The Internet of Things 1.0 (No One Receiving); Now what ?

search.jpg

Here we are, somewhere beyond version 1.0 of the Internet of Things. I believe Eno’s song “No One Receiving” to be a fabulous commentary on the IOT initiative up to this point.

Remember those initial halcyon days ? with Google connecting everyone’s home power meter to the internet with the the promise of a bright and better future. Wow, what a glorious time to be alive it was indeed.

Seriously though, what went wrong ? why didn’t things take off from there ? What needs to be different this time around with the latest push into the cosmos of the IOT ?

In those early days, did anyone ask the consumer if they wanted all manner of electronic gizmos connected to the internet ?. It seems to me that if  IOT is to become ubiquitous AND USEFUL, engagement with consumers is crucial. IOT folk HAVE to ask questions beyond just whether or not the consumer thinks its cool. Is it necessary ? It’s pretty clear the first round of IOT fell victim to believing it’s own hype.

I recently read Francis DaCosta’s book “Re-thinking the Internet of Things”, it’s a great read and asks some tough questions about current thinking around IOT, DaCosta also provides what I believe to be a pretty good outline for a solution architecture. Is his vision destined to be the market winner ? maybe, it certainly seems more sensible than just allocating an IPV6 address to everything on the planet. On the hand, given my jaded outlook based on 30 years in the valley; where is it written that the  best solution portends market success ?

I guess my point to all of this rambling is that while it can’t be denied IOT is probably the next thing.The industry might really want to make sure they come correct this time, too many missteps might just derail the train.

The rewards are great…, and so are the risks

 

Back to Eno…

Update on  May 7,2014

 

This is precisely what I am talking about shouldn’t happen. IOT has to be intentional, well maybe not, maybe it can really be just a scattershot try-anything-and-see-what-sticks sort of affair. That might work for some, but I believe the winners, i.e., those entities who spend the least amount of time just trying something, anything, will be those who think things through.In this instance, a washer could be part of a useful IOT system if for instance you also stuff RFID chips into clothes, have sensors in the washer to read these chips, and then use that information to accurately set the wash cycle.

More to come…

 

Little Fluffy Clouds

I think from now on I am going to always try and include a link to a song, apropos to each. Or at least try to do so as best I can. This week, let’s run with Little Fluffy Clouds by the Orb.This song was released sometime around 1990, and was subsequently used in a VW commercial around 2000 which was when most folks became aware of it.

Wikipedia defines the cloud as follows:cloud computing in general can be portrayed as a synonym for distributed computing over a network, with the ability to run a program or application on many connected computers at the same time. It specifically refers to a computing hardware machine or group of computing hardware machines commonly referred as a server connected through a communication network such as the Internet, an intranet, alocal area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN) and individual users or user who have permission to access the server can use the server’s processing power for their individual computing needs like to run a application, store data or any other computing need”. By way of this definition I can claim I had access to cloud computing resources as far back as 1983. Guess what ? that makes cloud computing older then the Orb’s song I mentioned at the outset of this piece, and in all of that time up to now, private clouds have been the coin of the realm. Gartner believes going forward this will be the case at least until 2020, or at least that is what the CEO of VMWare  claims Gartner says.

The enterprise community might find it prudent to invest in developing their infrastructure,and that goes counter to what passes for common wisdom in the “cloud” industry these days ;tuning it in ways that serve your concerns and business goals. Enable your people to develop skills and ideas which might give you the edge, the industry now calls them “doves” . Make sure however, you couple that investment with actual outcomes you can see and measure which enhance your business. Don’t get skittish just because you can hear public cloud footsteps in the distance behind you.

And then there is the intangible component of serendipitous innovation.If you have an advanced development IT team, preserve it and let it spread its wings to create, if you don’t, consider seeding one.

Public cloud providers will be driven to scale in order to be profitable while simultaneously having their margins  cut due to competition. Google was the first to shoot across that bow of engagement earlier this year (2014), ultimately that means going towards a model in support of the lowest common denominator. As an enterprise, are you sure that’s where you want to base your service/app deployment ?

You enterprise folk have been here for while with your infrastructure and expertise.Think hard before throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

 

It’s not about Open Source, it’s about process

I can’t resist. This is one of the dumbest articles ever. The title alone “OpenSSL Heartbleed: Open Source Bloody Nose for Open Source Bleeding Hearts” just bespeaks volumes in terms of idiocy. A somewhat veiled attempt at poking at the efficacy of open source code. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll support a proprietary system in a heartbeat (no pun intended) if it’s good. That being said, this has more to do with design/code review processes than open source code quality. In fact, maybe I could have saved the 83 previous words I just wrote and barked “1994 Pentium Floating Point Bug”

Mike Judge is getting it right

As a 30 year vet of the valley I have to say Mike Judge’s HBO series Silicon Valley is getting it right on a lot of different fronts. He’s capturing the mania that is the valley these days.The preciousness, the arrogance, the “change the world via apps” mentality etc…

Mike is also capturing the lack of diversity (read no blacks , latinos, or women of note) in the valley. I am not being critical of Mike per se, though i wonder if his accuracy is intentional or by accident. In either case, seeing this lack of diversity by way of this show is really stunning. It’s something we should all consider as the valley culture continues to develop

Engineered, Converged, or Integrated, whatever you call them, these systems afford opportunity for innovation

Oracle (Engineered Systems), IBM (PureSystems), HP (Converged Systems), Cisco (Unified Computing Systems) , Dell (Converged Systems) ; are all aimed at solving a set of problems for their customers based on providing more than just hardware and an operating system. While each of these systems vendors targets a particular need in the market, they are all trying to address the desire of making easier to deploy system solutions for their customers albeit their efforts make their entries at different levels of abstraction

For quite some time now vendors have had to address questions about their offerings rooted in a component based mindset. I argue that this paradigm was in part, the visible portion of a backlash against proprietary systems and the abuse some customers perceived they were forced to endure at the hands of their vendor.  While part of me agrees, it would be unfair of me to lay all of the blame on the vendors. Have we forgotten about the engaged and informed consumer ???.

Since those dark days, it seems the industry has swung far to the other side of overly constraining what vendors are allowed to do. Some by direct pressure, and som by indirect industry “standard” pressure. So came the age of interoperability and standards. 

I am not saying that all standards are bad or unnecessary. In my own experience as a hardware developer I can attest to the number of meetings I sat in on where we had to provide features or implement to a standard purely because it was a standard and part of the customer bases checklist. By the way, let me just share that often times standards are not birthed from the womb of altruistic collective technical good. Often times, these standards are the result of a scrum amongst concerned vendors all pushing to get their 2 cents in so as to ease their road to production and profit, sometimes at the expense of others.I know, I know, as I write this, I am changing my place on our sofa so as to provide a moving target for the lightening bolt which I anticipate is headed my way.

How about this mental exercise: What if, in an alternative technology world, the customer specified a problem for which they needed a solution AND articulated that problem in way which allowed the vendor as much room as possible to innovate. In this fictional world, said customer would have already determined that “industry standard” solutions may not be the best fit.

What if this “fictional” customer did care about the system solution’s ability to solve the computing needs in service to their customers, it’s ability to scale in capacity so as to accommodate business growth, it’s reliability, and of course a competitive price.

Oracle’s line of engineered systems is a step in the right direction to address all that has been described above. These systems  come pre-integrated (whatever, folks in the integrated space hate for me to say bundled) with hardware and software matched to yield superior performance and efficiencies (my words not any of the vendors). This is a throwback to the heyday of proprietary system, and there is nothing wrong with proprietary as long as it is not abused. Such systems might even foster authentic and collaborative customer/provider relationships.

One could imagine extrapolating forward to a  time where all sorts of exotic computing, network and storage technologies are more easily brought to the service of customers.Product roadmaps might even become more interesting and compelling as opposed to the the current insomnia they tend to cure.

By one estimate, 2Q 2013 saw the integrated system/platform market at a $1.3B revenue level. Where I come from, that’s real money. Granted, this market sector is still relatively young.Nonetheless it does point to a potential new synergy between customer and provider, one that may be less enamored with clock cycle speeds and gigabits.One that is more concerned with the revenue a technology play may help them realize.

In this brave new world of integrated or engineered system providers, or at least those with real engineering staffs, have an opportunity to  build truly innovative or, dare I use that already hackneyed cliche; disruptive products. It could very well be that this  new class of “engineered” or “integrated” systems might just be the ticket for enabling that talent to do some really great work.

Forrester  asserts that we are entering “The Age of the Customer”.That may well be true, perhaps that assertion should be expanded to read “The age of the customer/technology provider relationship”.  Such an extension might help to encourage the customer to re-evaluate their willingness to support, and prosper from real substantive innovation in parthernship with their vendor of choice.

 

Then again, maybe not

Short and Sweet. The travails of a post XP Microsoft

This article on Microsoft is sad, and I don’t usually have much empathy for Microsoft. While I don’t see impending doom for our friends up in Redmond. I do worry that they have yet to find any true resonance with releases of Windows after XP. I am not going to pretend to have any real answers. If that was the case, I’d be a rich man.

XP is hanging around because it’s reliable, it possesses a simple albeit inelegant UI, and, relative speaking, few features. It’s the last of those mentioned which I wonder about. XP is an operating system, i.e.,software designed to run the hardware and enable applications to run. Every subsequent release has included more and more “features’. I ve aways believed that operating systems  were just that. Operating Systems.I hope, for the industry’s sake Microsoft figures it out.

Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft ought to go and interview all of those folks who are holding on to XP. That insight might valuable.

Watson, IBM, and “C-squared A-squared S” markets

With IBM providing external developer access to it’s Watson system they’ve made a clear statement as to where they are putting some skin in the game. As a hardware engineer, and one who admires some of their early work (can you say 801 project) it’s heartening to see Big Blue try and push the envelope here.

Watson is not an overnight development. Nonetheless it’s a very interesting notable early commercial step not just because of the system itself. IBM has decided to “open the kimono”  and enable third party developers to create applications and systems in support of their own businesses. Imagine knowledge based verticals having the ability to now provide services to consumer level customers requiring information and advice around virtually anything.

As access prices to systems similar to Watson drop, and application/system development in this space becomes easier, even small businesses will be able to take advantage of what’s  this technology. For example,  small regional nurseries could provide a service for local gardening enthusisasts in determining what plants make the most sense to grow locally. Couple the computing with remote censoring via bluetooth attached sensor on a droid or iOS device and possibilities are limitless.

Is IBM going to own this market ? Who knows for sure .They will certainly be a player, and it seems they are willing to put substantial resources into promoting it’s success both home grown and in support of external developers. Odds are we are looking at a smallish number of years (>2 <4) based on what it takes IBM  to develop hardware specific to this computing paradigm (or to see their standard processor based systems speed up to handle it). 

The real question is not if, but when the tipping point for consumer use of this technology will occur .As I mentioned above, my sense is 2 to 4 years which is a long time in tech space, but remember that part of this play is also a hearts and minds exercise. Crucial to all of this will be how easy deploying cognitive computing systems (hardware and software) becomes for companies besides IBM. Who else will start to develop purpose built hardware in support of this computing paradigm  ?

If you’re a company who has knowledge specific to a vertical, or maybe a help desk, you might want start thinking about this technology as part of  a knowledge solution you offer to your customers.

I’ll be tracking what new hardware crops up in this space going forward, I expect that might help refine some of this timing. In the meantime….

Finally, What’s “c-squared a-squared s” you ask ? “Cognitive Computing As A Service “of course !!!