Re: Why continue flogging a dead horse?
Thanks for noticing although nothing in my comments is particularly new. But to elaborate a little in a more abstract domain . . .
It is not unreasonable to suggest that we relate to the world in terms of models of the world that we create cognitively, based on what we have experienced and learned. The better the match between the cognitive model and reality, the greater the efficiency, more rapid the evolution, and greater the possibility of survival and growth. In short, the better the model, the better the predictibility and the flow-on of advantages, whether unforeseen or planned.
Computation and its relation to the internet has reached a complexity which suggests it should be considered more seriously for what it is or rather what it will become, particularly when conceived of as "infrastructure"; rather than being ad hoc expansion based on corporate interest and its drive for product advantage. This drive creates a situation where reality is not well matched to any particular model or theory (if one can even exist within such a "reality bubble"). This in turn drives reduced integrability and its many negative consequences.
One reason for such problems is our hierarchical interpretation of the structural organization of the world. This is founded on and has arisen through a long interaction between theology, philosophy, and (subsequently) science, which provides a deeply embeded model of the world, its contents, and relationships. It has served well through history while populations and their technological and social sophistication existed in relatively isolated pockets. However, our technical ability to create is beginning to far outstrip the applicability of this model and its ability to organize and control ever-increasing complexity. Particularly as populations and their technological underpinnings become more integrated.
One of the most powerful drivers of the hierarchical world view or model is likely the perceived benefit of simplicity of control. It is for this reason that the current developments beyond the single computer to the implementation of cloud computing has taken the path it has. But it is the highly centralized, layered, and in principle hirarchical organization of cloud computing and its associated technologies that is precisely the reason why it's uptake is impeded. It does not provide a good model of the world, people intuitively know it, and consequently are reluctant to participate. One significant reason for this is that in acquiescing to the hirarchical model, control must be relinquished to a higher level of the hierarchy. So, for example, in adopting the cloud, data and/or software control is typically lost and legalities blurred. Whether real or not, there is at least a psychological sense of loss of control for the client/user.
The problem for the IoT is that the orgainzational philosophies required for its successful implementation are even more strongly opposed to a paradigm of control through hierarchical organization than those employed to create and implement cloud computing functionality. Currently, the solution of truely distributed interactional nodes independently responsible for data retention and interpretation is likely still a step too far. (We already seem to have enought trouble with our cell phones, social networking, and personal computers.)
Once a model has been developed to give a better match with reality, appropriate solutions either present themselves or are readily identified (remembering they can only be as good as the model).
Although it is possible to say much in considerably more detail about solutions and implementation, I guess we must leave it here for the moment . . . only to note Cristian's approach as representative of IoT appears to originate from what might be thought of as an increasingly maladaptive (hierarchical) philosophy and for this reason alone is likely to be either highly inefficient or, worse(?), doomed to failure . . .