back to article Internet of Stuff my Pockets: Investors plough 1 BEELLION dollars into IoT

The "internet of things" – the rebranding of good old machine-to-machine comms – has investors chucking ludicrous amounts of cash at firms who hope to get our gadgets talking to each other. Now new research from analyst StrategyEye has found that investors have bunged more than $1bn at companies associated with the internet of …


Tne next big thing?

Now suppose you ran a distribution centre on Windows XP, Java 6, IE6 on an internal network that connected directly to the dub-dub-dub.

Are you going to update into Windows PCs that may or may not talk to legacy stuff or are you going to open source it with open standards?

Answers on a postcard to ARM?


Security? Control?

Before the IoT really takes off I hope that they hire a couple of people to architect security and then hire a few more to review for holes.

The current security infrastructure is wholly inadequate. Before they hook up my fireplace, they need to fix it. 'They' here might include people like me, but whatever.

I wrote about the converging IoT more than ten years ago:

"All communications and part of the power grid are becoming a single transparent worldwide network. Communications devices and their power requirements are shrinking. It is technically possible, for instance to produce a camera with a 360x360 degree viewing range that is connected to the Internet and near invisible to the eye. When mass-produced, these devices would cost pennies or less per device. Privacy as we know it will become almost impossible within my lifetime. Webcams? They will be everywhere. Light bulbs will be monitored via the Internet because it will be cheaper to produce them with the device than without. "

"Countries once had near absolute sovereignty over their borders. International agreements have changed that. Expect this process to accelerate. "

"It is most important that people in our community (geeks who understand this stuff) work diligently to ensure that our transition to the converged, border-less, information rich world is sane and humane."

"Re: The public good -- what is it? What maximizes it? Somebody will be answering these questions and if they are the only voice heard, that's what we'll get. Frankly, the extension of copyrights, DMCA, the notion of 'Intellectual Property' (as if you could make such a bag and stuff Patents, Copyright, etc into it), FrankenFoods, etc. all act AGAINST the public good in my opinion."

"The networks will inevitably converge and they will be attached to just about everything. Guns and Bullets? The really dangerous stuff is probably already part of a network somehow and that trend will accelerate. How do guns and bullets get deployed and used? Somehow messages went out over a network and those messages resulted in the public will to deploy guns and the particular private orders that resulted in deploying and using them."



SmartHome stuff

As I have said before there is absolutely NO REASON to have multiple devices directly connected to the Internet no matter HOW MUCH some crazy Venture capitalist wants.

One connection through a PC and Router is relatively easy to secure if done correctly. Tens or Hundreds of connections to the Internet is insanely difficult to secure, if at all. Home devices are usually cheap, not secure. Anything made for home is a factor of ten times less $ than for commercial. Same applies to any thought about security. How about multiple passwords with authority levels? Don't think that will happen!

Don't call me when someone is making disgusting comments over your connected fridge, oven, baby monitor, web cam, etc, etc, etc. When your house burns down because someone hacked your thermostat and turned the temp up to max and it runs unattended all day don't forget I told you so. When some one creates a worm to infect your lightbulbs just to see if it works, good luck.

All these people want is your and your families personel data to mine. They could give a flying F@ck about keeping things secure.

Silver badge

Re: SmartHome stuff

Security of all these things is made much easier, if they can only connect but can't be connected to. They all connect to the device used to manage them, and you only need to worry about securing that one device. That doesn't fix the problem because that one device probably won't be secure (especially if it is a PC) but at least the problem goes from intractable to tractable. If your home router is secure, then even if the device everything connects to isn't secure there will be no way for anyone to access it remotely ("remote" meaning outside the range of your wifi)

I don't really care about any of this because I continue to believe there is absolutely no reason why anyone will ever want their oven, fridge, washing machine, etc. networked. A web cam or baby monitor, sure. A thermostat? I'm skeptical but I could see where the annoying types who are always messing with the temperature will want to be able to mess with the temperature remotely.

The idea of networking individual light bulbs is just insane, and hopefully it dies a quick death. Talk about a stupid idea!

Paris Hilton

Re: SmartHome stuff

Michael Schrage saw this back in 1993 - the Homewrecker Virus (not to be confused with the jilted ex...)

Have a look at

The Day You Discover That Your House Is Smarter Than You Are

Advertising, command and control - only we're not the ones doing careful of what you wish for....

IOT... more than 60% of idIOT ....

Paris, well, because her home's probably smart, er ....

Big Brother

Re: SmartHome stuff (redux)

Ahhhh, but it won't be just the marketing dweebs, hackers, and spammers that want your data....Big, er, Guv will most likely be interested too. And just as with (not-so) smart meters, the ability to remotely control and monitor will give these power-freaks an infinite number of ways to annoy us...

Sad, too: another case of something potentially really useful being pwned by the bad guys...

Gold badge


Title says it all.


the one thing holding back the development of the IoT...

I would say that the main thing holding back development is that for the most part no one can think of anything useful a thing can do by being connected to the internet.

If humans had no reason to talk to each other we wouldn't have any languages either.

Anonymous Coward

And why...

...would I want my refrigerator talking to my sex toys?

Silver badge

Re: And why...

...would I want my refrigerator talking to my sex toys?

You might be more convinced if your fridge had the silky-smooth voice of Pierce Brosnan.

(Mmmmm... unexplained bacon)


Not useless by far

Just because a device *could* be controlled remotely does not necessarily mean it *must* be. A smart controllable device can go whatever way it needs to go. A dumb one is, well, dumb.

It should be at least possible to merge anything that has state with the network.

Devices throughout a house could automagically go into a low power state when they are not needed. I have a biggish house that has something like 100 light bulbs. I also have two kids. I spend a lot of time turning off lights. If the house was smarter, I could stop wasting my time on that and the amount of power saved would be even greater than the most diligent homeowner. It would be pretty cool if lights went on and off as needed without me having to bother. Similar advantages would apply to most any other device.

It would also be pretty cool if devices whose heartbeats went offline were tended to without my having to bother. Appliances under recall because they tend to catch fire spontaneously could be disabled automatically as part of a recall. I had a device (heating pad) burn my apartment down once a long time ago. I got lucky that I only lost all my possessions. Some people lost their lives to that defective product. My Sony Notebook had a defect that could cause it to catch on fire. It was curable with a BIOS update. Sometime between that BIOS update being created and applied a few people had a nasty surprise. A network attached device with the appropriate smarts could have avoided that.

Lots of devices already have different CPUs in them that provide some smarts. A one size fits all network chip would require less smarts, allow those remaining smarts to be donated into the network and would allow the device to import significantly more intelligence than it had on its own. Due to economies of scale, plug and play network devices would accomplish more for a lower price.

Technology holds incredible promise if it is managed correctly. We should not be afraid to move ahead. We just need to be sensible.

People are correct that there is danger in a badly connected insecure network. The fix is to make sure it is a well designed, well implemented and secure network. The answer to automobile safety is to build safer automobiles, not to switch to riding horses.

Regardless of the pros and cons, I have no doubt that network convergence will continue. It will happen anyway. Rather than trying to stop the inevitable, technical people should be pushing to make the converging network sane and humane.

Bronze badge

IBM AI + New 1,000 Japanese sex bot…….

You can imagine it now….

Sex bot: he loves me more

Refrigerator: No it me he loves….

Toilet: Well I tell you I'm just sick of being dumped on…


POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017