The Internet of Things: Do we Need it

>>52872878
this is an enjoyable webum, anon

>>52872903
It's hypnotizing

I seen shoes connected to the internet, umbrella's, and even refrigerators... I don't find any of these stuff necessary.

>>52872878
because you need a lot of things in order to get the Internet of EVERYTHING !!

>>52872878

Data analytics. The more connected shit you have, the easier you are to work into economic and marketing models.

Not to mention buying all these new internet of trash devices is going to make certain infrastructure and hardware providers/developers a shit ton of cash. So naturally they're the ones peddling this fad the hardest.

What I don't understand is trying to make all that shit have public addresses.....

>>52872878
IoT is great for being aware of your environment (not talking about green shit and animals) as well as controlling your environment when applicable.

Modern environments are not very controllable except at the logistical scale, which is very distant from the interests of regular people, but is hugely useful for businesses. IoT is already in massive use within industry and is growing insanely fast.

It could easily take a generation to slowly trickle down to the consumer level.

>>52872878
IoT is going to enable a shit ton of cool stuff. Let me give you two scenarios:

Instead of just having a fire alarm that makes every other alarm in the house beep at the same time when it detects smoke, how about a set of cheap cloud-enabled IoT devices that pinpoint the location of the hot-spots in your house in real-time. You could potentially get a warning before anything ever caught on fire.

Instead of having to take your car in for diagnostics, how about a set of cheap IoT devices that monitor things like cylinder compression, coolant flow rate, exhaust pressure, et cetera in real time and let your mechanic diagnose problems remotely via an app on your smartphone.

File: drool.jpg (61KB, 601x960px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 601x960px

hnng

no, we don't need it. A lot of normies seem to want it though, for whatever reason. So it'll happen.

IoT is a really dumb term though, the internet already is an IoT

>>52874461
yes and it crashes and doesn't alert you when there's a fire, and you die

>>52873184
>>52874171
I love Polar opinions expressed right next to each other.

>>52875937
meh whatever. you could still have normal fire alarms too.

>>52872878
The biggest issue with IoT other than the swiss cheese of security holes leaking your data that it'll be is that it transitions control of your purchases further from you. Nothing around you will work without a connection to company servers and if anything goes wrong in an IoT environment, everything is fucked and nothing will do what you bought it to do.

>>52872878
>Do we need the Internet of things?
No, we don't need to be data mined. There are no benefits.
>Is it safe to incorporate so many items to the internet?
No, its actually detrimental to attach this many insecure devices. Just look at the router bothers and all the ipcams.
>Why are people pushing so hard for this?
Because they are unethical people who want to data mine everything you do. They are leaches.

File: rms2.jpg (59KB, 585x600px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 585x600px

>>52872878
no
of course not
they are evil profiteers or have a vested interest in surveilling or manipulating you or are simply retarded and misled

>>52876931
>Do we need cars
No, we don't need death machines. There are no benefits.
>Is it safe to let people move so quickly on highways?
No, it's actually detrimental to allow such high-speed vehicles. Just look at all the deaths and injuries.
>Why are people pushing so hard for this?
Because they are unethical people who want to unnaturally increase the pace of humanity. They are Satan's servants.

File: hate1360629593196.jpg (40KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x341px

>>52876985
>mfw people think this is legitimate/valid/funny

>>52872878
>Do we need the Internet of things?
no
>Is it safe to incorporate so many items to the internet?
no
>Why are people pushing so hard for this?
Because people pay for it.
IoT is really, really, REALLY far from being anything other than a poor hack of an implementation, and I'm guessing you'll see issues where the manufacturers of the devices stop supporting it.

My parents are, 4-5 years from now, probably going to have to keep a random old smartphone with no data plan around because the company that made the pool control app for their product stopped updating the application and wants them to pay a fuckload to re-do the pool wiring system to a later version.

There are literally 5 threads on this board, a day, that are some form of "ban everything on the internet!"

You need to stop trying to "clean" the internet, and instead, somehow make money off the "normies" you keep insisting are ruining it. Or go to some obscure IRC circlejerk and pretend it's 199X for 20 years.

>>52877034
It's just as insubstantial and nonsensical as your incoherent rambling, and it's structured in the same invalid format.

You don't know what the internet of things is, you don't know how to spell, and you don't know how logic works.

>>52876985
Haha fuck yourself.

File: 1426105602083.png (170KB, 335x258px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 335x258px

>>52876985
How much do you get paid for this?

>>52877178
Haha good comeback.

>>52876985
Cars are actually useful and serve a purpose, internet connected toasters that tweet do not. Plus most modern cars a full of data mining already with no benefits to the user.

>>52877218
>>52877204
>>52877188
>>52877178
>>52877174
>>52877144
>>52877040
neck yourselves

>>52877241
It's okay man, you need to pay the bills, we get jt

>>52874461
Now in practice:

These devices don't do anything and you only see retarded shit getting stupid tech embedded within them and their only purpose is to datamine the ever living fuck out of you. But you can wave your hand to your tv LOL

>>52876985
>4chan in charge of analogies

>>52877284
Really? If one particular device is stupid, then don't buy it. There are plenty of great applications encompassed by IoT technology. For a technology board, some people here sure have a lack of vision for what great things can be accomplished.

>>52877310
I bet you believed that 3D and Kinect were also the future and that datamining isn't the free cash flow everyone is jumping on.

>>52877310
>There are plenty of great applications encompassed by IoT technology

Such as?

>>52877241
>neck yourselves
NO YOU NECK YOURSELF!1!

File: guide-to-iot-infographic.jpg (3MB, 1024x5605px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x5605px

>>52877333
If I liked consoles I'd be on /v/. I couldn't care less about Kinect. 3D is the present, as rendered on 2D screens, and it will be the future in stereoscopic VR.

>>52877351
I already mentioned a few if you'd bothered to read the thread.

>>52877310
>There are plenty of great applications encompassed by IoT technology.
Name 10 specifically and explain exactly what benefits adding internet connectivity provides for a regular non commercial user.

>>52877368
No, you only cited some retarded shit that doesn't even exist while conventionally ignoring the fact so far this internet of shit has only been used to datamine the ever living fuck out of everybody to the point where we have to unplug our fucking TVs if we're to mention sensible information in front of it.

You also ignore the HUGE risk to the leaking of sensible information to invaders this poses when we have ipcams as proof of that. Now imagine fucking everything with some lousy shitty faulty firmware being connected to everything else in a huge network blob. It'd be a hacker's heaven to have so many backdoors to choose from.

Yeah, the concept sounds really great, but you're awfully stupid and narrow minded if you think that this push for this doesn't have one very evident purpose behind it.

I bet you also believe that microsoft is doing charity by making windows 10 free.

>>52877411
>Name 10 specifically
Awfully demanding for an Internet troll.
Fuck off, I'm not your Google and I've already listed probably 8.

>exactly what benefits
You don't want to be able to check the status of your home thermostat and fire sensors when you're at work? I could see how that might not have entered your mind if you never leave home I guess. You don't want to be able to have an expert doctor or mechanic use IoT sensors to diagnose you or your car? Take a look at in-home self-diagnostic sleep apnea tests for example. About 20% the cost of doing it in a medical facility.

>>52877429
>Future technology doesn't exist yet.
Good. That's a tautology. Now are you going to try to make an argument that my (or Intel's) ideas are infeasible?
>When I don't use security best practices muh data might be leaked.
Okay?
>I bet you [...] believe that microsoft
The prejudices come out tonight!
I don't run Windows at all except my old secondary PC with XP on it.

>>52877368
>retail
>"anonymous analystics of user choices"
>"anonymous"
>literal nanomachines OUTSIDE the "and stuff yet to come" section
>literal mind control being sold as "a really good thing!!!"
>"facebook for things"

L M A O
M
A
O

Who the fuck made this trash? And who is retarded enough to drink this much kool aid? Literally go back to r/futurology

From a privacy perspective.
IoTs can be seen as something bad.
But who doesn't really want a smarter environment?
In fact I'm setting up my space so it can be smarter.
Push for a more tech related future /g/

>>52877531
I like how you conveniently ignored the parts of my post you can't argue against and also classified shoddy shitty easily exploitable firmware I have no control over as me not using "secury best practices". Also loved how you didn't even address the fact that so far your "revolutionary" internet of things has only been used for the sole purpose of datamining.

Also I'll take the liberty of answering for the other guy you quoted because you named only 2 concepts.

Also found it really funny when you scream "The prejudices come out tonight!" after you told him this
>I could see how that might not have entered your mind if you never leave home I guess

You're simply pathetic.

>>52877629
>shitty easily exploitable firmware I have no control over
Put your devices behind a $25 router with DD-WRT on it. It's not hard.

>sole purpose of datamining.
Oh so I guess I imagined NEST, and the Tridium implementation in Changi Airport, August and Kevo smart locks, and the Philips Hue. Yep all purely datamining.

Thanks for giving me so many easy arguments tonight. Keep setting 'em up buddies!

>>52877531
>Awfully demanding for an Internet troll.Fuck off, I'm not your Google and I've already listed probably 8.
How are you going to sell anything it you treat potential customers like this. Have some pride in your work and stop being lazy.

>You don't want to be able to check the status of your home thermostat and fire sensors when you're at work?
What does this have to do with having the status constantly data mined like every IoT device does? Do thermostats only work when someone is watching them?

> I could see how that might not have entered your mind if you never leave home I guess.
Says the Pajeet working from home.

>You don't want to be able to have an expert doctor or mechanic use IoT sensors to diagnose you or your car?
What does this have to do with having the status constantly data mined like every IoT device does?

>Take a look at in-home self-diagnostic sleep apnea tests for example.
Not fat, so this will never be a problem. BTW what happened to the expert doctors diagnosing me, so that was just a lie then.

>About 20% the cost of doing it in a medical facility.
It actually costs 200% more due to patents.

BTW, nice social language mannerisms your using here.

>>52877830
>What does this have to do with having the status constantly data mined
Your original argument was that no one wants their devices on the Internet, and I answered it. Looks like you're moving the goalposts now rather than admit I was right.

>BTW what happened to the expert doctors diagnosing me, so that was just a lie then.
Meh whatever, it's a test that you run in your house, with doctors remotely analyzing the sensor readings.

>It actually costs 200% more due to patents.
200% more than what?

I used to want it when playing the Mega Man Battle Network games, but citing the same games, it's clear that having it will be dangerous.

>viruses in ovens and hospital machines
>real world in danger

>>52877922
>Your original argument was that no one wants their devices on the Internet,
No it wasn't.

>and I answered it.
You in fact did not answer something I never asked.

> Looks like you're moving the goalposts now rather than admit I was right.
Wait for it...
>Meh whatever, it's a test that you run in your house, with doctors remotely analyzing the sensor readings.
Looks like you're moving the goalposts now rather than admit I was right. Does the doctor even exist?

>200% more than what?
The same thing it was a reply to. Are you having problems keeping your shilling straight in-between stuffing your maw with cheesy poofs.

>>52878139
You can't even keep track of your own arguments. Let me remind you:
>explain exactly what benefits adding internet connectivity provides for a regular non commercial user.

>Looks like you're moving the goalposts now rather than admit I was right. Does the doctor even exist?
I explained my perspective more fully because you were arguing semantics. I just told you the doctor analyzes the sensors remotely, how do you get from that to the doctor doesn't exist?

>The same thing it was a reply to.
I said the home version using remote doctors and technology is 20% the cost of doing it in a medical facility. Here's a link to documentation if you don't believe me.
http://www.midmark.com/docs/default-source/news-and-media-documents/sleepview_white_paper.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Now show me your documentation for 200% more.

>>52878230
>You can't even keep track of your own arguments.
So your just going to repeat what I wrote like a child would. This is bad customer service.

>Let me remind you:
Now this is customer service, look how helpful you are.

>I explained my perspective more fully because you were arguing semantics. I just told you the doctor analyzes the sensors remotely,
Wait they're not even expert doctors anymore, just regular doctors. WTF!
>how do you get from that to the doctor doesn't exist?
Because "expert doctors" -> "self-diagnostic" -> "doctors". What proof do you have that these doctors even exist?

>Here's a link to documentation
Im not reading your companies press release and I'm certainly not going to consider press releases as documentation, they are advertising statements. Show me a actual independent statistical analysis that has a testable data set available or stfu.
>Now show me your documentation for 200% more.
I will after you show me yours. rapeface.jpg

File: Untitled.png (205KB, 517x675px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 517x675px

>>52872878
>quality interpolation

>>52878457
You've got it wrong, I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm just exposing the idiocy of your 'arguments'. I guess we're both on the same side now given your last post.

>>52878531
>I'm not stupid, I was just trolling.
Kek.

The idea of a million little household devices all with their own websites, apps, and shit is unworkable and annoying.
You need one platform, like a personal assistant, to hook them all together.
This could work in a few ways:
0: What we have now
A whole bunch of independent devices, one manufacturer per specialty (Lightbulbs by hue, thermostat be nest, coffee machine by yada yada), all have their own fucking app, no central way to do anything.
1: The old way
All devices are basically from the same manufacturer, may be preinstalled in your house
2: The good way
Devices are from a range of manufacturers, all use a standard protocol base, you use whatever god (control) software you want to tie them together.
3: The kinda shit way
There's no standard protocol, and it works like 0, but manufacturers release compatibility layers for god applications. Perhaps only the one, so if you want an easy way to control your fridge and coffee machine, use google now, but siri will be able to do your lights, car, and toilet.

4: The shitfixer hacksaw way (What will happen regardless)
Take 0 and 3. They're both annoying. What you need is a central hub, not a personal assistant god controller, just a server that connects to all your devices using all their own protocols, probably in unofficial or reverse engineered ways, then serve this info out to any phones or personal assistants that want to control the devices.
This way each personal assistant only needs one built in plugin, rather than one per device.

This is what some diy people with "smart" houses do and have, mostly built by the user personally.
This could be a precursor to #2; once manufacturers realize people want to control their lights with a tap of a widget, not a for-task app, and are fed up with this internet of shit, they'll try making it easier for everyone. Or not and die in flame like a stubborn retard.

I am masturbating to lesbian pornograhy.

>>52876985
>Do we need Jews?
No, we don't need money machines. There are no benefits.
>Is it safe to let jews move so quickly on stockmarkets?
No, it's actually detrimental to allow such high-speed trades. Just look at all the crashes and monopolies.
>Why are jews pushing so hard for this?
Because they are unethical people who want to unnaturally increase the pace of their markets. They are Satan's servants.

>>52872878
>Do we need the Internet of things?
Obviously not.
>Is it safe to incorporate so many items to the internet?
Obviously not.
>Why are people pushing so hard for this?
Because people are generally similar to sheep in that regard. They hear someone else talking about it and start parroting what they've heard because it's easier than thinking for themselves and figuring things out, plus they want to be seen to be in agreement with the prevailing consensus, no matter how retarded that may be at the time.

>>52877310
I support the technology and innovation but I do NOT like being a part of a corporate ecosystem that controls the hand of innovation.

LoT is pretty cool, and then you realize the potential security issues you will come across 10 years from now where companies won't ever release security updates to their shitty software.