THE IOT CONNECTION Taking the Internet to the Next Physical Level 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 exam ples 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 80 COMPUTER PUBLISHED BY THE IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY 0018-9162/16/$33.00 © 2016 IEEE EDITOR ROY WANT Google; [email protected] 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 in- teract 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 on- line 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.