Such as using open source IoT implementations instead of proprietary ones?
Are you suggesting that my meaning was unclear? Or is your asking here a rhetorical device from which I should infer that you instead disagree with what I meant to say?
I have been loosely following IoT developments for 10-15 years, and most implementations I have seen by far have been open source. Commercial manufacturers, as usual, are rather late to the party.
Be specific. Which ones?
Is interoperability going to happen if you pick the āwrongā one?
Iām asking because you say it is easy and solved and it seemed like handwaving unless you can name the specific thing that has solved this problem.
My employer is doing things in this space and things appear to be far from either easy or settled at this point (and weāre open source as well). My former CTO just founded a company to do IoT things as well with the comment that it isnāt easy or very solved.
Any/all of them? Hard to say now which one will win.
With proxy protocol converters? Likely.
Seems neither I nor @shaddack got what you wanted to say.
I donāt follow such things closely enough to be specific. But it hardly matters, since it was my intention to be general.
Thatās just the classic problem of choosing the right tool for the job.
If there a hundred new DMCA-hobbled implementations of anything to choose from, while repositories have many hundreds of other, better-established options, this suggests that DMCA might generally not be a problem.
Simply reminding people that they donāt need to use closed, proprietary tech doesnāt mean that developing open tech is trivial. It only means that DMCA is as much of an issue as people choose to make it. I doubt that these few companies who show up late with restrictive licenses make much of a difference in the IoT world generally.
Thatās more like the classic problem of having properly configured crystal ball.
Betamax/VHS, which to choose? HD-DVD/BluRay, which to pick? Itās clear now, but it was not so easy to decide back when these were new.
Thatās more of a consumer/marketing perspective than an engineering one.
Like with most things, if you make it yourself it is easy to change and adapt, compared to buying tur(n)key solutions from somebody else.
Depends. Sometimes it can get quite a hassle, and some parts can be rather difficult to replace. There are parts of technologies that even I would not suggest to DIY, at least not with whatās available today.
For a more on-topic example, if the zigbee tech is steamrolled over with wifi, how would you upgrade that? Itās not exactly simple to change this when it is baked into a couple nanometers node silicon sealed in an epoxy blob. Similarly, when you use a weaker CPU because thatās all thatās available in your budget range (ESP8266, I am looking at YOU!), and the new standard gets beefier crypto than the puny chip can handle, what would you do?
Assuming discarding and replacing the whole deviceās controller is not the solutionā¦?
As if those were really separate things in the end with no influence on each otherā¦
Or drive on the same roads as people who do.
There is a need for these people. My old roommate was a *nix guru who also tinkered with cars, and make them go like stink. But, he was an idiot with wrenches.
So we used to get lots of big boxes delivered to our house, and I would help him drop them off at the gearheadās house. Heād have me drive down the highway on the way home while he captured data. In grad school, he taught custom shops how to properly tune cars, because evidently just about everyone subscribes to the not-very-holistic āslap a turbo on it, and letās watch the dyno numbers go upā mentality.
I believe he works for NASA now. (no joke)
And living proof why the Germans should not look down on the Poles.
Specially since it was the Poles who did the first breaks on German Enigma encryption.
Good luck finding a non-smart TV for sale new.
What I did not expect is the often forced dependence on The Holy Cloud.
How else you gonna sell all that juicy info about the buyerās lifestyle?
Stubborn, arenāt you guys?
Okay, on this hand we have blocks that click together.
On that hand we have blocks with a microprocessor, and you can learn machine code and program it to do tricks.
One of these things is simpler than the other. One depends on a technical skill, while the other depends on the imagination of a child. Maybe debugging code is as easy for you as clicking together LEGOs, but would it astonish you to learn that not all children have the same experience?
LEGO Mindstorms are still around, so I am not sure why people here make a point of referring to them in the past tense.
The Mindstorms interface was originally designed to be kid friendly in the same sense that the LOGO language was. From watching actual kids play with em, some kids just liked to build stuff and make their creation do simple things, some kids got more into the making it do stuff side. Seemed to me to be a pretty good balance of play.
Sure not every kid will get into programming robots (or programming at all) but since as @popobawa4u points out Mindstorms are still around, I guess The Lego Company is doing something right with that product line even though it isnāt related to a movie franchise.
They are making a point-shaped nothing. Thatās quite a difference.
30 seconds on Amazon later
http://www.amazon.com/Proscan-PLED1526A-15-6-Inch-720p-60Hz/dp/B00BLH1UG4/
