Talk:Internet of Things
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 leading text needs rewriting
- 2 leading text needs rewriting
- 3 leading text needs rewriting
- 4 origins of the concept
- 5 Footnotes and references
- 6 Proposed expanded definition
- 7 the Kevin Kelly Talk on TED
- 8 Universal addressability of dumb things
- 9 Defaced on 06-17-2009
- 10 Quality of the article
- 11 Limited Feasibility
- 12 Hopelessly optimistic
- 13 Does every marketing cliche buzzword need its own Wiki page, really?
- 14 Added Alternative Definitions
- 15 Applications Section
- 16 Added a subsection
- 17 Wishing to add a subsection on MASH IoT platform presented at 2013 IEEE IoT conference
- 18 Pioneering Applications -- Coke Machine on Internet at Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU) and Coffee at Cambridge
- 19 hopeless corporate influence on this article
- 20 Merge with Web of Things?
- 21 Footnoted but unreal
- 22 Future Tense
- 23 What is unique
- 24 Include the McNamara Line to Early History
- 25 Unexplained deletion
- 26 2015 report by US FTC
leading text needs rewriting
- It's gibberish. Perhaps the Internet of Things itself is gibberish. I wish one could tell from reading the lead of this article.
leading text needs rewriting
I would suggest to scratch
Bruce Sterling (are personal references necessary?) Josef Preishuber-Pflügl (are personal references necessary?) Pachube (already referred to under applications)
from the "see also" section.
leading text needs rewriting
The introductory text is not accurate:
"In computing, the Internet of Things refers to a, usually wireless and self-configuring, network between objects, such as household appliances."
What is described is what has already been going on. To use it as a sort of description of the Internet of Things would be misleading. What is described (household appliances) is indeed an example of a local configuration of things; but this is already in place. Said things have often been described in the context of smart buildings.--Михал Орела (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article needs balance, not polemic. Consider the following:
"If all objects of daily life, from yogurt to an airplane, are equipped with radio tags, they can be identified and managed by computers in the same way humans can."
This literally implies that the yogurt (not the yogurt container) is so equipped...
The last part of the sentence is delightfully ambiguous. I presume it is intended to mean that computers can identify and manage X in the same way that humans can identify and manage X. But can it not be read that "humans can" be identified and managed by computers in the same way? This is certainly true today in certain societies with respect to prisoners. --Михал Орела (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't edit the quote, as here on the talk: page it's literally a quote from the article and that's what we ought to discuss.
- As to whether it's "wireless" or mixed "wired/wireless", then ubiquitous connectivity down to the commodity grocery level is generally agreed to require a predominantly wireless network, as no-one is going to plug their "tubs of yoghurt" into a 10baseT connector when the "install" them in the fridge! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
"The Industrial Internet. The Internet of Things. What does it all mean? In a nutshell, it’s internet-connected devices collecting data and communicating to make industries smarter. This data is then used to anticipate and avoid problems, instead of fixing things after the fact." from a General Electric web page: http://www.gequest.com/ -- Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
origins of the concept
A short text is needed to try to fix the origins of the concept to which the phrase "internet of things" is applicable. I have added a reference to an article with the title "The internet of things" from The Guardian (UK) newspaper, dated 2003-10-09. From the text at the time, it is clear that the RFID tagging is proposed to replace barcodes in the Retail Business. The promoting organization is the "electronic product code" (EPC) network.--Михал Орела (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The concept of "Internet of Things" is not relevant to individual passive RFID tags, since a passive device is not connected to the Internet (and thus cannot be contacted from the Internet -- proof -- if the device does not have an IP address, its not on the Internet). To be relevant, there is some device tracking the passive RFID tags and that device or a device that summarizes the data is connected to the Internet. The device tracking the passive RFID tags can be fixed or mobile (see Mobile_RFID). Same for bar codes and QR codes. Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any particular date/period when the IoT began to be a serious possibility? Was it, for example, tied up originally with the development of IPv6? Or did it emerge from the "Smart Building" initiatives? when did the concept crystallize?--Михал Орела (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- To my knowledge most of the IoT concepts began with work at the US Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). IIRC, the US military deserves a lot of credit for recognizing and creating IoT solutions. Jasonfrankel (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Now that I have more time to read carefully the Guardian Article by Sean Dodson I see that he claims that it was the Auto ID Center which come up with the name.
"The EPC network is run by an organisation called the Auto ID Centre: a global consortium of retailers and academics based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston. Founded in 1999 by Gillette, Proctor & Gamble and Unilever, the consortium now boasts 100 global companies and five of the world's leading research centres, including the University of Cambridge and MIT.
The centre came up with the concept of the internet of things."
- Here is a PDF of a slide presentation with a historical perspective by a researcher at ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich): "The Internet of Things: How it has started and what to expect" Dr. Florian Michahelles http://www.im.ethz.ch/people/fmichahelles/talks/iotexpo_iothistory_fmichahelles.pdf -- Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting perspective on Bloomberg, but it is COPYRIGHTED by the Harvard Business Review: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/how-the-internet-of-things-changes-everything.html -- Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Footnotes and references
I have created a formal reference section which is used in general for citations of books, published papers, and so on. In addition, there is now also a Notes section which has already proved useful in clarification of sources — the origin of the concept of the internet of things. Since the Dodson Guardian articles are formally citeable I will move them into the References section.--Михал Орела (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposed expanded definition
Well, proposals are not facts! I have waited to see if anyone else would do something about the section title. It looks bad, precisely because it is a "proposal" and not a fact. Hence I will rename the section as "Characteristics" and hope that other editors will come along and fill in details, with citations as soon as possible.--Михал Орела (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
the Kevin Kelly Talk on TED
I have watched and enjoyed the video clip given in the External Links:
- "Kevin Kelly: Predicting the next 5,000 days of the web"
It is speculative, not factual. I am pleased to leave it where it is; but then we now need balance! Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MihalOrela (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Universal addressability of dumb things
The first sentence of the lead in paragraph gives a bad impression:
- "An alternative view, from the world of the Semantic Web  focusses instead on making all "things" (not just those electronic, smart, or RFID-enabled) addressable by the existing naming protocols, such as URI"
We don't need an alternative view; we need a complementary and supportive view that helps to build up the bigger picture! Hence I propose to change "alternative" to complementary".--Михал Орела (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
On the home front, most new computer printers are Wi-Fi enabled. Beyond the computer printer, the next home device to be Wi-Fi enabled, might be the thermostat, such as the Nest(tm) thermostat. http://store.apple.com/us/product/HA895LL/A/nest-learning-thermostat-2nd-generation -- Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Beyond, the thermostat, the Bluetooth standard has been modified in anticipation of personal health devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_profile#Health_Device_Profile_.28HDP.29 -- Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/health-fitness.aspx Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Another home application is tracking pets http://www.pettracker.com/pet-gps/tagg-dog-tracking-mobile-app -- Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Defaced on 06-17-2009
Yo dawg! This article is even worse then the idea it's trying to explain. This is nothing but a bunch of marketing terms and technobabble which ultimately means nothing. If anyone ever reads this page then please feel encouraged to
revert fix the article so that it actually says something. Anything will do. Or just delete the bloody thing. Really, what were people must have been way too easily impressed to think that this was anything but a joke. If this is actually trying to express a quantifiable idea then please express it. "Universal addressability of dumb things." REALLY? Oh, goody, it references Semantic_Web, which should be ready in time for me to download Duke_Nukem_Forever for the L600. Just wait until we Paradigm_shift to the Technological_singularity; then things will really get going. I mean, really people, really? Yarrgh (Piracy)-- Draco Red —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is really terrible agreed, the intro section is the worst. It takes 8 long rambling paragraphs to basically explain the concept: we will use more internet connected devices in the future. Thats all this is. It shouldn't even have a name. It's what we would assume to happen. Djairhorn (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Quality of the article
A couple of quotes from the article:
- "Theft will be a thing of the past as we will know where a product is at all times".
- "...time will no more be used as a common and linear dimension but will depend on each entity (object, process, information system, etc.)"
At best this is highly speculative, and at worst complete fantasy. I have read a number of articles on "the internet of things", which vary considerably in how far they go in speculative prediction, but this Wikipedia article in its present form goes further than anything I have seen elsewhere. The article also fails to distinguish clearly among current fact, reasonable predictions about future developments, and pure speculation.
Furthermore much of the language used in the article is highly non-communicative. For example: "autonomous and intelligent entities or virtual objects will act in full interoperability and will be able to auto-organize themselves depending on the context, circumstances or environments", and "In this internet, the meaning of an event will not necessary be based on, either a deterministic or syntactic model but will be based on the context of the event", etc etc. To have a tag on one section saying "This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" is an absurd understatement. The whole article needs either completely rewriting from scratch or deleting. I may be prepared to have a go at rewriting it, but I would have to do a considerable amount of research in order to do so properly, and I am not sure when I shall be prepared to dedicate the necessary time to the job. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the "Characteristics" section is the one with the real clarity problem. This was added by one editor, Pgautier-neuze, so it might be worth asking for their assistance. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that that section is the only one with a real clarity problem, and I am also doubtful whether what it is trying to say is worth saying, so if nobody wishes to defend it, maybe it would be best to just delete it. However, I also think the rest of the article is poorly written, and could do with a major rewrite. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
We need a new section describing criticisms against this utterly absurd idea.
inb4 "Wouldn't it be more feasible to carry your RFID in a bracelet rather than injecting it into your skin or blood stream? Also less cancer?"
also, inb4 "I just finished up attaching RFID tags to all my cups, clothes, every part of my car, car keys, unused cans of coke, food, used cans of coke, pets, clock, shower head, water tap, drain, cleaning bottles, fridge, and my wife.'Sup bro?"
also, inb4 "Our government just decided to legislate the compulsory injection of all citizens and food products with RFID Model B (The ones with remotely activated cyanide release)" ( http://beforeitsnews.com/news/79/982/Saudi_Killer_Chip_RFID_Implant_Would_Track,_Eliminate_Kill_Undesirables.html ).
Let us be realistic about this. RFID tags will not prevent theft, they can be detected hence they can be located and can be subsequently removed. Kidnapping works in the same way, detect where it is, then use a scalpel to remove it. Obviously there is also lined bags which block the weak signal and hence can assist in theft.
Certainly tagging stock's may well assist in stock replenishment but could never ever prevent the possibility of running out, and I personally don't agree that somebody on the other side of the world should have the right to know what I am consuming without my permission, even if it is just for anonymous statistics.
There should also be a discussion of the effect of electro-magnetic pulses and how devastating that it would be upon a society which has sole or heavy reliance upon the use of these things, and whether a large EMP will cause the RFID's to stop working.
"Theft will be a thing of the past as we will know where a product is at all times." - This reads more like a sales pitch or the belief in a vision than a statement of fact. Can this article be modified to be less of a sales pitch and more of a factual report? --mgaved (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be bold, anyone can modify the article! You're right that this is ridiculous hyperbole - I've dialled back the "wills" to "could" and "might". --McGeddon (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- The IOT topic is about the environment becoming ubiquitous computing as comms and compute continue to become smaller and cheaper, and what the effects will be. As with everything, some of the effects will be negative, perhaps due to there being little or no security partly as people focus on jokes over the thing the IOT computer is attached to and then on threats still about that thing, instead of focusing on the threat that adding many millions of unsecured computers form to everything else or that increasingly cyber threats will also be physical threats. Some of the effects will be simply change, such as dealing with more computers than humans on Earth, or simply how it will be different, whether as much as having a tablet instead laptop or an internet from not having one is TBD. For darker side you might watch List of cyber attack threats, Deep web, Dark internet, Cybercrime and Netcrime, Silk Road (marketplace), or look for websites like http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/21189/hacking/internet-of-things-cyber-threats.html and http://letstalk.globalservices.bt.com/en/security/2013/12/threats-internet-things-dont-disturb-breakfast/ 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Markbassett (talk)
Does every marketing cliche buzzword need its own Wiki page, really?
I agree wholeheartedly that this article is pure embarrassing rubbish. Defacing this doesn't help in the slightest. If somebody wants to help IPSO_Alliance or Contiki or Zigbee or whatever, go for it... but WOULD ONE OF YOU BUSYBODY ADMINS FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE DELETE THIS CRAP PLEASE! You know you want to. Everyone wants you to. It'll feel good. Just do it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It is my belief that this IS a valid term, however it is being used to describe web-enabled hardware and protocols which are nothing new and have as much in common with IoT as any other sw or hw term. My view is that "Thing" is a logical concept (user, mobile, building, cameras, window, door) and as soon as you start with the physical (sw/hw) you're going too deep. Yes this buzzword is being tapped into like big data, cloud, etc. With the potential rise of connected/smart devices in the home and businesses it is not too feasible to have 'n' applications...a dashboard is more appropriate which abstracts these "things" into their common 'features': monitoring, control and configuration. Not everyone will want an all-in-one solution as is offered by the bigger players.
Just so you know where I'm coming from I have been in software development for past 30+ years and focus on embedded and mobile solutions. I developed the "MASH IoT Platform" which is a pure thing-based approach to this space. --Mikedeanklein (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Added Alternative Definitions
Since this topic encompasses such a range of ideas and a definition encompassing all of them is nearly impossible I thought it would be appropriate to include a list of Alternative Definitions that have been used be funded research reports (The EU Casagras for example) in the past.
Please add any additional referenced definitions so we can help this article better describe the concepts and scope of the IOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texperience (talk • contribs) 06:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised there is not more mention of the networking side and the existing protocols like Zigbee, Jennet etc. Surely this, along with the RF transceivers form the bedrock upon which we can build and IoT environment. Any comments about how this might also link into Augmented Reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The majority of this section's content here seems to be just links to commercial applications, which resembles advertising. A simplistic comparison would be to list Ford, Toyota, Mercedes etc... on the Cars page. Granted, the Internet of Things concept is much newer, but does anybody object to removing the content that is linked to commercial applications? The wouldn't apply to the UBC paragraph.
Added a subsection
I added a subsection called "companies and products" to begin splitting out the commercial interests from the open standards and nonprofit organizations involved in IOT. --Wurtis65 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wishing to add a subsection on MASH IoT platform presented at 2013 IEEE IoT conference
Just a heads up, will follow existing conventions. If I don't hear back in a few days will make the edit. I am an independent developer and product is NOT for sale.
Pioneering Applications -- Coke Machine on Internet at Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU) and Coffee at Cambridge
Might need a stub article on the Coke Machine and the Coffee Pot, with a link from Internet of Things 
Also rather than just a satirical link to a Coffee Machine Protocol -- might want the real story of the Cambridge Coffee Machine 
- "The "Only" Coke Machine on the Internet". Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved 7/22/2013. Check date values in:
- "The Trojan Room Coffee Pot A (non-technical) biography". Cambridge University. Retrieved 7/22/2013. Check date values in:
hopeless corporate influence on this article
- I edited the "basket of remotes" section to clear out peacock language, weasel words, detailed descriptions of company products, and name-dropping of companies. (Nothing I hate more than Wikipedia articles that turn into poorly-written commercials.) 2601:9:7B80:10CE:70C8:EE59:9831:24C3 (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge with Web of Things?
Footnoted but unreal
We currently have 'Cisco created a dynamic "connections counter" to track the estimated number of connected things from July 2013 until July 2020 (methodology included).'. A look at the reference indicates that the counter is . . . umm . . . fantasyware. It counts hypothetical connections. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is this whole article written as though the Internet of Things is this vague, semi-realistic concept from the future that we will all "be doing" one day? Let's talk about what it is now, not what one guy at a TED talk or some marketer working for GE once said the Internet of Things will someday be. 2601:9:7B80:10CE:70C8:EE59:9831:24C3 (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What is unique
This article implies that many technologies are called Internet of Things. Yet they exist separately from Internet of Things. The introduction needs to identify what is unique to the Internet of Things. My guess is that there is absolutely nothing unique to it, it is just a term people are using to impress people and results in confusion. This article should eliminate confusion but instead adds to it.
Include the McNamara Line to Early History
Certain theorists including Dr Richard Barbrook (Uni Westminster) have attributed the McNamara Line as the first example of the Internet of Things, which was essentially an automated sensor network with built in Machine-to-Machine communications - used to defend South Vietnam from the North - but was ultimately destroyed/nullified as it was dependent on sensing human excretions, sweat, urine etc - Vietcong simply covered the line in human urine and herded buffallo through the network causing it to light up and fail before launching their assault... James Moulding 15:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Jugdev, you recently moved and changed a lot of things. I see that you are a new user, so you may not realize that changes on Wikipedia are reviewed by other people. You did not complete the "edit summary" above the save button when you changed things, and it is not apparent to me what you changed or why. I am particularly concerned to see that you deleted a lot of content without explanation.
- Bluerasberry, as suggested by the Wiki Note above the article before my edits, the article did not flow in its original form. I am of the opinion, however, that some of the content was quite good which is why I did not delete much from the article. My changes simply involved restructuring the existing content it in order for it to flow and come across in a clearer manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 January 2015
- Jugdev Here is some content which you deleted:
The embedded computing nature of many IoT devices means that low-cost computing platforms are likely to be used. In fact, to minimize the impact of such devices on the environment and energy consumption, low-power radios are likely to be used for connection to the Internet. Such low-power radios do not use WiFi, or well established Cellular Network technologies, and remain an actively developing research area. However, the IoT will not be composed only of embedded devices, since higher order computing devices will be needed to perform heavier duty tasks (routing, switching, data processing, etc.). Companies such as FreeWave Technologies have developed and manufactured low power wireless data radios (both embedded and standalone) for over 20 years to enable Machine-to-Machine applications for the industrial internet of things.
Diverse applications call for different deployment scenarios and requirement, which have usually been handled in a proprietary implementation. However, since the IoT is connected to the Internet, most of the devices comprising IoT services will need to operate utilizing standardized technologies. Prominent standardization bodies, such as the IETF, IPSO Alliance and ETSI, are working on developing protocols, systems, architectures and frameworks to enable the IoT.
- What is your opinion on these paragraphs? At first look, this seems like a substantial amount of information which was backed by citations and ::deleted without explanation. Could you please say something more about why you thought this content should not remain in the article?
- Also in the future, if you move and delete content at the same time, could you perform these actions as separate edits? It is difficult for me to find what is deleted when content is also moved. Look at the edit history and see; it takes some effort to see the changes when multiple changes happen simultaneously.
- As for the other things you did to make it flow, thanks for that. The article needed it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry, thank you for your input. I appreciate your opinion. When I first started editing, the tags above this article suggested that it needed to be completely revamped hence the reason for my decision to attempt a soft restructure. I have tried to keep as much of the original content in as possible. I am glad that you have found my contribution useful. With reference to the deleted paragraphs, although I do not feel that the deleted paragraphs were complete gibberish (as suggested by a wiki user) I did feel that there may have been a slight lack in clarity or context (as suggested by another wiki user when taking about the original article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 January 2015
2015 report by US FTC
This report was released yesterday. I am talking about some recent content changes with someone above, and after that is sorted, then I will put this report into the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)