Taking the Internet to the Next Physical Level

THE IOT CONNECTION

Vint Cerf and Max Senges, Google Research

Our physical universe has been transformed by computing’s ubiquity. The authors describe the challenges and delights we’ll find in a future enabled by the Internet of Things. e’ve come a long way since the article in which Mark Weiser FROM THE EDITOR envisioned small, With the realization of the ideas behind the Internet of Things (IoT)—a network ubiquitous,W connected computers of everyday items with embedded computers that can connect directly or indi- that enhanced all aspects of our rectly to the Internet—we’re entering the era of ubiquitous computing. As the IoT lives.1 Here, we present our analy- takes root, the number of devices connecting to the Internet is likely to increase sis of the architectural leitmotifs 10- or even 100-fold over the next 10 years, forever changing our relationship with that should be pursued so the In- “things”—now they’ll be smart: smart devices, smart homes, smart buildings, and ternet of Things (IoT) ecosystem smart cities. can enjoy the staggering success of Although its origins date back to 1999, the IoT’s core ideas were first described the Internet, which resulted in the in Mark Weiser’s vision of ubiquitous computing in 1988. Although these ideas have been around for more than 25 years, it has only recently become practical for World Wide Web. By success, we high-performance processing and networking to be built into everyday products. mean the economic value and the We now have the ability to augment our things’ capabilities at a reasonable cost social and technological innova- and size: this embedded computing—with the equivalent performance of a com- tion these platforms have brought plete 1980s-era workstation—can be added to products for less than $10. to the world. To kick off the inaugural installment of “The IoT Connection,” a bimonthly for um bringing Computer readers exciting developments from the IoT field, it seems THE IOT IS HERE appropriate to invite one of the fathers of the Internet, Vint Cerf, and one of Goo- As with the Internet, it’s difficult to gle’s in-house philosophers, Max Senges, to get the ball rolling. Vint’s perspective, pin down the dimensions of value spanning his considerable experience in networking from the early days of Inter- creation through the IoT because it’s net design at DARPA to its modern instantiation, is combined with Max’s expertise essentially a general-purpose plat- in building both sociotechnological innovation around a “good IoT” and a vibrant multistakeholder IoT ecosystem. form. So, we’ll start by highlighting Please contact me with your content suggestions, especially regarding IoT some examples of how the IoT al- standards development, applications, protocols, security and privacy, and novel ready helps society in many different human–computer interaction requirements for new modes of use. —Roy Want ways, through applications ranging in scope from the individual to the

Me My home My community My country My planet

Copenhagen Wheel— Sigfox—global cellular Aclima— Fitbit—quantiable health Nest—home devices a project by the connectivity for the IoT city air maps MIT Senseable City Lab

Figure 1. The scope of the Internet of Things (IoT). (Source: Copenhagen Wheel [http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel] photo by Max Tomasinelli; www.maxtomasinelli.com. Aclima photo courtesy of Aclima [http://aclima.io].) planetary (as shown in Figure 1), as devices and services. Indeed, some LESS IS MORE well as across ventures in a variety of its potential applications and com- Tech companies have generally pur- of industries. plexities stir public fears over privacy sued business models in which suc- IoT ventures are rooted in and ad- and security risks—an aspect the me- cessful products and services are con- vance all kinds of professional spheres, dia tends to revel in reporting about. stantly updated. This translates to including entertainment (for example, Additionally, many IoT products have technology-rich environments where mixed-reality ventures like Magic a level of complexity that limits their devices and services constantly com- Leap; www.magicleap.com), science appeal for users unwilling to invest pete for consumers’ attention; thus, (such as scientific data sharing), edu- time and resources to learn to config- technology tends to distract rather cation (for example, connected plat- ure them. than add value. Will the addition of forms like SAM Labs; http://samlabs However, its greatest limitation is more networked devices add more .me), health (such as the smart contact arguably the lack of open standards, screens to this cacophony? We have lens developed at Google X), and civic because the IoT’s growth will bring no doubt that IoT technology will innovation (for example, participatory many incompatible IoT solutions. profoundly impact our lives. If these smart city initiatives; https://smart Even if standards are used, consumers devices are to fit into our lives com- citizen.me). are hesitant to pay a premium for IoT- fortably, they shouldn’t require more enabled devices, particularly if these screens or keyboards. UNDERSTANDING devices aren’t compatible with prod- Figure 2 illustrates what our col- THE CHALLENGES ucts and devices they already own. leagues at Nest Labs—a home auto- Although we’re already reaping so As many IoT products—such as home mation producer of programmable, many of the IoT’s exciting benefits appliances and cars—have a product Internet-connected thermostats, smoke and anticipating much more from lifetime of more than a decade, con- detectors, and security systems—came the promising forecasts of its future, sumers need to be confident that tech- up with when their CEO, Tony Fadell, mainstream users and organizations nical support and security updates are asked them to envision the living room aren’t yet craving the majority of IoT available long term. of the future. What’s important is

FEBRUARY 2016 81 THE IOT CONNECTION

what’s missing—where’s the collection of screens and keyboards? We might interact with future devices through voice requests, gestures, or perhaps inputs me- diated through smartphones. As Weiser espoused, technology will (or should) fade into the back- ground, supporting us in our private and professional lives in many subtle and effective ways.

THE PROMISE OF GOOD IOT TECHNOLOGY How can we guide technologists, en- trepreneurs, and user-experience de- signers to shift their perspectives? Let’s start by comparing current user perceptions with the experiences we’d like to provide (see Figure 3). When thinking about the IoT, we like the dualism of hard IoT versus soft Figure 2. Nest’s vision of the living room of the future. (Source: Nest Labs) IoT—an idea put forward by Usman Haque in 2002.2 Hard IoT is tradition- ally understood as a network of elec- tronic gadgets, software, and sensors that are connected so objects can col- “IoT is only a bunch of connected gadgets.” “IoT objects are embedded in the fabric of my life.” lect and exchange data. In contrast, soft IoT focuses on the value that can “It’s not secure.” “I’m in the center of my IOT ecosystem and be derived from the collection of fluid I’m in control of my data and its privacy.” relationships among people, objects, “It’s just a gimmick; it won’t last.” “It’s useful on many levels. I can see it’s here to and spaces. stay and I’m happy about that.” The following three maxims can “It’s complicated.” “It’s easy and built to make complex inform good IoT design: things become easier.”

“I have no idea what I’m getting myself into.” “I understand what I’m doing and the ›› reimagine ordinary objects with tradeoffs I’m assuming.” the power of the Internet, “It’s a conguration nightmare.” “It was so easy, most devices ›› foster ensembles of objects and congured themselves.” services, and ›› match relevant objects and ser- Figure 3. From resisting to embracing the IoT. Our assessment of current user percep- vices for genuine user benefit. tion of the IoT and where we believe the value propositions should be. Reimagining ordinary objects with the power of the Internet How useful will objects be when they’re amplified by everything the Internet can do? Figure 4 shows how ++= a traditional “offline” object is -en hanced by being connected to the online ecosystem. Object Web Object Connectivity Net Imagine a washing machine with the Connect ensembles Computing, learning, of objects context, awareness, power of the Web (see Figure 5). Whereas voice recognition traditional washing machines have all the features they’ll ever have once Figure 4. How connectivity changes “things.” they’re installed in a home—they’re

82 COMPUTER WWW.COMPUTER.ORG/COMPUTER Smartphone Learns the best cycle Knowledge graph Customization to wash by sensing clothes in the drum

Checks efciency Activates washing and safety with at most energy- Washing other washing machines Smartmart energyenerg Washing machine efcient time machine meter

Orders product if running out based Matches user arrival times on tracked usage with energy efciency so clothes are ready when user is home Shopping User’s calendar platform

Figure 5. The various features and benefits enabled by connectivity and access to an online ecosystem. neither customizable nor aware of Fostering ensembles be felt when we connect contextually the resources they consume—a Web- of objects and services relevant objects to the right informa- enabled machine is able to acquire new Orchestration among an ensemble of tion and services. safety or security features and ser- objects can add to their usefulness and Figure 6 shows how the IoT ex- vices (for example, programs designed value—it facilitates rich, intuitively tends the information graph created to clean innovative textiles, such as interactive or standardized environ- by the Web, the social graph created Google’s Project Jacquard [http://levi ments. In the washing machine exam- by user-generated media, and the phy strauss.com/unzipped-blog/2015/05 ple shown in Figure 5, users can cus- sical graph that links objects and their /google-levis-project-jacquard]). tomize and save personal preferences functionalities. Only when these three Connecting to cloud services and the via their smartphone. The machine knowledge domains are combined can Internet ecosystem enables the wash- can compare efficiency and learn about products and services be truly “smart.” ing machine, for example, to link to safety hazards from other machines, other objects and build ensembles track usage and order replenishment PREREQUISITES FOR that complement and cooperate with of supplies, access knowledge bases A GOOD IOT one another. to learn the most suitable programs There are already many successful IoT In such configurations, Web-for washing clothes, and find the best products and services, and even some enabled appliances benefit from con- price for energy. (limited) domain-specific ecosystems tinuous machine learning, improving Although this is a very simplistic on the market. Nevertheless, we iden- their understanding and consideration example, such IoT innovations can tify three areas that require signifi- of context and enabling their access to allow for resource conservation and cant R&D investment and cooperation ecosystem services (such as weather energy efficiency in a scalable way. It before an ecosystem can emerge to data), markets (such as placing an order follows that such efficiencies can be universally interconnect all indus- to replenish washing detergent; www realized at a much larger scale, and in tries, people, and spaces (see Figure 7): .youtube.com/watch?v=U1XOPIqyP7A industrial IoT ecosystems that can re- [at 3:02]), and APIs and protocols that sult in huge cost reductions along with ›› data, access-control, and iden- allow full cooperation with other de- green efficiency benefits. tity management; vices. Thus, network-enabled objects ›› standardized and modular embody smart behaviors that make Matching relevant objects and system architecture (including them adaptive to new circumstances, services for genuine user benefit protocols and IoT schema); and more resource efficient, and generally So far we’ve considered mainly static ›› new human–device interaction user optimized. actors, but the IoT’s true benefits will paradigms and techniques.

FEBRUARY 2016 83 THE IOT CONNECTION

The Internet created the information graph that changed Total access and ubiquity of content how we produce, access, share, and generate knowledge.

Social media created the social graph that changed how Enabling power to the crowd we establish and foster relationship with others.

The IoT extends the physical graph that changes how Adaptive, self-regulating we interact with objects and environments. environments that understand context and adjust accordingly

Figure 6. How the IoT extends the Web-created information graph, the user-generated media–based social graph, and the object– functionality physical graph to create “smart” ecosystems.

Importantly, in our assessment, all three areas are more likely to result from open peer-production scenarios as described by Yochai Benkler.3 This will lead to better standards that make it feasible for users to learn nuanced SystemsSd and common practices that can be applied protocols internationally across companies, product categories, and industrial and consumer ecosystems. For example, controlling devices with gestures or managing complex dataflows are two new areas where open standards would be beneficial.

Data, access-control, and identity management In the Internet’s early development, user privacy and identity management— SecuritySi andd UX and HCI and security, to some extent—weren’t privacy at the forefront of its inventors’ minds, and were only incorporated into the service network much later. User safety has also recently become deeply relevant as Figure 7. Components of an IoT ecosystem. HCI: human–computer interaction; UX: devices like cars and door locks become user experience. networked.

84 COMPUTER WWW.COMPUTER.ORG/COMPUTER Device hardware and I know my data is secure. I have control over my data, I know my devices will ask software consider safety digital identity, and data before sharing any data rst and are automatically per sensor, per account, with other devices. updated by the manufacturer. per product, per home.

Figure 8. Embedding trust into the IoT.

We believe that a system archi- gardens,” that offer special perks for transparent meritocratic organizations tected from the ground up, with iden- customers who buy from the “product dedicated to the public interest. tity management and data ownership family.” Although the Internet was de- Particularly problematic for the as core features, will better serve users veloped around open standards, AOL’s mainstreaming of IoT products and in a world of networked things. and CompuServe’s walled gardens services is the “app trap”: the tendency To do this, we’ll first need a solid were among the first of the Internet’s for each connected thing to develop identity management system. All initial development and deployment and require its own smartphone app IoT objects—such as door locks and experiments. We now know that the lication. We need to move away from cars—must have deeply ingrained, open ISP model provided superior this paradigm. Single objects or sys- authority-based usage rights. Es- services to customers, but this experi- tems shouldn’t rely on smartphones tablishing preferred usage patterns ment needs to be repeated at the begin- as controllers, but should instead (personalization) is fundamental, ning of the IoT era. use common APIs so that various de- especially to reap the benefits of en- We’re not dogmatic about open- vices and programs can access and sembles and spaces (in other words, ness, but it seems clear to us that the control them (given the right creden- to avoid constantly configuring and Internet’s success is based on the level tials). This will enable an ecosystem adapting settings). Because every- playing field created by open standards in which users interact with multiple thing creates data, we’ll also need to and interoperability. A successful IoT devices through voice, gestural, and clearly define its flow and ownership ecosystem will allow start-ups, estab- touch interfaces as devices share con- to allow for reasonable and effective lished small and midsize businesses textual information. Standardization storage and management. (SMBs), and big companies to plug in will also improve efficiency by -en The key to mainstream IoT accep- and play a role in building viable prod- abling competition and user choice for tance lies in a decentralized, user- ucts. For the IoT to become a main- managing and controlling ensembles controlled system with strong data stream success, the IKEAs, Holiday of devices. management and identity controls Inns, and Disneys of the world—along to elicit greater trust and adequate with all kinds of SMBs—must join the New paradigms for user interface privacy. Security and safety can be party and help foment ever more con- and interaction design handled mostly by service providers. nected hardware and services. Last but not least, interacting with Figure 8 illustrates the main require- Nearly 100 IoT consortia and stan- our connected “things” shouldn’t ments of a trust-generating identity- dardization efforts are underway. We revolve around putting little touch- and data-management system. appreciate the competition to create screens on all of them. Keyboards the best system, but from a strategic and mice aren’t an effective means Standardized and modular perspective, it’s more desirable for the to use and orchestrate the devices system architecture architecture of platforms, schemata, surrounding us. As neither of us is The current IoT landscape is made and protocols to be modular and for an expert in human–computer in- up of individual solutions, or “walled their core elements to be maintained by teraction or user-experience design,

FEBRUARY 2016 85 THE IOT CONNECTION

Music player reimagined as a physical experience Prizm

Mouse and keyboard reimagined Traditional maps reimagined as smart navigation for bicycles as an interactive textile Hammerhead Project Jacquard from Google ATAP

Figure 9. Reimagining interaction with “things” beyond traditional interfaces.

we refrain from making assessments REFERENCES about these challenges and oppor- 1. M. Weiser, “Hot Topics: Ubiquitous tunities. Instead, we provide a few Computing,” Computer, vol. 26, no. 10, examples of nontraditional IoT inter- 1993, pp. 71–72. faces in Figure 9. 2. U. Haque, Hardspace, Softspace and the Possibilities of Open Source Archi- tecture, white paper, Haque Design + t’s not possible in such a short ar- Research, 2002; www.haque.co.uk ticle to comprehensively analyze /papers/hardsp-softsp-open-so the IoT with its multifaceted di- -arch.PDF. Imensions. We hope, however, that 3. Y. Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: our analysis here might illustrate How Social Production Transforms the IoT’s core potential and articulate Markets and Freedom, Yale Univ. some of the barriers to the adoption Press, 2006. of a universal, mainstream IoT. As we strongly believe in openness and collaboration, we very much look for- NOTE ward to teaming up and building a This article is an elaboration on Vint good IoT with all of you. Cerf’s keynote address at the IEEE Let’s expand the Internet’s success 2nd World Forum on Internet of story in terms of permissionless inno- Things (WF-IoT 15) in Milan, Italy, in NEXT ISSUE vation and level the playing field for all December 2015. COMMUNICATIONS competing innovators. Let’s promote an interoperable eco- AND PRIVACY system based on open standards. VINT CERF is vice president and UNDER Let’s make identity, access-control, Chief Internet Evangelist at Google and data management an essential Research. SURVEILLANCE part of the technological architecture is a program manager from the start of the IoT evolution. MAX SENGES at Google Research. Contact him at Let’s take the Internet to the next [email protected]. physical level.

86 COMPUTER WWW.COMPUTER.ORG/COMPUTER