thermostats I would need to control the four AC zones in my house, but two of my sons have them.

In closing, Scott challenges us:

It’s time to worry less about trying to make the Internet of Things something different. Instead, we need to focus on making it more of the same, more like, well, the internet. Declare IoT open, base it on APIs, and then step back and watch the engine of Silicon Valley engage.

Well spoken, Scott. And thanks for introducing me to that eminently hashtaggable acronym: #IoT.

The Nest thermostat I mentioned in yesterday’s post includes the ZigBee protocol for communicating with smart electrical meters in the so-called Smart Grid.

The ZigBee Alliance has developed a wide variety of innovative standards for seven target markets:

• Commercial building management
• Consumer electronics
• Energy management
• Health care and fitness
• Residential management
• Retail management
• Telecommunications

I was intrigued this morning to receive a tweet from my son, @ericsdixon, introducing the Nest Thermostat, an elegantly-styled “Learning Thermostat,” from a venture backed startup led by Tony Fadell, who led the team that created the first 18 generations of the iPod and the first three generations of the iPhone.

Five things specifically intrigued me:

• The elegant design
• The ability of the device to learn a pattern of use
• WiFi connection
• Remote control from a mobile app
• Potential energy savings

It is the fifth bullet that gets me excited.  I have a big home in Arizona with four air conditioning zones and a big electric bill each month.  If Nest’s claim that their new thermostat can save home owners 20 to 30 percent on their energy bills is correct, I could buy four Nests and earn back that hefty price of a thousand dollars in less than 18 months.  That possibility is enough to make the Nest worth a deeper look.