On the day the Web turns 25, it’s only appropriate we tuned into Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, and Jim Stogdill, who leads O’Reilly Solid, for a discussion on the Internet of Things, the convergence of hardware and software, and their vision for the future. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web 25 years ago, and O’Reilly is credited for popularizing the term “Web 2.0” back in 2004, the shift in the Internet from static Web pages to more interactive, collaborative and engaging user-generated content (see: social media).
The discussion was informative and insightful, and worth the time to listen to. Here are some of the key points looking at the convergence of technology and the future of the Internet of Things.
Interoperability is Key
The Internet of Things does not mean an “Apple Internet of Things,” a “Google Internet of Things,” a “GE Industrial Internet” or a “Cisco (News - Alert) Internet of Everything.” The key to the future of the IoT is interoperability and integration between different devices, systems, software, and vendors.
“The Power is in the Data”
If you understand that, you’ll build a beautiful thing, O’Reilly says. The reason people haven’t been able to create a search engine better than Google (News - Alert) is because Google has the data. With millions of connected devices predicted in just a few years, all of these endpoints will gather an enormous amount of data. The value is what applications, vendors and developers do with it.
Manufacturing – Becoming Self-learning
Machine to machine (M2M) technology – the tech powering the IoT – has the potential to disrupt industries across the board, but manufacturing is one of the biggest. The impacts go beyond just automating supply chains; for example, changes in manufacturing can trigger a shift in where businesses are located, or transform materials like power tools to be more than just a power machine, but something that can understand what it’s making.
A “Constant Digital Heartbeat”
The impact of connected devices and systems in the future is on making people’s lives better. In healthcare, this technology is enabling people to take care of themselves before they need medical help and then later when they manage that help. The questions of, “Did you take your medication?” or, “Are you showing up to appointments?” are a thing of the past. O’Reilly refers to all of this data tracking as a “constant digital heartbeat.”
Security
I was very interested to hear what O’Reilly and Stogdill had to say about security in the future with this convergence and growth of connectivity. The IoT has already introduced a number of security vulnerabilities, risks and concerns, and they are sure to continue in the future. People loved Nest – until Google bought it, Stogdill noted.
The first point about privacy O’Reilly makes is that it’s not that there’s no privacy – it’s that there are so many cases where the very thing we find useful requires us to give up our privacy. If we assume that future, he says we have to ask ourselves what we have to do differently. For example, some people may suggest vendors required to throw our user data. That’s one solution, but then the service won’t work. He says we have to figure out what we don’t want vendors to do, and then make the rules to ensure that doesn’t happen.
O’Reilly thinks about the physical security of a home: A window in a home is a surface vulnerable for an attack; anyone can break in. There are still security concerns for that, just as there are for someone hacking into a digital thermostat. However, Stogdill counters, that hacker has to be in physical proximity to break into that window, indicating the critical difference between physical crime and cybercrime. The asymmetry is different.
“Being afraid of the future is the worst approach,” O’Reilly says. He would love to see things break and get fixed rather than people spend a whole lot of time trying to prevent them from ever breaking. The key is to anticipate problems to some degree, but not enough to prevent innovation.
What’s in store for the future?
Although Stogdill described him as an optimist, O’Reilly brought up his concerns about an anti-technology and anti-science undercurrent in the future. He cited historical examples, like the fall of Rome, that could possibly repeat themselves in the upcoming years. The worst case scenario, he said, is experiencing a huge anti-technology, anti-science backlash at the same time we’re hit with problems like global warming, water stress and energy. “It’s important for us to care about these issues. To take this technology and solve real problems and make a difference in people’s lives,” he said.
Another concern is the speed of innovation in the private sector compared to the speed of innovation in government. O’Reilly emphasizes the vital role of government in society, but when it becomes so less capable than the private sector, it can’t do its job.
As a James Madison University alumna and big fan of the father of the U.S. Constitution, I am excited to hear Madison brought up in any scenario, but especially in work-related discussions. O’Reilly brought up an interesting point – is Madison was creating the Constitution today, what form would that take today? It’s some food for thought for what we expect from ourselves, from our government, from companies and from technology over the next few years.
The video will be added to the O’Reilly Media YouTube channel when the archived version is available. We’ll update accordingly.
(PS – The only thing more appropriate than this IoT discussion with O’Reilly and Stogdill today is the Reddit AMA with Berners-Lee. Check it out.)
Edited by Cassandra Tucker