The Internet of things (IoT) is the network of physical devices, vehicles, home appliances and

other items embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and connectivity which
enables these objects to connect and exchange data.[1][2][3] Each thing is uniquely identifiable
through its embedded computing system but is able to inter-operate within the
existing Internetinfrastructure.
The figure of online capable devices increased 31% from 2016 to 8.4 billion in 2017.[4] Experts
estimate that the IoT will consist of about 30 billion objects by 2020.[5] It is also estimated that the
global market value of IoT will reach $7.1 trillion by 2020.[6]
The IoT allows objects to be sensed or controlled remotely across existing network
infrastructure,[7] creating opportunities for more direct integration of the physical world into
computer-based systems, and resulting in improved efficiency, accuracy and economic benefit in
addition to reduced human intervention.[8][9][10][11] When IoT is augmented with sensors and
actuators, the technology becomes an instance of the more general class of cyber-physical
systems, which also encompasses technologies such as smart grids, virtual power plants, smart
homes, intelligent transportation and smart cities.
"Things", in the IoT sense, can refer to a wide variety of devices such as heart monitoring
implants, biochip transponders on farm animals, cameras streaming live feeds of wild animals in
coastal waters,[12] automobiles with built-in sensors, DNA analysis devices for
environmental/food/pathogen monitoring,[13] or field operation devices that assist firefighters
in search and rescue operations.[14] Legal scholars suggest regarding "things" as an "inextricable
mixture of hardware, software, data and service".[15]
These devices collect useful data with the help of various existing technologies and then
autonomously flow the data between other devices.[16]
The term "the Internet of things" was coined by Kevin Ashton of Procter & Gamble, later MIT's
Auto-ID Center, in 1999.[17]

Contents
[hide]

 1History
 2Applications
o 2.1Consumer application
 2.1.1Smart Home
 2.1.1.1Applications
o 2.2Enterprise
 2.2.1Media
o 2.3Infrastructure Management
 2.3.1Manufacturing
 2.3.2Agriculture
 2.3.3Energy management
 2.3.4Environmental monitoring
 2.3.5Building and home automation
 2.3.6Metropolitan scale deployments
o 2.4Other Fields of Application
 2.4.1Medical and healthcare
 2.4.2Transportation
 3Trends and characteristics
o 3.1Intelligence
o 3.2Architecture
 3.2.1Network architecture
o 3.3Complexity
o 3.4Size considerations
o 3.5Space considerations
 o 3.6A Solution to "basket of remotes"
 4Frameworks
 5Standards and standards organizations
 6Enabling technologies for IoT
o 6.1Addressability
o 6.2Short-range wireless
o 6.3Medium-range wireless
o 6.4Long-range wireless
o 6.5Wired
 7Simulation
 8Politics and civic engagement
 9Government regulation on IoT
 10Criticism and controversies
o 10.1Platform fragmentation
o 10.2Privacy, autonomy, and control
o 10.3Data storage and analytics
o 10.4Security
o 10.5Design
o 10.6Environmental sustainability impact
o 10.7Intentional obsolescence of devices
o 10.8Confusing terminology
 11IoT adoption barriers
o 11.1Lack of interoperability and unclear value propositions
o 11.2Privacy and security concerns
o 11.3Traditional governance structures
o 11.4Lack of solid business models
 12See also
 13References
 14Bibliography
 15External links

History[edit]
As of 2016, the vision of the Internet of things has evolved due to a convergence of multiple
technologies, including ubiquitous wireless communication, real-time analytics, machine learning,
commodity sensors, and embedded systems.[14] This means that the traditional fields of
embedded systems, wireless sensor networks, control
systems, automation (including home and building automation), and others all contribute to
enabling the Internet of things.[18]
The concept of a network of smart devices was discussed as early as 1982, with a modified
Coke machine at Carnegie Mellon University becoming the first Internet-connected
appliance,[19] able to report its inventory and whether newly loaded drinks were cold.[20] Mark
Weiser's seminal 1991 paper on ubiquitous computing, "The Computer of the 21st Century", as
well as academic venues such as UbiComp and PerCom produced the contemporary vision of
IoT.[21][22] In 1994 Reza Raji described the concept in IEEE Spectrum as "[moving] small packets
of data to a large set of nodes, so as to integrate and automate everything from home appliances
to entire factories".[23] Between 1993 and 1996 several companies proposed solutions
like Microsoft's at Work or Novell's NEST. However, only in 1999 did the field start gathering
momentum. Bill Joy envisioned Device to Device (D2D) communication as part of his "Six Webs"
framework, presented at the World Economic Forum at Davos in 1999.[24]
The concept of the Internet of things became popular in 1999, through the Auto-ID
Center at MIT and related market-analysis publications.[25] Radio-frequency identification (RFID)
was seen by Kevin Ashton (one of the founders of the original Auto-ID Center) as a prerequisite
for the Internet of things at that point.[26] Ashtonprefers the phrase "Internet for things."[27] If all
objects and people in daily life were equipped with identifiers, computers could manage and
store them.[28][29][30] Besides using RFID, the tagging of things may be achieved through such
technologies as near field communication, barcodes, QR codes and digital watermarking.[31][32]
In its original interpretation,[when?] one of the first consequences of implementing the Internet of
things by equipping all objects in the world with minuscule identifying devices or machine-
readable identifiers would be to transform daily life.[33][34] For instance, instant and
ceaseless inventory control would become ubiquitous.[34] A person's ability to interact with objects
could be altered remotely based on immediate or present needs, in accordance with
existing end-user agreements.[26] For example, such technology could grant motion-picture
publishers much more control over end-user private devices by remotely
enforcing copyright restrictions and digital rights management, so the ability of a customer who
bought a Blu-ray disc to watch the movie could become dependent on the copyright holder's
decision, similar to Circuit City's failed DIVX.[citation needed]
A significant transformation is to extend "things" from the data generated from devices to objects
in the physical space. The thought-model for future interconnection environment was proposed in
2004.[35] The model includes the notion of the ternary universe consists of the physical world,
virtual world and mental world and a multi-level reference architecture with the nature and
devices at the bottom level followed by the level of the Internet, sensor network, and mobile
network, and intelligent human-machine communities at the top level, which supports
geographically dispersed users to cooperatively accomplish tasks and solve problems by using
the network to actively promote the flow of material, energy, techniques, information, knowledge,
and services in this environment.[36] This thought model envisioned the development trend of the
Internet of things.

Applications[edit]

A Nest learning thermostat reporting on energy usage and local weather.

A 2012 Internet refrigerator from LG

The applications for internet connected devices are extensive. Multiple categorizations have
been suggested, most of which agree on a separation between consumer, enterprise (business),
and infrastructure applications.[37][38] George Osborne, the former British Chancellor of the
Exchequer, posited that the Internet of things is the next stage of the information revolution and
referenced the inter-connectivity of everything from urban transport to medical devices to
household appliances.[39]
The ability to network embedded devices with limited CPU, memory and power resources means
that IoT finds applications in nearly every field.[40] Such systems could be in charge of collecting
information in settings ranging from natural ecosystems to buildings and factories,[41] thereby
finding applications in fields of environmental sensing and urban planning.[42]
Intelligent shopping systems, for example, could monitor specific users' purchasing habits in a
store by tracking their specific mobile phones. These users could then be provided with special
offers on their favorite products, or even location of items that they need, which their fridge has
automatically conveyed to the phone.[43][44] Additional examples of sensing and actuating are
reflected in applications that deal with heat, water, electricity and energy management, as well as
cruise-assisting transportation systems.[45][46][47] Other applications that the Internet of things can
provide is enabling extended home security features and home automation.[48] The concept of an
"Internet of living things" has been proposed to describe networks of biological sensors that could
use cloud-based analyses to allow users to study DNA or other molecules.[49][50]

Consumer application[edit]
A growing portion of IoT devices are created for consumer use. Examples of consumer
applications include connected car, entertainment, home automation (also known as smart home
devices), wearable technology, quantified self, connected health, and appliances such as
washer/dryers, robotic vacuums, air purifiers, ovens, or refrigerators/freezers that use Wi-Fi for
remote monitoring.[51] Consumer IoT provides new opportunities for user
experience and interfaces.[citation needed]
Some consumer applications have been criticized for their lack of redundancy and their
inconsistency, leading to a popular parody known as the “Internet of Shit.”[52] Companies have
been criticized for their rush into IoT, creating devices of questionable value,[53] and not setting up
stringent security standards.[54]
Smart Home[edit]
IoT devices are a part of the larger concept of home automation, also known as domotics. Large
smart home systems utilize a main hub or controller to provide users with a central control for all
of their devices. These devices can include lighting, heating and air conditioning, media and
security systems (including access control systems, namely August, Ausweis, Kwikset,
Schlage).[55] Ease of usability is the most immediate benefit to connecting these functionalities.
Long term benefits can include the ability to create a more environmentally friendly home by
automating some functions such as ensuring lights and electronics are turned off. One of the
major obstacles to obtaining smart home technology is the high initial cost. [56]
Applications[edit]
One key application of smart home is to provide assistance for disabled and elderly individuals.
These home systems utilize assistive technology to accommodate an owner's specific
disabilities.[57] Voice control can assist users with sight and mobility limitations while alert systems
can be connected directly to Cochlear implants worn by hearing impaired users.[58] They can also
be equipped with additional safety features. These features can include sensors that monitor for
medical emergencies such as falls or seizures.[59] Smart home technology applied in this way can
provide users with more freedom and a higher quality of life.[60]
A second application of smart home is even more sophisticated. One can guide his or her
connected device at home even from far away. If one for example leaves the office, it is possible
to tell a connected air conditioner device via smart phone to cool down the house to a certain
temperature.
Another example would be using smart devices such as Amazon's Alexa to listen to news while
cutting vegetables for a meal. In general, Smart Home devices make life easier at home and give
users the ability to do several things at the same time. [61]

Enterprise[edit]
The term "Enterprise IoT," or EIoT, is used to refer to all devices used in business and corporate
settings. By 2019, it is estimated the EIoT will account for nearly 40% or 9.1 billion devices.[37]
Media[edit]
Media use of the Internet of things is primarily concerned with marketing and studying consumer
habits. Through behavioral targeting these devices collect many actionable points of information
about millions of individuals.[62] Using the profiles built during the targeting process, media
producers present display advertising in line with the consumer's known habits at a time and
location to maximize its effect.[63] [64] Further information is collected by tracking how consumers
interact with the content. This is done through conversion tracking, drop off rate, click through
rate, registration rate and interaction rate. The size of the data often presents challenges as it
crosses into the realm of big data. However, in many cases benefits gained from the data stored
greatly out weighs these challenges.[65]

Infrastructure Management[edit]
Monitoring and controlling operations of urban and rural infrastructures like bridges, railway
tracks, on- and offshore- wind-farms is a key application of the IoT.[66] The IoT infrastructure can
be used for monitoring any events or changes in structural conditions that can compromise
safety and increase risk. It can also be used for scheduling repair and maintenance activities in
an efficient manner, by coordinating tasks between different service providers and users of these
facilities.[41] IoT devices can also be used to control critical infrastructure like bridges to provide
access to ships. Usage of IoT devices for monitoring and operating infrastructure is likely to
improve incident management and emergency response coordination, and quality of service, up-
times and reduce costs of operation in all infrastructure related areas.[67] Even areas such as
waste management can benefit [68] from automation and optimization that could be brought in by
the IoT.[69]
Manufacturing[edit]
Network control and management of manufacturing equipment, asset and situation management,
or manufacturing process control bring the IoT within the realm of industrial applications and
smart manufacturing as well.[70] The IoT intelligent systems enable rapid manufacturing of new
products, dynamic response to product demands, and real-time optimization of manufacturing
production and supply chain networks, by networking machinery, sensors and control systems
together.[41]
Digital control systems to automate process controls, operator tools and service information
systems to optimize plant safety and security are within the purview of the IoT.[66] But it also
extends itself to asset management via predictive maintenance, statistical evaluation, and
measurements to maximize reliability.[71] Smart industrial management systems can also be
integrated with the Smart Grid, thereby enabling real-time energy optimization. Measurements,
automated controls, plant optimization, health and safety management, and other functions are
provided by a large number of networked sensors.[41]
The term industrial Internet of things (IIoT) is often encountered in the manufacturing industries,
referring to the industrial subset of the IoT. IIoT in manufacturing could generate so much
business value that it will eventually lead to the fourth industrial revolution, so the so-
called Industry 4.0. It is estimated that in the future, successful companies will be able to
increase their revenue through Internet of things by creating new business models and improve
productivity, exploit analytics for innovation, and transform workforce.[72] The potential of growth
by implementing IIoT will generate $12 trillion of global GDP by 2030.[72]

Design architecture of cyber-physical systems-enabled manufacturing system[73]

While connectivity and data acquisition are imperative for IIoT, they should not be the purpose,
rather the foundation and path to something bigger. Among all the technologies, predictive
maintenance is probably a relatively "easier win" since it is applicable to existing assets and
management systems. The objective of intelligent maintenance systems is to reduce unexpected
downtime and increase productivity. And to realize that alone would generate around up to 30%
over the total maintenance costs.[72] Industrial big data analytics will play a vital role in
manufacturing asset predictive maintenance, although that is not the only capability of industrial
big data.[74][75] Cyber-physical systems (CPS) is the core technology of industrial big data and it
will be an interface between human and the cyber world. Cyber-physical systems can be
designed by following the 5C (connection, conversion, cyber, cognition, configuration)
architecture,[73] and it will transform the collected data into actionable information, and eventually
interfere with the physical assets to optimize processes.[citation needed]
An IoT-enabled intelligent system of such cases was proposed in 2001 and later demonstrated in
2014 by the National Science Foundation Industry/University Collaborative Research Center
for Intelligent Maintenance Systems (IMS) at the University of Cincinnati on a band saw machine
in IMTS 2014 in Chicago.[76][77][78] Band saw machines are not necessarily expensive, but the band
saw belt expenses are enormous since they degrade much faster. However, without sensing and
intelligent analytics, it can be only determined by experience when the band saw belt will actually
break. The developed prognostics system will be able to recognize and monitor the degradation
of band saw belts even if the condition is changing, advising users when is the best time to
replace band saw. This will significantly improve user experience and operator safety and
ultimately save on costs.[78]
Agriculture[edit]
The IoT contributes significantly towards innovating farming methods.[1] Farming challenges
caused by population growth and climate change have made it one of the first industries to utilize
the IoT. The integration of wireless sensors with agricultural mobile apps and cloud platforms
helps in collecting vital information pertaining to the environmental conditions – temperature,
rainfall, humidity, wind speed, pest infestation, soil humus content or nutrients, besides others –
linked with a farmland, can be used to improve and automate farming techniques, take informed
decisions to improve quality and quantity, and minimize risks and wastes. The app-based field or
crop monitoring also lowers the hassles of managing crops at multiple locations. For example,
farmers can now detect which areas have been fertilised (or mistakenly missed), if the land is too
dry and predict future yields.
Energy management[edit]
Integration of sensing and actuation systems, connected to the Internet, is likely to optimize
energy consumption as a whole.[41] It is expected that IoT devices will be integrated into all forms
of energy consuming devices (switches, power outlets, bulbs, televisions, etc.) and be able to
communicate with the utility supply company in order to effectively balance power generation and
energy usage.[79] Such devices would also offer the opportunity for users to remotely control their
devices, or centrally manage them via a cloud-based interface, and enable advanced functions
like scheduling (e.g., remotely powering on or off heating systems, controlling ovens, changing
lighting conditions etc.).[41]
Besides home-based energy management, the IoT is especially relevant to the Smart Grid since
it provides systems to gather and act on energy and power-related information in an automated
fashion with the goal to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the
production and distribution of electricity.[79] Using advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) devices
connected to the Internet backbone, electric utilities can not only collect data from end-user
connections but also, manage other distribution automation devices like transformers and
reclosers.[41]
Environmental monitoring[edit]
Environmental monitoring applications of the IoT typically use sensors to assist in environmental
protection[80] by monitoring air or water quality,[12] atmospheric or soil conditions,[81] and can even
include areas like monitoring the movements of wildlife and their habitats.[82] Development of
resource-constrained devices connected to the Internet also means that other applications
like earthquake or tsunami early-warning systems can also be used by emergency services to
provide more effective aid. IoT devices in this application typically span a large geographic area
and can also be mobile.[41] It has been argued that the standardization IoT brings to wireless
sensing will revolutionize this area.[83]
Building and home automation[edit]
IoT devices can be used to monitor and control the mechanical, electrical and electronic systems
used in various types of buildings (e.g., public and private, industrial, institutions, or
residential)[41] in home automation and building automation systems. In this context, three main
areas are being covered in literature:[84]

 The integration of the internet with building energy management systems in order to create
energy efficient and IOT driven “smart buildings”.[84]
 The possible means of real-time monitoring for reducing energy consumption[85] and
monitoring occupant behaviors.[84]
 The integration of smart devices in the built environment and how they might be used in
future applications.[84]
Metropolitan scale deployments[edit]
There are several planned or ongoing large-scale deployments of the IoT, to enable better
management of cities and systems. For example, Songdo, South Korea, the first of its kind fully
equipped and wired smart city, is on near completion. Nearly everything in this city is planned to
be wired, connected and turned into a constant stream of data that would be monitored and
analyzed by an array of computers with little, or no human intervention.[citation needed]
Another application is a currently undergoing project in Santander, Spain. For this deployment,
two approaches have been adopted. This city of 180,000 inhabitants has already seen 18,000
downloads of its city smartphone app. The app is connected to 10,000 sensors that enable
services like parking search, environmental monitoring, digital city agenda, and more. City
context information is used in this deployment so as to benefit merchants through a spark deals
mechanism based on city behavior that aims at maximizing the impact of each notification.[86]
Other examples of large-scale deployments underway include the Sino-Singapore Guangzhou
Knowledge City;[87] work on improving air and water quality, reducing noise pollution, and
increasing transportation efficiency in San Jose, California;[88] and smart traffic management in
western Singapore.[89] French company, Sigfox, commenced building an ultra-
narrowband wireless data network in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2014, the first business to
achieve such a deployment in the U.S.[90][91] It subsequently announced it would set up a total of
4000 base stations to cover a total of 30 cities in the U.S. by the end of 2016, making it the
largest IoT network coverage provider in the country thus far.[92][93]
Another example of a large deployment is the one completed by New York Waterways in New
York City to connect all the city's vessels and be able to monitor them live 24/7. The network was
designed and engineered by Fluidmesh Networks, a Chicago-based company developing
wireless networks for critical applications. The NYWW network is currently providing coverage on
the Hudson River, East River, and Upper New York Bay. With the wireless network in place, NY
Waterway is able to take control of its fleet and passengers in a way that was not previously
possible. New applications can include security, energy and fleet management, digital signage,
public Wi-Fi, paperless ticketing and others.[94]

Other Fields of Application[edit]

Medical and healthcare[edit]
IoT devices can be used to enable remote health monitoring and emergency notification
systems. These health monitoring devices can range from blood pressure and heart rate
monitors to advanced devices capable of monitoring specialized implants, such as pacemakers,
Fitbit electronic wristbands, or advanced hearing aids.[41] Some hospitals have begun
implementing "smart beds" that can detect when they are occupied and when a patient is
attempting to get up. It can also adjust itself to ensure appropriate pressure and support is
applied to the patient without the manual interaction of nurses.[95]According to the latest research,
US Department of Health plans to save up to USD 300 billion from the national budget due to
medical innovations.[96]
Specialized sensors can also be equipped within living spaces to monitor the health and general
well-being of senior citizens, while also ensuring that proper treatment is being administered and
assisting people regain lost mobility via therapy as well.[97] Other consumer devices to encourage
healthy living, such as, connected scales or wearable heart monitors, are also a possibility with
the IoT.[98] More and more end-to-end health monitoring IoT platforms are coming up for antenatal
and chronic patients, helping one manage health vitals and recurring medication
requirements.[citation needed]
The Research & Development Corporation (DEKA), a company that creates prosthetic limbs, has
created a battery-powered arm that uses myoelectricity, a device that converts muscle group
sensations into motor control. The arm is nicked named Luke Arm after Luke Skywalker (Star
Wars).[99]
Transportation[edit]

Digital variable speed-limit sign.

The IoT can assist in the integration of communications, control, and information processing
across various transportation systems. Application of the IoT extends to all aspects of
transportation systems (i.e. the vehicle[100], the infrastructure, and the driver or user). Dynamic
interaction between these components of a transport system enables inter and intra vehicular
communication, smart traffic control, smart parking, electronic toll collection
systems, logistic and fleet management, vehicle control, and safety and road assistance.[41][101] In
Logistics and Fleet Management for example, The IoT platform can continuously monitor the
location and conditions of cargo and assets via wireless sensors and send specific alerts when
management exceptions occur (delays, damages, thefts, etc.).

Trends and characteristics[edit]

Technology roadmap: Internet of things.

The IoT's major significant trend in recent years is the explosive growth of devices connected
and controlled by the internet. [102] The wide range of applications for IoT technology mean that
the specifics can be very different from one device to the next but there are basic characteristics
shared by most.

Intelligence[edit]
Ambient intelligence and autonomous control are not part of the original concept of the Internet of
things. Ambient intelligence and autonomous control do not necessarily require Internet
structures, either. However, there is a shift in research to integrate the concepts of the Internet of
things and autonomous control, with initial outcomes towards this direction considering objects
as the driving force for autonomous IoT.[citation needed]
In the future, the Internet of things may be a non-deterministic and open network in which auto-
organized or intelligent entities (Web services, SOA components) and virtual objects (avatars)
will be interoperable and able to act independently (pursuing their own objectives or shared
ones) depending on the context, circumstances or environments. Autonomous behavior through
the collection and reasoning of context information as well as the object's ability to detect
changes in the environment (faults affecting sensors) and introduce suitable mitigation measures
constitutes a major research trend,[103] clearly needed to provide credibility to the IoT technology.
Modern IoT products and solutions in the marketplace use a variety of different technologies to
support such context-aware automation but more sophisticated forms of intelligence are
requested to permit sensor units to be deployed in real environments.[citation needed]

Architecture[edit]
The system will likely be an example of event-driven architecture,[104] bottom-up made (based on
the context of processes and operations, in real-time) and will consider any subsidiary level.
Therefore, model driven and functional approaches will coexist with new ones able to treat
exceptions and unusual evolution of processes (multi-agent systems, B-ADSc, etc.).[citation needed]
In an Internet of Things, the meaning of an event will not necessarily be based on a deterministic
or syntactic model but would instead be based on the context of the event itself: this will also be
a semantic web.[105] Consequently, it will not necessarily need common standards that would not
be able to address every context or use: some actors (services, components, avatars) will
accordingly be self-referenced and, if ever needed, adaptive to existing common standards
(predicting everything would be no more than defining a "global finality" for everything that is just
not possible with any of the current top-down approaches and standardizations).[citation needed]
Building on top of the Internet of things, the web of things is an architecture for the application
layer of the Internet of things looking at the convergence of data from IoT devices into Web
applications to create innovative use-cases. In order to program and control the flow of
information in the Internet of things, a predicted architectural direction is being called BPM
Everywhere which is a blending of traditional process management with process mining and
special capabilities to automate the control of large numbers of coordinated devices.[citation needed]
Network architecture[edit]
The Internet of things requires huge scalability in the network space to handle the surge of
devices.[106] IETF 6LoWPAN would be used to connect devices to IP networks. With billions of
devices[107] being added to the Internet space, IPv6 will play a major role in handling the network
layer scalability. IETF's Constrained Application Protocol, ZeroMQ, and MQTT would provide
lightweight data transport. "MQ" in "MQTT" came from IBM's MQ Series message queuing
product line.[citation needed]
Fog computing is a viable alternative to prevent such large burst of data flow through
Internet.[108] The edge devices' computation power can be used to analyse and process data, thus
providing easy real time scalability.[citation needed]

Complexity[edit]
In semi-open or closed loops (i.e. value chains, whenever a global finality can be settled) IoT will
often be considered and studied as a complex system[109] due to the huge number of different
links, interactions between autonomous actors, and its capacity to integrate new actors. At the
overall stage (full open loop) it will likely be seen as a chaotic environment (since systems always
have finality). As a practical approach, not all elements in the Internet of things run in a global,
public space. Subsystems are often implemented to mitigate the risks of privacy, control and
reliability. For example, Domestic Robotics (Domotics) running inside a smart home might only
share data within and be available via a local network.[citation needed]

Size considerations[edit]
The Internet of things would encode 50 to 100 trillion objects, and be able to follow the
movement of those objects. Human beings in surveyed urban environments are each surrounded
by 1000 to 5000 trackable objects.[110] In 2015 there were already 83 million smart devices in
people`s homes. This number is about to grow up to 193 million devices in 2020 and will for sure
go on growing in the near future. [111]
The figure of online capable devices grew 31% from 2016 to 8.4 billion in 2017.[112]

Space considerations[edit]
In the Internet of things, the precise geographic location of a thing—and also the precise
geographic dimensions of a thing—will be critical.[113] Therefore, facts about a thing, such as its
location in time and space, have been less critical to track because the person processing the
information can decide whether or not that information was important to the action being taken,
and if so, add the missing information (or decide to not take the action). (Note that some things in
the Internet of things will be sensors, and sensor location is usually important.[114])
The GeoWeb and Digital Earth are promising applications that become possible when things can
become organized and connected by location. However, the challenges that remain include the
constraints of variable spatial scales, the need to handle massive amounts of data, and an
indexing for fast search and neighbor operations. In the Internet of things, if things are able to
take actions on their own initiative, this human-centric mediation role is eliminated. Thus, the
time-space context that we as humans take for granted must be given a central role in this
information ecosystem. Just as standards play a key role in the Internet and the Web, geospatial
standards will play a key role in the Internet of things.[citation needed]

A Solution to "basket of remotes"[edit]

Many IoT devices have a potential to take a piece of this market. Jean-Louis Gassée (Apple
initial alumni team, and BeOS co-founder) has addressed this topic in an article on Monday
Note,[115] where he predicts that the most likely problem will be what he calls the "basket of
remotes" problem, where we'll have hundreds of applications to interface with hundreds of
devices that don't share protocols for speaking with one another.[citation needed]
There are multiple approaches to solve this problem, one of them called the "predictive
interaction",[116] where cloud or fog based decision makers[clarification needed] will predict the user's next
action and trigger some reaction.[citation needed]
For user interaction, new technology leaders are joining forces to create standards for
communication between devices. Manufacturers are becoming more conscious of this problem,
and many companies have begun releasing their devices with open APIs. Many of
these APIs are used by smaller companies looking to take advantage of quick integration.[citation
needed]

Frameworks[edit]
IoT frameworks might help support the interaction between "things" and allow for more complex
structures like distributed computing and the development of distributed applications. Currently,
some IoT frameworks seem to focus on real-time data logging solutions, offering some basis to
work with many "things" and have them interact. Future developments might lead to
specific software-development environments to create the software to work with the hardware
used in the Internet of things. Companies are developing technology platforms to provide this
type of functionality for the Internet of things. Newer platforms are being developed, which add
more intelligence.
REST is a scalable architecture that allows things to communicate over Hypertext Transfer
Protocol and is easily adopted for IoT applications to provide communication from a thing to a
central web server.[citation needed]

Standards and standards organizations[edit]

 This section needs
expansion. You can help
by adding to it.(September 2016)

This is a list of technical standards for the IoT, most of which are open standards, and
the standards organizations that aspire to successfully setting them.[citation needed]

Short
Long name Standards under development Other notes
name

Networked RFID (radiofrequency

Auto-ID
— identification) and
Labs
emerging sensing technologies

Standards for adoption

EPCglobal — of EPC (Electronic Product Code)
technology

U.S. Food and UDI (Unique Device Identification)

FDA Drug system for unique identifiers
Administration for medical devices

Standards for UIDs (unique

Parent organization
identifiers) and RFID of fast-moving
comprises member
GS1 — consumer goods (consumer
organizations such
packaged goods), health care
as GS1 US
supplies, and other things

Institute of
Underlying communication
Electrical and
IEEE technology standards such as IEEE
Electronics
802.15.4
Engineers

Internet Standards that

IETF Engineering comprise TCP/IP (the Internet
Task Force protocol suite)

MTConnect is a manufacturing
industry standard for data exchange
MTConnect
— with machine tools and related
Institute
industrial equipment. It is important
to the IIoT subset of the IoT.
 Short
Long name Standards under development Other notes
name

OCF (Open Connectivity

Open Standards for simple devices Foundation)
OCF Connectivity using CoAP(Constrained Application supersedes OIC (Open
Foundation Protocol) Interconnect
Consortium)

OMA DM and OMA LWM2M for IoT

Open Mobile device management, as well as
OMA
Alliance GotAPI, which provides a secure
framework for IoT applications

Protocol extensions
XMPP
of XMPP (Extensible Messaging
XSF Standards
and Presence Protocol), the open
Foundation
standard of instant messaging

Enabling technologies for IoT[edit]

There are many technologies that enable IoT. Crucial to the field is the network used to
communicate between devices of an IoT installation, a role that several wireless or wired
technologies may fulfill:[117][118][119][120]

Addressability[edit]
The original idea of the Auto-ID Center is based on RFID-tags and unique identification through
the Electronic Product Code, however, this has evolved into objects having an IP address
or URI.[citation needed] An alternative view, from the world of the Semantic Web[121] focuses instead on
making all things (not just those electronic, smart, or RFID-enabled) addressable by the existing
naming protocols, such as URI. The objects themselves do not converse, but they may now be
referred to by other agents, such as powerful centralized servers acting for their human
owners.[citation needed]Integration with the Internet implies that devices will use an IP address as a
unique identifier. Due to the limited address space of IPv4 (which allows for 4.3 billion unique
addresses), objects in the IoT will have to use the next generation of the Internet protocol (IPv6)
to scale to the extremely large address space required.[122][123][124] Internet-of-things devices
additionally will benefit from the stateless address auto-configuration present in IPv6,[125] as it
reduces the configuration overhead on the hosts,[123] and the IETF 6LoWPAN header
compression. To a large extent, the future of the Internet of things will not be possible without the
support of IPv6; and consequently, the global adoption of IPv6 in the coming years will be critical
for the successful development of the IoT in the future.[124]

Short-range wireless[edit]
 Bluetooth mesh networking – Specification providing a mesh networking variant to Bluetooth
low energy (BLE) with increased number of nodes and standardized application layer
(Models).
 Light-Fidelity (Li-Fi) – Wireless communication technology similar to the Wi-Fi standard, but
using visible light communication for increased bandwidth.
 Near-field communication (NFC) – Communication protocols enabling two electronic devices
to communicate within a 4 cm range.
 QR codes and barcodes – Machine-readable optical tags that store information about the
item to which they are attached.
 Radio-frequency identification (RFID) – Technology using electromagnetic fields to read data
stored in tags embedded in other items.
 Thread – Network protocol based on the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, similar to ZigBee,
providing IPv6 addressing.
 Transport Layer Security – Network security protocol.
 Wi-Fi – Widely used technology for local area networking based on the IEEE
802.11 standard, where devices may communicate through a shared access point.
 Wi-Fi Direct – Variant of the Wi-Fi standard for peer-to-peer communication, eliminating the
need for an access point.
 Z-Wave – Communication protocol providing short-range, low-latency data transfer at rates
and power consumption lower than Wi-Fi. Used primarily for home automation.
 ZigBee – Communication protocols for personal area networking based on the IEEE
802.15.4 standard, providing low power consumption, low data rate, low cost, and high
throughput.
Medium-range wireless[edit]
 HaLow – Variant of the Wi-Fi standard providing extended range for low-power
communication at a lower data rate.
 LTE-Advanced – High-speed communication specification for mobile networks. Provides
enhancements to the LTE standard with extended coverage, higher throughput, and lower
latency.
Long-range wireless[edit]
 Low-power wide-area networking (LPWAN) – Wireless networks designed to allow long-
range communication at a low data rate, reducing power and cost for transmission. Available
LPWAN technologies and protocols: LoRaWan, Sigfox, NB-IoT, Weightless.
 Very small aperture terminal (VSAT) – Satellite communication technology using small dish
antennas for narrowband and broadband data.
 Long-range Wi-Fi connectivity
Wired[edit]
 Ethernet – General purpose networking standard using twisted pair and fiber optic links in
conjunction with hubs or switches.
 Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) – Specification enabling whole-home distribution of
high definition video and content over existing coaxial cabling.
 Power-line communication (PLC) – Communication technology using electrical wiring to
carry power and data. Specifications such as HomePlug or G.hn utilize PLC for networking
IoT devices.

Simulation[edit]
IoT modeling and simulation (and emulation) is typically carried out at the design stage before
deployment of the network. Network simulators like OPNET and TETCOS NetSim can be used to
simulate IoT networks.[citation needed] Digital Twins may also be implemented to produce updates on
the status and health of an asset, based upon sensor readings integrated with a computational
model of the asset.[126]. The original twin model idea came from [127], in which a physical operation
was coupled with a virtual operation by means of an intelligent reasoning agent. The detailed
version of this concept is presented in [128].
Beyond of networking, a number of API simulation frameworks (such as Hoverfly, Wiremock,
sMockin, SoapUI etc..) have emerged to help simplify IoT development. These remove the need
for a full end to end integration setup, by allowing developers to quickly replicate the behaviour of
any third party web services their application may need to interface with.

Politics and civic engagement[edit]

Some scholars and activists argue that the IoT can be used to create new models of civic
engagement if device networks can be open to user control and inter-operable platforms. Philip
N. Howard, a professor and author, writes that political life in both democracies and authoritarian
regimes will be shaped by the way the IoT will be used for civic engagement. For that to happen,
he argues that any connected device should be able to divulge a list of the "ultimate
beneficiaries" of its sensor data and that individual citizens should be able to add new
organizations to the beneficiary list. In addition, he argues that civil society groups need to start
developing their IoT strategy for making use of data and engaging with the public.[129]

Government regulation on IoT[edit]

One of the key drivers of the IoT is data. The success of the idea of connecting devices to make
them more efficient is dependent upon access to and storage & processing of data. For this
purpose, companies working on IoT collect data from multiple sources and store it in their cloud
network for further processing. This leaves the door wide open for privacy and security dangers
and single point vulnerability of multiple systems.[130] The other issues pertain to consumer choice
and ownership of data[131] and how it is used. Presently the regulators have shown more interest
in protecting the first three issues identified above.[citation needed]IoT regulation depends on the
country. Some examples of legislation that is relevant to privacy and data collection are: the US
Privacy Act of 1974, OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of
Personal Data of 1980, and the EU Directive 95/46/EC of 1995.[132]
Current regulatory environment:
A report published by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in January 2015 made the following
three recommendations:[133]

 Data security – At the time of designing IoT companies should ensure that data collection,
storage and processing would be secure at all times. Companies should adopt a “defence in
depth” approach and encrypt data at each stage.[134]
 Data consent – users should have a choice as to what data they share with IoT companies
and the users must be informed if their data gets exposed.
 Data minimization – IoT companies should collect only the data they need and retain the
collected information only for a limited time.
However, the FTC stopped at just making recommendations for now. According to an FTC
analysis, the existing framework, consisting of the FTC Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and
the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, along with developing consumer education and
business guidance, participation in multi-stakeholder efforts and advocacy to other agencies at
the federal, state and local level, is sufficient to protect consumer rights.[135]
A resolution passed by the Senate in March 2015, is already being considered by the
Congress.[136] This resolution recognized the need for formulating a National Policy on IoT and the
matter of privacy, security and spectrum. Furthermore, to provide an impetus to the IoT
ecosystem, in March 2016, a bipartisan group of four Senators proposed a bill, The Developing
Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things (DIGIT) Act, to direct the Federal Communications
Commission to assess the need for more spectrum to connect IoT devices.
Several standards for the IoT industry are actually being established relating to automobiles
because most concerns arising from use of connected cars apply to healthcare devices as well.
In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is preparing cybersecurity
guidelines and a database of best practices to make automotive computer systems more
secure.[137]
A recent report from the World Bank examines the challenges and opportunities in government
adoption of IoT[138]. These include -

 Still early days for IoT in government

 Underdeveloped policy and regulatory frameworks
 Unclear business models, despite strong value proposition
 Clear institutional and capacity gap in government AND the private sector
 Inconsistent data valuation and management
 Infrastructure a major barrier
 Government as an enabler
 Most successful pilots share common characteristics (public-private partnership, local,
leadership)

Criticism and controversies[edit]

Platform fragmentation[edit]
IoT suffers from platform fragmentation and lack of technical standards[139][140][141][142][143][144][145] a
situation where the variety of IoT devices, in terms of both hardware variations and differences in
the software running on them, makes the task of developing applications that work consistently
between different inconsistent technology ecosystems hard.[1] Customers may be hesitant to bet
their IoT future on a proprietary software or hardware devices that uses proprietary protocols that
may fade or become difficult to customize and interconnect.[2]
IoT's amorphous computing nature is also a problem for security, since patches to bugs found in
the core operating system often do not reach users of older and lower-price devices.[146][147][148] One
set of researchers say that the failure of vendors to support older devices with patches and
updates leaves more than 87% of active devices vulnerable.[149][150]

Privacy, autonomy, and control[edit]

Philip N. Howard, a professor and author, writes that the Internet of things offers immense
potential for empowering citizens, making government transparent, and broadening information
access. Howard cautions, however, that privacy threats are enormous, as is the potential for
social control and political manipulation.[151]
Concerns about privacy have led many to consider the possibility that big data infrastructures
such as the Internet of things and data mining are inherently incompatible with
privacy.[152] Writer Adam Greenfield claims that these technologies are not only an invasion of
public space but are also being used to perpetuate normative behavior, citing an instance of
billboards with hidden cameras that tracked the demographics of passersby who stopped to read
the advertisement.[153]
The Internet of Things Council compared the increased prevalence of digital surveillance due to
the Internet of things to the conceptual panopticon described by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th
Century.[154] The assertion was defended by the works of French philosophers Michel
Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison Foucault asserts
that the panopticon was a central element of the discipline society developed during
the Industrial Era.[155] Foucault also argued that the discipline systems established in factories and
school reflected Bentham's vision of panopticism.[155] In his 1992 paper "Postscripts on the
Societies of Control," Deleuze wrote that the discipline society had transitioned into a control
society, with the computer replacing the panopticon as an instrument of discipline and control
while still maintaining the qualities similar to that of panopticism.[156]
The privacy of households could be compromised by solely analyzing smart home network traffic
patterns without dissecting the contents of encrypted application data, yet a synthetic packet
injection scheme can be used to safely overcome such invasion of privacy.[157]
Peter-Paul Verbeek, a professor of philosophy of technology at the University of Twente,
Netherlands, writes that technology already influences our moral decision making, which in turn
affects human agency, privacy and autonomy. He cautions against viewing technology merely as
a human tool and advocates instead to consider it as an active agent.[158]
Justin Brookman, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, expressed concern regarding
the impact of IoT on consumer privacy, saying that "There are some people in the commercial
space who say, 'Oh, big data — well, let's collect everything, keep it around forever, we'll pay for
somebody to think about security later.' The question is whether we want to have some sort of
policy framework in place to limit that."[159]
Tim O'Reilly believes that the way companies sell the IoT devices on consumers are misplaced,
disputing the notion that the IoT is about gaining efficiency from putting all kinds of devices online
and postulating that "IoT is really about human augmentation. The applications are profoundly
different when you have sensors and data driving the decision-making."[160]
Editorials at WIRED have also expressed concern, one stating "What you're about to lose is your
privacy. Actually, it's worse than that. You aren't just going to lose your privacy, you're going to
have to watch the very concept of privacy be rewritten under your nose."[161]
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed concern regarding the ability of IoT to
erode people's control over their own lives. The ACLU wrote that "There's simply no way to
forecast how these immense powers – disproportionately accumulating in the hands of
corporations seeking financial advantage and governments craving ever more control – will be
used. Chances are big data and the Internet of things will make it harder for us to control our own
lives, as we grow increasingly transparent to powerful corporations and government institutions
that are becoming more opaque to us."[162]
In response to rising concerns about privacy and smart technology, in 2007 the British
Government stated it would follow formal Privacy by Design principles when implementing their
smart metering program. The program would lead to replacement of traditional power
meters with smart power meters, which could track and manage energy usage more
accurately.[163] However the British Computer Society is doubtful these principles were ever
actually implemented.[164] In 2009 the Dutch Parliamentrejected a similar smart metering program,
basing their decision on privacy concerns. The Dutch program later revised and passed in
2011.[164]

Data storage and analytics[edit]

A challenge for producers of IoT applications is to clean, process and interpret the vast amount
of data which is gathered by the sensors. There is a solution proposed for the analytics of the
information referred to as Wireless Sensor Networks.[165] These networks share data among
sensor nodes that are sent to a distributed system for the analytics of the sensory data.[citation needed]
Another challenge is the storage of this bulk data. Depending on the application there could be
high data acquisition requirements which in turn lead to high storage requirements. Currently the
internet is already responsible for 5% of the total energy generated[165] and this consumption will
increase significantly when we start utilizing applications with multiple embedded sensors.[citation
needed]

Security[edit]
Concerns have been raised that the Internet of things is being developed rapidly without
appropriate consideration of the profound security challenges involved[166] and the regulatory
changes that might be necessary.[167][168]
Most of the technical security issues are similar to those of conventional servers, workstations
and smartphones, but the firewall, security update and anti-malware systems used for those are
generally unsuitable for the much smaller, less capable, IoT devices.[citation needed]
Network security will remain preferred solution for IoT security products, with sales anticipated to
account for nearly US $15,000 mln by 2027-end. End-point/ device security will continue to be
the second largest solution for IoT security products. In addition, vulnerability management
solution for IoT security products will register fastest expansion through 2027.Revenues
amassed from smart grid, and home & building automation applications of IoT security products
will collectively account for revenues worth US $26,753.5 mln by 2027-end.[169]
According to the Business Insider Intelligence Survey conducted in the last quarter of 2014, 39%
of the respondents said that security is the biggest concern in adopting Internet of things
technology.[170] In particular, as the Internet of things spreads widely, cyber attacks are likely to
become an increasingly physical (rather than simply virtual) threat.[171] In a January 2014 article
in Forbes, cyber-security columnist Joseph Steinberg listed many Internet-connected appliances
that can already "spy on people in their own homes" including televisions, kitchen
appliances,[172] cameras, and thermostats.[173] Computer-controlled devices in automobiles such as
brakes, engine, locks, hood and trunk releases, horn, heat, and dashboard have been shown to
be vulnerable to attackers who have access to the on-board network. In some cases, vehicle
computer systems are Internet-connected, allowing them to be exploited remotely.[174] By 2008
security researchers had shown the ability to remotely control pacemakers without authority.
Later hackers demonstrated remote control of insulin pumps[175] and implantable cardioverter
defibrillators.[176] David Poguewrote[177] that some recently published reports about hackers
remotely controlling certain functions of automobiles were not as serious as one might otherwise
guess because of various mitigating circumstances; such as the bug that allowed the hack
having been fixed before the report was published, or that the hack required security researchers
having physical access to the car prior to the hack to prepare for it.[citation needed]
The U.S. National Intelligence Council in an unclassified report maintains that it would be hard to
deny "access to networks of sensors and remotely-controlled objects by enemies of the United
States, criminals, and mischief makers... An open market for aggregated sensor data could serve
the interests of commerce and security no less than it helps criminals and spies identify
vulnerable targets. Thus, massively parallel sensor fusion may undermine social cohesion, if it
proves to be fundamentally incompatible with Fourth-Amendment guarantees against
unreasonable search."[178] In general, the intelligence community views the Internet of things as a
rich source of data.[179]
As a response to increasing concerns over security, the Internet of Things Security Foundation
(IoTSF) was launched on 23 September 2015. IoTSF has a mission to secure the Internet of
things by promoting knowledge and best practice. Its founding board is made from technology
providers and telecommunications companies including BT, Vodafone, Imagination Technologies
and Pen Test Partners. In addition, large IT companies are continuously developing innovative
solutions to ensure the security for IoT devices. As per the estimates from KBV Research,[180] the
overall IoT security market[181] would grow at 27.9% rate during 2016–2022 as a result of growing
infrastructural concerns and diversified usage of Internet of things.[182][183]
In 2016, a distributed denial of service attack powered by Internet of things devices running
the Mirai malware took down a DNS provider and major web sites.[184] In May 2017, Junade Ali, a
Computer Scientist at Cloudflare noted that native DDoS vulnerabilities exist in IoT devices due
to a poor implementation of the Publish–subscribe pattern.[185][186]
While security is a concern there are many things being done to protect devices. Device data is
following cryptographic standards and encryption is being used in end-to-end scenarios.[187] To
help with this scenario x.509 certificates are also being used to verify device identity.[188]
Security experts view Internet of things as a threat to the traditional Internet.[189] Some argue that
market incentive to secure IoT devices is insufficient and increased governmental regulation is
necessary to make the Internet of things secure.[190]
The overall understanding of IoT is essential for basic user security. Keeping up with current anti
virus software and patching updates will help mitigate cyber attacks.

Design[edit]
Given widespread recognition of the evolving nature of the design and management of the
Internet of things, sustainable and secure deployment of IoT solutions must design for "anarchic
scalability."[191] Application of the concept of anarchic scalability can be extended to physical
systems (i.e. controlled real-world objects), by virtue of those systems being designed to account
for uncertain management futures. This "hard anarchic scalability" thus provides a pathway
forward to fully realize the potential of Internet-of-things solutions by selectively constraining
physical systems to allow for all management regimes without risking physical failure.[citation needed]
Brown University computer scientist Michael Littman has argued that successful execution of the
Internet of things requires consideration of the interface's usability as well as the technology
itself. These interfaces need to be not only more user-friendly but also better integrated: "If users
need to learn different interfaces for their vacuums, their locks, their sprinklers, their lights, and
their coffeemakers, it's tough to say that their lives have been made any easier."[192]

Environmental sustainability impact[edit]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this
section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed. (November 2015) (Learn how and
when to remove this template message)

A concern regarding Internet-of-things technologies pertains to the environmental impacts of the

manufacture, use, and eventual disposal of all these semiconductor-rich devices.[193] Modern
electronics are replete with a wide variety of heavy metals and rare-earth metals, as well as
highly toxic synthetic chemicals. This makes them extremely difficult to properly recycle.
Electronic components are often incinerated or placed in regular landfills. Furthermore, the
human and environmental cost of mining the rare-earth metals that are integral to modern
electronic components continues to grow. With production of electronic equipment growing
globally yet little of the metals (from end-of-life equipment) are being recovered for reuse, the
environmental impacts can be expected to increase.[citation needed]
Also, because the concept of Internet of things entails adding electronics to mundane devices
(for example, simple light switches), and because the major driver for replacement of electronic
components is often technological obsolescence rather than actual failure to function, it is
reasonable to expect that items that previously were kept in service for many decades would see
an accelerated replacement cycle if they were part of the IoT. For example, a traditional house
built with 30 light switches and 30 electrical outlets might stand for 50 years, with all those
components still original at the end of that period. But a modern house built with the same
number of switches and outlets set up for IoT might see each switch and outlet replaced at five-
year intervals, in order to keep up to date with technological changes. This translates into a ten-
fold increase in waste requiring disposal.[citation needed]

Intentional obsolescence of devices[edit]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has raised concerns that companies can use the
technologies necessary to support connected devices to intentionally disable or "brick" their
customers' devices via a remote software update or by disabling a service necessary to the
operation of the device. In one example, home automation devices sold with the promise of a
"Lifetime Subscription" were rendered useless after Nest Labs acquired Revolv and made the
decision to shut down the central servers the Revolv devices had used to operate.[194] As Nest is
a company owned by Alphabet (Google's parent company), the EFF argues this sets a "terrible
precedent for a company with ambitions to sell self-driving cars, medical devices, and other high-
end gadgets that may be essential to a person's livelihood or physical safety."[195]
Owners should be free to point their devices to a different server or collaborate on improved
software. But such action violates the United States DMCA section 1201, which only has an
exemption for "local use". This forces tinkerers who want to keep using their own equipment into
a legal grey area. EFF thinks buyers should refuse electronics and software that prioritize the
manufacturer's wishes above their own.[195]
Examples of post-sale manipulations include Google Nest Revolv, disabled privacy settings
on Android, Sony disabling Linux on PlayStation 3, enforced EULA on Wii U.[195]

Confusing terminology[edit]
Kevin Lonergan at Information Age, a business-technology magazine, has referred to the terms
surrounding IoT as a “terminology zoo”.[196] The lack of clear terminology is not “useful from a
practical point of view” and a “source of confusion for the end user”.[196] A company operating in
the IoT space could be working in anything related to sensor technology, networking, embedded
systems, or analytics.[196] According to Lonergan, the term IoT was coined before smart phones,
tablets, and devices as we know them today existed, and there is a long list of terms with varying
degrees of overlap and technological convergence: Internet of things, Internet of everything
(IoE), industrial Internet, pervasive computing, pervasive sensing, ubiquitous computing, cyber-
physical systems (CPS), wireless sensor networks (WSN), smart objects, cooperating
objects, machine to machine (M2M), ambient intelligence (AmI), Operational technology (OT),
and information technology (IT).[196] Regarding IIoT, an industrial sub-field of IoT, the Industrial
Internet Consortium's Vocabulary Task Group has created a "common and reusable vocabulary
of terms"[197] to ensure "consistent terminology"[197][198] across publications issued by the Industrial
Internet Consortium. IoT One has created an IoT Terms Database including a New Term
Alert[199] to be notified when a new term is published. As of March 2017, this database aggregates
711 IoT-related terms,[200] however, without any attempts to reduce terminological ambiguity and
complexity.[citation needed]

IoT adoption barriers[edit]

GE Digital CEO William Ruh speaking about GE's attempts to gain a foothold in the market for IoT services
at the first IEEE Computer SocietyTechIgnite conference.

Lack of interoperability and unclear value propositions[edit]

Despite a shared belief in the potential of IoT, industry leaders and consumers are facing barriers
to adopt IoT technology more widely. Mike Farley argued in Forbes that many IoT solutions
either lack interoperability or a clear use case for end-users.[201]Within an IoT-enabled
environment, there may be technical incompatibilities related to IoT standards and interfaces.
This is due to IoT data generated in multiple sources that needs to be integrated into analytical
and decision-making systems for further analysis.[202]
“Instead of convincing consumers that they need complex systems to serve needs they don’t
have, we should fix real problems people struggle with every day.”[201]
Many gadgets in the consumer IoT space have appealed to early adopters, yet failed to
demonstrate relevance to ordinary people’s lives.
“In order to boost sales and drive demand beyond the early adopter set, we need to stop making
toys no one cares about and instead work on building simple solutions to real, everyday
problems for real people.”[201]
A recent study by Ericsson regarding the adoption of IoT among Danish companies, has
suggested that many are struggling “to pinpoint exactly where the value of IoT lies for them”.[203] A
company must identify where the value of IoT lies in order to capture it, otherwise non-action is
the consequence.[203] This indicates that a major roadblock to IoT adoption is not technical but
analytical in nature.[citation needed]

Privacy and security concerns[edit]

According to a recent study by Noura Aleisa and Karen Renaud at the University of Glasgow,
"the Internet of things' potential for major privacy invasion is a concern"[204]with much of research
"disproportionally focused on the security concerns of IoT."[204] Among the "proposed solutions in
terms of the techniques they deployed and the extent to which they satisfied core privacy
principles",[204] only very few turned out to be fully satisfactory. Louis Basenese, investment
director at Wall Street Daily, has criticized the industry's lack of attention to security issues:
"Despite high-profile and alarming hacks, device manufacturers remain undeterred, focusing on
profitability over security. Consumers need to have ultimate control over collected data, including
the option to delete it if they choose...Without privacy assurances, wide-scale consumer adoption
simply won't happen."[205]
In a post-Snowden world of global surveillance disclosures, consumers take a more active
interest in protecting their privacy and demand IoT devices to be screened for potential security
vulnerabilities and privacy violations before purchasing them. According to the
2016 Accenture Digital Consumer Survey, in which 28000 consumers in 28 countries were polled
on their use of consumer technology, security “has moved from being a nagging problem to a top
barrier as consumers are now choosing to abandon IoT devices and services over security
concerns.”[206] The survey revealed that “out of the consumers aware of hacker attacks and
owning or planning to own IoT devices in the next five years, 18 percent decided to terminate the
use of the services and related services until they get safety guarantees.”[206] This suggests that
consumers increasingly perceive privacy risks and security concerns to outweigh the value
propositions of IoT devices and opt to postpone planned purchases or service subscriptions.[206]

Traditional governance structures[edit]

A study issued by Ericsson regarding the adoption of Internet of things among Danish companies
identified a "clash between IoT and companies' traditional governancestructures, as IoT still
presents both uncertainties and a lack of historical precedence."[203] Among the respondents
interviewed, 60 percent stated that they "do not believe they have the organizational capabilities,
and three of four do not believe they have the processes needed, to capture the IoT
opportunity."[203] This has led to a need to understand organizational culture in order to
facilitate organizational design processes and to test new innovation management practices. A
lack of digital leadership in the age of digital transformation has also stifled innovation and IoT
adoption to a degree that many companies, in the face of uncertainty, "were waiting for the
market dynamics to play out",[203] or further action in regards to IoT "was pending competitor
moves, customer pull, or regulatory requirements."[203] Some of these companies risk being
'kodaked' – "Kodak was a market leader until digital disruption eclipsed film photography with
digital photos"[207] – failing to "see the disruptive forces affecting their industry"[208] and "to truly
embrace the new business models the disruptive change opens up."[208] Scott Anthony has
written in Harvard Business Review that Kodak "created a digital camera, invested in the
technology, and even understood that photos would be shared online"[208] but ultimately failed to
realize that "online photo sharing was the new business, not just a way to expand the printing
business."[208]

Lack of solid business models[edit]

Studies on IoT literature and projects show a disproportionately strong prominence of technology
in the IoT projects, which are often driven by technological interventions rather than business
model innovation (e.g., [209][210]).

See also[edit]
 Home automation
 Web of things
 Smart grid
 Cyber-physical system
 Cloud manufacturing
 Data Distribution Service
 Digital object memory
 Indoor positioning system
 Open Interconnect Consortium
 OpenWSN
 5G
 Digital twin

References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b Brown, Eric (13 September 2016). "Who Needs the Internet of
Things?". Linux.com. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Brown, Eric (20 September 2016). "21 Open Source Projects for IoT". Linux.com.
Retrieved 23 October 2016.
3. Jump up^ "Internet of Things Global Standards Initiative". ITU. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
4. Jump up^ http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/diginomics/grosse-internationale-allianz-gegen-
cyber-attacken-15451953-p2.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_1
5. Jump up^ Nordrum, Amy (18 August 2016). "Popular Internet of Things Forecast of 50 Billion
Devices by 2020 Is Outdated". IEEE.
6. Jump up^ Hsu, Chin-Lung; Lin, Judy Chuan-Chuan. "An empirical examination of consumer
adoption of Internet of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy
perspectives". Computers in Human Behavior. 62: 516–527. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.023.
7. Jump up^ "Internet of Things: Science Fiction or Business Fact?" (PDF). Harvard Business
Review. November 2014. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
8. Jump up^ Vermesan, Ovidiu; Friess, Peter (2013). Internet of Things: Converging Technologies
for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems (PDF). Aalborg, Denmark: River
Publishers. ISBN 978-87-92982-96-4.
9. Jump up^ Santucci, Gérald. "The Internet of Things: Between the Revolution of the Internet and
the Metamorphosis of Objects" (PDF). European Commission Community Research and
Development Information Service. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
10. Jump up^ Mattern, Friedemann; Floerkemeier, Christian. "From the Internet of Computers to the
Internet of Things" (PDF). ETH Zurich. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
11. Jump up^ Lindner, Tim (13 July 2015). "The Supply Chain: Changing at the Speed of
Technology". Connected World. Retrieved 18 September 2015.
12. ^ Jump up to:a b "Molluscan eye". Retrieved 26 June 2015.
13. Jump up^ Erlich, Yaniv (2015). "A vision for ubiquitous sequencing". Genome Research. 25(10):
1411–1416. doi:10.1101/gr.191692.115. ISSN 1088-9051. PMC 4579324  . PMID 26430149.
14. ^ Jump up to:a b Wigmore, I. (June 2014). "Internet of Things (IoT)". TechTarget.
15. Jump up^ Noto La Diega, Guido; Walden, Ian (1 February 2016). "Contracting for the 'Internet of
Things': Looking into the Nest". Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No.
219/2016. SSRN 2725913  .
16. Jump up^ Hendricks, Drew. "The Trouble with the Internet of Things". London Datastore. Greater
London Authority. Retrieved 10 August 2015.
17. Jump up^ Ashton, K. (22 June 2009). "That 'Internet of Things' Thing". Retrieved 9 May2017.
18. Jump up^ "Internet of Things (IoT)". gatewaytechnolabs.com.
19. Jump up^ "The "Only" Coke Machine on the Internet". Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved 10
November 2014.
20. Jump up^ "Internet of Things Done Wrong Stifles Innovation". InformationWeek. 7 July 2014.
Retrieved 10 November 2014.
21. Jump up^ Mattern, Friedemann; Floerkemeier, Christian (2010). "From the Internet of Computers
to the Internet of Things" (PDF). Informatik-Spektrum. 33 (2): 107–121. doi:10.1007/s00287-010-
0417-7. Retrieved 3 February 2014.
22. Jump up^ Weiser, Mark (1991). "The Computer for the 21st Century" (PDF). Scientific
American. 265 (3): 94–104. Bibcode:1991SciAm.265c..94W. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0991-
94. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 March 2015. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
23. Jump up^ Raji, RS (June 1994). "Smart networks for control". IEEE Spectrum.
24. Jump up^ Pontin, Jason (29 September 2005). "ETC: Bill Joy's Six Webs". MIT Technology
Review. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
25. Jump up^ Analyst Anish Gaddam interviewed by Sue Bushell in Computerworld, on 24 July 2000
("M-commerce key to ubiquitous internet")
26. ^ Jump up to:a b Magrassi, P. (2 May 2002). "Why a Universal RFID Infrastructure Would Be a
Good Thing". Gartner research report G00106518.
27. Jump up^ "Peter Day's World of Business". BBC World Service. BBC. Retrieved 4 October2016.
28. Jump up^ Magrassi, P.; Berg, T (12 August 2002). "A World of Smart Objects". Gartner research
report R-17-2243.
29. Jump up^ Commission of the European Communities (18 June 2009). "Internet of Things — An
action plan for Europe" (PDF). COM(2009) 278 final.
30. Jump up^ Wood, Alex (31 March 2015). "The internet of things is revolutionizing our lives, but
standards are a must". The Guardian.
31. Jump up^ "From M2M to The Internet of Things: Viewpoints From Europe". Techvibes. 7 July
2011. Archived from the original on 24 October 2013.
32. Jump up^ Sristava, Lara (16 May 2011). "The Internet of Things – Back to the Future
(Presentation)". European Commission Internet of Things Conference in Budapest – via YouTube.
33. Jump up^ Magrassi, P.; Panarella, A.; Deighton, N.; Johnson, G. (28 September
2001). "Computers to Acquire Control of the Physical World". Gartner research report T-14-0301.
34. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Evolution of Internet of Things". Casaleggio Associati. February 2011.[need
quotation to verify]

35. Jump up^ H. Zhuge, Future Interconnection Environment – Dream, Principle, Challenge and
Practice, Keynote at the 5th International Conference on Web-Age Information Management,
WAIM 2004: Advances in Web-Age Information Management, 15–17 July 2004, Springer LNCS
3129, pp. 13–22.
36. Jump up^ H. Zhuge, The Future Interconnection Environment, IEEE Computer, 38 (4) (2005) 27–
33.
37. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Enterprise Internet of Things Market". Business Insider. 25 February 2015.
Retrieved 26 June 2015.
38. Jump up^ Perera, C.; Liu, C. H.; Jayawardena, S. (December 2015). "The Emerging Internet of
Things Marketplace From an Industrial Perspective: A Survey". IEEE Transactions on Emerging
Topics in Computing. 3 (4): 585–598. doi:10.1109/TETC.2015.2390034. ISSN 2168-6750.
39. Jump up^ ""Budget 2015: some of the things we've announced"". Retrieved 31 March 2015.
40. Jump up^ Vongsingthong, S.; Smanchat, S. (2014). "Internet of Things: A review of applications
& technologies" (PDF). Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology.
41. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k Ersue, M.; Romascanu, D.; Schoenwaelder, J.; Sehgal, A. (4 July
2014). "Management of Networks with Constrained Devices: Use Cases". IETF Internet Draft.
42. Jump up^ Mitchell, Shane; Villa, Nicola; Stewart-Weeks, Martin; Lange, Anne. "The Internet of
Everything for Cities: Connecting People, Process, Data, and Things To Improve the 'Livability' of
Cities and Communities" (PDF). Cisco Systems. Retrieved 10 July2014.
43. Jump up^ Narayanan, Ajit. "Impact of Internet of Things on the Retail Industry". PCQuest. Cyber
Media Ltd. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
44. Jump up^ CasCard; Gemalto; Ericsson. "Smart Shopping: spark deals" (PDF). EU FP7 BUTLER
Project.
45. Jump up^ Kyriazis, D.; Varvarigou, T.; Rossi, A.; White, D.; Cooper, J. (4–7 June 2013).
"Sustainable smart city IoT applications: Heat and electricity management & Eco-conscious cruise
control for public transportation". IEEE International Symposium and Workshops on a World of
Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM):
1. doi:10.1109/WoWMoM.2013.6583500. ISBN 978-1-4673-5827-9.
46. Jump up^ Eggimann, Sven; Mutzner, Lena; Wani, Omar; Mariane Yvonne, Schneider; Spuhler,
Dorothee; Beutler, Philipp; Maurer, Max (2017). "The potential of knowing more – a review of
data-driven urban water management". Environmental Science & Technology.
47. Jump up^ Xie, Xiao-Feng; Wang, Zun-Jing (2017). "Integrated in-vehicle decision support system
for driving at signalized intersections: A prototype of smart IoT in transportation". Transportation
Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA.
48. Jump up^ Witkovski, Adriano (2015). "An IdM and Key-based Authentication Method for
providing Single Sign-On in IoT" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOM:
1. doi:10.1109/GLOCOM.2015.7417597. ISBN 978-1-4799-5952-5.
49. Jump up^ Clark, Liat. "Oxford Nanopore: we want to create the internet of living things". Wired
UK. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
50. Jump up^ "Making your home 'smart', the Indian way". The Times of India. Retrieved 26
June 2015.
51. Jump up^ "How IoT's are Changing the Fundamentals of "Retailing"". Trak.in – Indian Business
of Tech, Mobile & Startups. 30 August 2016. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
52. Jump up^ Franceschi-Bicchierai, Lorenzo. "When the Internet of Things Starts to Feel Like the
Internet of Shit". Motherboard. Vice Media Inc. Retrieved 27 June 2016.
53. Jump up^ Serebrin, Jacob. "Connected Lab Picks Up Where Xtreme Labs Left Off". Techvibes.
Techvibes Inc. Retrieved 27 June 2016.
54. Jump up^ Porup, J.M. ""Internet of Things" security is hilariously broken and getting worse". Ars
Technica. Condé Nast. Retrieved 27 June 2016.
55. Jump up^ Kang, Won Min; Moon, Seo Yeon; Park, Jong Hyuk (5 March 2017). ""An enhanced
security framework for home appliances in smart home"". Human-centric Computing and
Information Sciences. 7 (6). doi:10.1186/s13673-017-0087-4. Retrieved 3 November 2017.
56. Jump up^ Harper, Richard (2003). Inside the Smart Home. Springer. ISBN 1-85233-688-9.
57. Jump up^ Demiris, G; Hensel, K (2008). ""Technologies for an Aging Society: A Systematic
Review of 'Smart Home' Applications"" (PDF). "IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2008": 33–
40. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
58. Jump up^ Aburukba, Raafat; Al-Ali, A. R.; Kandil, Nourhan; AbuDamis, Diala (10 May
2016). ""Configurable ZigBee-based control system for people with multiple disabilities in smart
homes"". IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICCSII.2016.7462435. Retrieved 27 October2017.
59. Jump up^ Mulvenna, Maurice; Hutton, Anton; Martin, Suzanne; Todd, Stephen; Bond, Raymond;
Moorhead, Anne (14 December 2017). ""Views of Caregivers on the Ethics of Assistive
Technology Used for Home Surveillance of People Living with
Dementia"" (PDF). Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-017-9305-z. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
60. Jump up^ Demiris, G; Hensel, K (2008). ""Technologies for an Aging Society: A Systematic
Review of 'Smart Home' Applications"" (PDF). "IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2008": 33–
40. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
61. Jump up^ "How IoT & smart home automation will change the way we live". Business Insider.
Retrieved 10 November 2017.
62. Jump up^ Meadows-Klue, Danny. "A new era of personal data unlocked in an "Internet of
Things"". Digital Strategy Consulting. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
63. Jump up^ Couldry, Nick; Turow, Joseph (2014). "Advertising, Big Data, and the Clearance of the
Public Realm: Marketers' New Approaches to the Content Subsidy". International Journal of
Communication. 8: 1710–1726.
64. Jump up^ Moss, Jamie (20 June 2014). "The internet of things: unlocking the marketing
potential". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
65. Jump up^ Millman, Rene. "6 real-life examples of IoT disrupting retail". Internet of Business.
Retrieved 21 February 2016.
66. ^ Jump up to:a b Gubbi, Jayavardhana; Buyya, Rajkumar; Marusic, Slaven; Palaniswami,
Marimuthu (24 February 2013). "Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and
future directions". Future Generation Computer Systems. 29 (7): 1645–
1660. doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010.
67. Jump up^ Chui, Michael; Löffler, Markus; Roberts, Roger. "The Internet of Things". McKinsey
Quarterly. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
68. Jump up^ "Smart Trash". Postscapes. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
69. Jump up^ "THE INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT): REVOLUTIONIZED THE WAY WE
LIVE!". Postscapes. Retrieved 23 October 2017.
70. Jump up^ Severi, S.; Abreu, G.; Sottile, F.; Pastrone, C.; Spirito, M.; Berens, F. (23–26 June
2014). "M2M Technologies: Enablers for a Pervasive Internet of Things". The European
Conference on Networks and Communications (EUCNC2014).
71. Jump up^ Tan, Lu; Wang, Neng (20–22 August 2010). "Future Internet: The Internet of
Things". 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering
(ICACTE). 5: 376–380. doi:10.1109/ICACTE.2010.5579543. ISBN 978-1-4244-6539-2.
72. ^ Jump up to:a b c Daugherty, Paul; Negm, Walid; Banerjee, Prith; Alter, Allan. "Driving
Unconventional Growth through the Industrial Internet of Things" (PDF). Accenture. Retrieved 17
March 2016.
73. ^ Jump up to:a b Lee, Jay; Bagheri, Behrad; Kao, Hung-An (2015). "A cyber-physical systems
architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems". Manufacturing Letters. 3: 18–
23. doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001.
74. Jump up^ Lee, Jay (2015). Industrial Big Data. China: Mechanical Industry Press. ISBN 978-7-
111-50624-9.
75. Jump up^ "Industrial Internet Insights Report" (PDF). Accenture. Retrieved 17 March 2016.
76. Jump up^ "Center for Intelligent Maintenance Systems". IMS Center. Retrieved 8 March2016.
77. Jump up^ Lee, Jay (1 December 2003). "E-manufacturing—fundamental, tools, and
transformation". Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Leadership of the Future in
Manufacturing. 19 (6): 501–507. doi:10.1016/S0736-5845(03)00060-7.
78. ^ Jump up to:a b Lee, Jay (19 November 2014). "Keynote Presentation: Recent Advances and
Transformation Direction of PHM". Roadmapping Workshop on Measurement Science for
Prognostics and Health Management of Smart Manufacturing Systems Agenda. NIST.
79. ^ Jump up to:a b Parello, J.; Claise, B.; Schoening, B.; Quittek, J. (28 April 2014). "Energy
Management Framework". IETF Internet Draft <draft-ietf-eman-framework-19>.
80. Jump up^ Davies, Nicola. "How the Internet of Things will enable 'smart buildings'". Extreme
Tech.
81. Jump up^ Li, Shixing; Wang, Hong; Xu, Tao; Zhou, Guiping (2011). "Application Study on
Internet of Things in Environment Protection Field". Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering
Volume. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. 133: 99–106. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25992-
0_13. ISBN 978-3-642-25991-3.
82. Jump up^ "Use case: Sensitive wildlife monitoring". FIT French Project. Retrieved 10 July2014.
83. Jump up^ Hart, Jane K.; Martinez, Kirk (1 May 2015). "Toward an environmental Internet of
Things". Earth & Space Science. 2: 194–200. doi:10.1002/2014EA000044. Archived from the
original on 17 June 2016.
84. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Haase, J.; Alahmad, M.; Nishi, H.; Ploennigs, J.; Tsang, K. F. (1 July
2016). "The IOT mediated built environment: A brief survey". 2016 IEEE 14th International
Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN): 1065–1068. doi:10.1109/INDIN.2016.7819322.
85. Jump up^ Jussi Karlgren; Lennart Fahlén; Anders Wallberg; Pär Hansson; Olov Ståhl; Jonas
Söderberg; Karl-Petter Åkesson (2008). "Socially Intelligent Interfaces for Increased Energy
Awareness in the Home". The Internet of Things. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Springer. 4952. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78731-0_17. ISBN 978-3-540-78730-3. Retrieved 15
November 2017.
86. Jump up^ Rico, Juan (22–24 April 2014). "Going beyond monitoring and actuating in large scale
smart cities". NFC & Proximity Solutions – WIMA Monaco.
87. Jump up^ "A vision for a city today, a city of vision tomorrow". Sino-Singapore Guangzhou
Knowledge City. Retrieved 11 July 2014.
88. Jump up^ "San Jose Implements Intel Technology for a Smarter City". Intel Newsroom.
Retrieved 11 July 2014.
89. Jump up^ "Western Singapore becomes test-bed for smart city solutions". Coconuts Singapore.
Retrieved 11 July 2014.
90. Jump up^ Lipsky, Jessica. "IoT Clash Over 900 MHz Options". EETimes. Retrieved 15 May2015.
91. Jump up^ Alleven, Monica. "Sigfox launches IoT network in 10 UK cities". Fierce Wireless Tech.
Retrieved 13 May 2015.
92. Jump up^ Merritt, Rick. "13 Views of IoT World". EETimes. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
93. Jump up^ Fitchard, Kevin. "Sigfox brings its internet of things network to San
Francisco". Gigaom. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
94. Jump up^ "STE Security Innovation Awards Honorable Mention: The End of the
Disconnect". securityinfowatch.com. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
95. Jump up^ "Can we expect the Internet of Things in healthcare?". IoT Agenda. Retrieved 21
November 2016.
96. Jump up^ "IoT In Healthcare Industry: See Why It Has A Promising Future".
97. Jump up^ Istepanian, R.; Hu, S.; Philip, N.; Sungoor, A. (2011). "The potential of Internet of m-
health Things "m-IoT" for non-invasive glucose level sensing". Annual International Conference of
the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society
(EMBC). doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091302. ISBN 978-1-4577-1589-1.
98. Jump up^ Swan, Melanie (8 November 2012). "Sensor Mania! The Internet of Things, Wearable
Computing, Objective Metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0". Sensor and Actuator Networks. 1 (3):
217–253. doi:10.3390/jsan1030217.
99. Jump up^ Hruska, Joel (12 May 2014). "FDA approves the Deka arm, the first commercial mind-
controlled prosthetic arm – ExtremeTech". ExtremeTech.
100. Jump up^ Mahmud, Khizir; Town, Graham E.; Morsalin, Sayidul; Hossain, M.J. (February
2018). "Integration of electric vehicles and management in the internet of energy". Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 82: 4179–4203. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.11.004.
101. Jump up^ "Key Applications of the Smart IoT to Transform Transportation". Retrieved 28
October 2017.
102. Jump up^ Nordrum, Amy (18 August 2016). "Popular Internet of Things Forecast of 50
Billion Devices by 2020 Is Outdated". IEEE.
103. Jump up^ Alippi, C. (2014). Intelligence for Embedded Systems. Springer
Verlag. ISBN 978-3-319-05278-6.
104. Jump up^ Gautier, Philippe (2007). "RFID et acquisition de données évènementielles :
retours d'expérience chez Bénédicta". Systèmes d'Information et Management – revue
trimestrielle (in French). ESKA. 12 (2): 94–96. ISBN 978-2-7472-1290-8. ISSN 1260-4984.
105. Jump up^ Fayon, David (17 April 2010). "3 questions to Philippe Gautier". i-o-t.org.
Retrieved 26 June 2015.
106. Jump up^ Pal, Arpan (May–June 2015). "Internet of Things: Making the Hype a
Reality"(PDF). IT Pro. IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
107. Jump up^ "Gartner Says 6.4 Billion Connected "Things" Will Be in Use in 2016, Up 30
Percent From 2015". Gartner. 10 November 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
108. Jump up^ Reza Arkian, Hamid. "MIST: Fog-based Data Analytics Scheme with Cost-
Efficient Resource Provisioning for IoT Crowdsensing Applications". Journal of Network and
Computer Applications. 82: 152–165. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.01.012.
109. Jump up^ Gautier, Philippe; Gonzalez, Laurent (2011). L'Internet des Objets... Internet,
mais en mieux (PDF). Foreword by Gérald Santucci (European commission), postword by Daniel
Kaplan (FING) and Michel Volle. Paris: AFNOR editions. ISBN 978-2-12-465316-4.
110. Jump up^ Waldner, Jean-Baptiste (2007). Nanoinformatique et intelligence ambiante.
Inventer l'Ordinateur du XXIeme Siècle. London: Hermes Science. p. 254. ISBN 2-7462-1516-0.
111. Jump up^ "How IoT & smart home automation will change the way we live". Business
Insider. Retrieved 10 November 2017.
112. Jump up^ http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/diginomics/grosse-internationale-allianz-
gegen-cyber-attacken-15451953-p2.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_1
113. Jump up^ "OGC SensorThings API standard specification". OGC. Retrieved 15
February2016.
114. Jump up^ "OGC Sensor Web Enablement: Overview And High Level Architecture". OGC.
Retrieved 15 February 2016.
115. Jump up^ "Internet of Things: The "Basket of Remotes" Problem". Monday Note.
Retrieved 26 June 2015.
116. Jump up^ "Better Business Decisions with Advanced Predictive Analytics". Intel.
Retrieved 26 June 2015.
117. Jump up^ Want, Roy; Bill N. Schilit, Scott Jenson (2015). "Enabling the Internet of
Things". 1. Sponsored by IEEE Computer Society. IEEE. pp. 28–35.
118. Jump up^ Al-Fuqaha, A.; Guizani, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Aledhari, M.; Ayyash, M. (1
January 2015). "Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and
Applications". IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials. 17 (4): 2347–
2376. doi:10.1109/COMST.2015.2444095. ISSN 1553-877X.
119. Jump up^ "The Internet of Things: a jumbled mess or a jumbled mess?". The Register.
Retrieved 5 June 2016.
120. Jump up^ "Can we talk? Internet of Things vendors face a communications
'mess'". Computerworld. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
121. Jump up^ Dan Brickley et al., c. 2001
122. Jump up^ Waldner, Jean-Baptiste (2008). Nanocomputers and Swarm Intelligence.
London: ISTE. pp. 227–231. ISBN 1-84704-002-0.
123. ^ Jump up to:a b Kushalnagar, N.; Montenegro, G.; Schumacher, C. (August 2007). IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions,
Problem Statement, and Goals. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC4919. RFC 4919.
124. ^ Jump up to:a b Sun, Charles C. (1 May 2014). "Stop using Internet Protocol Version
4!". Computerworld.
125. Jump up^ Thomson, S.; Narten, T.; Jinmei, T. (September 2007). IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC4862. RFC 4862.
126. Jump up^ Bantégnie, Eric. "Creating a Digital Twin of a Pump". Ansys Blog. Retrieved 27
June 2017.
127. Jump up^ Lee, Jay (January 1998). "Teleservice engineering in manufacturing:
challenges and opportunities". International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture. 38: 901–
910. doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(97)00135-1.
128. Jump up^ Lee, Jay (1993). "Analysis of machine degradation using a neural network
based pattern discrimination model". Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 12: 379–
387. doi:10.1016/0278-6125(93)90306-E.
129. Jump up^ Howard, Philip N. (1 June 2015). "The Internet of Things is Posed to Change
Democracy Itself". Politico. Retrieved 8 August 2017.
130. Jump up^ Thompson, Kirsten; Mattalo, Brandon (24 November 2015). "The Internet of
Things: Guidance, Regulation and the Canadian Approach". CyberLex. Retrieved 23
October 2016.
131. Jump up^ "The Question of Who Owns the Data Is About to Get a Lot Trickier". Fortune.
6 April 2016. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
132. Jump up^ Lopez, Javier; Rios, Ruben; Bao, Feng; Wang, Guilin. "Evolving privacy: From
sensors to the Internet of Things". Future Generation Computer Systems. 75: 46–
57. doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.04.045.
133. Jump up^ "The 'Internet of Things': Legal Challenges in an Ultra-connected
World". Mason Hayes & Curran. 22 January 2016. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
134. Jump up^ Brown, Ian (2015). "Regulation and the Internet of Things" (PDF). Oxford
Internet Institute. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
135. Jump up^ "FTC Report on Internet of Things Urges Companies to Adopt Best Practices
to Address Consumer Privacy and Security Risks". Federal Trade Commission. 27 January 2015.
Retrieved 23 October 2016.
136. Jump up^ Lawson, Stephen (2 March 2016). "IoT users could win with a new bill in the
US Senate". MIS-Asia. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
137. Jump up^ Pittman, F. Paul (2 February 2016). "Legal Developments in Connected Car
Arena Provide Glimpse of Privacy and Data Security Regulation in Internet of Things". Lexology.
Retrieved 23 October 2016.
138. Jump up^ Rasit, Yuce,Mehmet; Claus, Beisswenger,Stefan; Mangalam,Srikanth;
Das,Prasanna, Lal; Martin, Lukac, (2017-11-02). "Internet of things : the new government to
business platform - a review of opportunities, practices, and challenges".
139. Jump up^ Wieland, Ken (25 February 2016). "IoT experts fret over fragmentation". Mobile
World.
140. Jump up^ Wallace, Michael (19 February 2016). "Fragmentation is the enemy of the
Internet of Things". Qualcomm.com.
141. Jump up^ Bauer, Harald; Patel, Mark; Veira, Jan (October 2015). "Internet of Things:
Opportunities and challenges for semiconductor companies". McKinsey & Co.
142. Jump up^ Ardiri, Aaron (8 July 2014). "Will fragmentation of standards only hinder the
true potential of the IoT industry?". evothings.com.
143. Jump up^ "IOT Brings Fragmentation in Platform" (PDF). arm.com.
144. Jump up^ Raggett, Dave (27 April 2016). "Countering Fragmentation with the Web of
Things: Interoperability across IoT platforms" (PDF). W3C.
145. Jump up^ Kovach, Steve (30 July 2013). "Android Fragmentation Report". Business
Insider. Retrieved 19 October 2013.
146. Jump up^ Piedad, Floyd N. "Will Android fragmentation spoil its IoT
appeal?". TechBeacon.
147. Jump up^ Franceschi-Bicchierai, Lorenzo. "Goodbye, Android". Motherboard. Vice.
Retrieved 2 August 2015.
148. Jump up^ Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian. "The toxic hellstew survival guide". ZDnet.
Retrieved 2 August 2015.
149. Jump up^ Tung, Liam (13 October 2015). "Android security a 'market for lemons' that
leaves 87 percent vulnerable". ZDNet. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
150. Jump up^ Thomas, Daniel R.; Beresford, Alastair R.; Rice, Andrew. "Security Metrics for
the Android Ecosystem" (PDF). Computer Laboratory, University of
Cambridge. doi:10.1145/2808117.2808118. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
151. Jump up^ Howard, Philip N. (2015). Pax Technica: How the internet of things May Set Us
Free, Or Lock Us Up. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-30019-947-5.
152. Jump up^ McEwan, Adrian (2014). "Designing the Internet of Things" (PDF). Retrieved 1
June 2016.
153. Jump up^ Reddington, Clare. "Connected Things and Civic Responsibilities". Storify.
Retrieved 20 May 2016.
154. Jump up^ "Panopticon as a metaphor for the internet of things" (PDF). The Council of the
Internet of Things. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
155. ^ Jump up to:a b "Foucault" (PDF). UCLA.
156. Jump up^ "Deleuze – 1992 – Postscript on the Societies of Control" (PDF). UCLA.
157. Jump up^ Yoshigoe, Kenji; Dai, Wei; Abramson, Melissa; Jacobs, Alexander (2015).
"Overcoming Invasion of Privacy in Smart Home Environment with Synthetic Packet
 Injection". TRON Symposium (TRONSHOW):
1. doi:10.1109/TRONSHOW.2014.7396875. ISBN 978-4-8936-2317-1.
158. Jump up^ Verbeek, Peter-Paul (2011). Moralizing Technology: Understanding and
Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-22685-
291-1.
159. Jump up^ Cardwell, Diane (18 February 2014). "At Newark Airport, the Lights Are On,
and They're Watching You". The New York Times.
160. Jump up^ Hardy, Quentin (4 February 2015). "Tim O'Reilly Explains the Internet of
Things". The New York Times Bits. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
161. Jump up^ Webb, Geoff (5 February 2015). "Say Goodbye to Privacy". WIRED.
Retrieved 15 February 2015.
162. Jump up^ Crump, Catherine; Harwood, Matthew (25 March 2014). "The Net Closes
Around Us". TomDispatch.
163. Jump up^ Brown, Ian (12 February 2013). "Britain's Smart Meter Programme: A Case
Study in Privacy by Design". International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 28: 172–
184. doi:10.1080/13600869.2013.801580. SSRN 2215646  . Retrieved 29 May 2017.
164. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Societal Impact of the Internet of Things" (PDF). British Computer
Society. 14 February 2013. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
165. ^ Jump up to:a b Gubbi, Jayavardhana; Buyya, Rajkumar; Marusic, Slaven; Palaniswami,
Marimuthu (1 September 2013). "Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and
future directions". Future Generation Computer Systems. Including Special sections: Cyber-
enabled Distributed Computing for Ubiquitous Cloud and Network Services & Cloud Computing
and Scientific Applications — Big Data, Scalable Analytics, and Beyond. 29 (7): 1645–
1660. doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010.
166. Jump up^ Singh, Jatinder; Pasquier, Thomas; Bacon, Jean; Ko, Hajoon; Eyers, David
(2015). "Twenty Cloud Security Considerations for Supporting the Internet of Things". IEEE
Internet of Things Journal. 3 (3): 1. doi:10.1109/JIOT.2015.2460333.
167. Jump up^ Clearfield, Chris. "Why The FTC Can't Regulate The Internet Of
Things". Forbes. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
168. Jump up^ Feamster, Nick (18 February 2017). "Mitigating the Increasing Risks of an
Insecure Internet of Things". Freedom to Tinker. Retrieved 8 August 2017.
169. Jump up^ "Internet of Things (IoT) Security Product Market by 2027". Future Market
Insights. 2017-07-18.
170. Jump up^ "We Asked Executives About The Internet Of Things And Their Answers
Reveal That Security Remains A Huge Concern". Business Insider. Retrieved 26 June2015.
171. Jump up^ Clearfield, Christopher (26 June 2013). "Rethinking Security for the Internet of
Things". Harvard Business Review Blog.
172. Jump up^ A. Witkovski; A. O. Santin; J. E. Marynowski; V. Abreu Jr. (December
2016). "An IdM and Key-based Authentication Method for providing Single Sign-On in IoT" (PDF).
IEEE Globecom.
173. Jump up^ Steinberg, Joseph (27 January 2014). "These Devices May Be Spying On You
(Even In Your Own Home)". Forbes. Retrieved 27 May 2014.
174. Jump up^ Greenberg, Andy (21 July 2015). "Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the
Highway—With Me in It". Wired. Retrieved 21 July 2015.
175. Jump up^ Scientific American, April 2015, p.68.
176. Jump up^ Loukas, George (June 2015). Cyber-Physical Attacks A growing invisible
threat. Oxford, UK: Butterworh-Heinemann (Elsevier). p. 65. ISBN 9780128012901.
177. Jump up^ Scientific American, November 2015, p.30.
178. Jump up^ "Disruptive Technologies Global Trends 2025" (PDF). National Intelligence
Council (NIC). April 2008. p. 27.
179. Jump up^ Ackerman, Spencer (15 March 2012). "CIA Chief: We'll Spy on You Through
Your Dishwasher". WIRED. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
180. Jump up^ "The Step Towards Innovation".
181. Jump up^ "Global IoT Security Market to reach a market size of $29.2 billion by 2022".
182. Jump up^ Ward, Mark (23 September 2015). "Smart devices to get security tune-
up". BBC News.
183. Jump up^ "Executive Steering Board". IoT Security Foundation.
184. Jump up^ Woolf, Nicky (26 October 2016). "DDoS attack that disrupted internet was
largest of its kind in history, experts say". The Guardian.
 185. Jump up^ "The "anti-patterns" that turned the IoT into the Internet of Shit / Boing
Boing". boingboing.net.
186. Jump up^ Ali, Junade (2 May 2017). "IoT Security Anti-Patterns". Cloudflare Blog.
187. Jump up^ YuriDio. "Azure IoT security architecture". docs.microsoft.com.
Retrieved 2017-12-07.
188. Jump up^ Thraka. "Cloud Services and management certificates". docs.microsoft.com.
Retrieved 2017-12-07.
189. Jump up^ Schneier, Bruce (6 October 2016). "We Need to Save the Internet from the
Internet of Things". Motherboard.
190. Jump up^ Schneier, Bruce (1 February 2017). "Security and the Internet of Things".
191. Jump up^ Fielding, Roy Thomas (2000). "Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-
based Software Architectures" (PDF). University Of California, Irvine.
192. Jump up^ Littman, Michael; Kortchmar, Samuel. "The Path To A Programmable
World". Footnote. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
193. Jump up^ Finley, Klint (6 May 2014). "The Internet of Things Could Drown Our
Environment in Gadgets". Wired.
194. Jump up^ Gilbert, Arlo (3 April 2016). "The time that Tony Fadell sold me a container of
hummus". Retrieved 7 April 2016.
195. ^ Jump up to:a b c Walsh, Kit (5 April 2016). "Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership
Isn't What It Used to Be". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 7 April 2016.
196. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Taming the IoT terminology zoo: what does it all mean?". Information
Age. Vitesse Media Plc. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
197. ^ Jump up to:a b "Technology Working Group". The Industrial Internet Consortium.
Retrieved 21 March 2017.
198. Jump up^ "Vocabulary Technical Report". The Industrial Internet Consortium.
Retrieved 21 March 2017.
199. Jump up^ "Acceleration Sensing". IoT One. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
200. Jump up^ "IoT Terms Database". IoT One. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
201. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Why The Consumer Internet Of Things Is Stalling". Forbes.
Retrieved 24 March 2017.
202. Jump up^ Fatorachian, Hajar; Kazemi, Hadi (11 January 2018). "A critical investigation of
Industry 4.0 in manufacturing: theoretical operationalisation framework". Production Planning &
Control: 1–12. doi:10.1080/09537287.2018.1424960.
203. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f "Every. Thing. Connected. A study of the adoption of 'Internet of
Things' among Danish companies" (PDF). Ericsson. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
204. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Privacy of the Internet of Things: A Systematic Literature Review
(Extended Discussion)" (PDF). Retrieved 27 March 2017.
205. Jump up^ Basenese, Louis. "The Best Play on the Internet of Things Trend". Wall Street
Daily. Wall Street Daily. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
206. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Igniting Growth in Consumer Technology" (PDF). Accenture.
Retrieved 27 March 2017.
207. Jump up^ Yarmoluk, Dan. "5 Barriers to IoT Adoption & How to Overcome Them". ATEK
Access Technologies. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
208. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Anthony, Scott. "Disruptive Innovation: Kodak's Downfall Wasn't About
Technology". Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Publishing. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
209. Jump up^ Solaimani, Sam; Keijzer-Broers, Wally; Bouwman, Harry (2015-05-01). "What
we do – and don't – know about the Smart Home: An analysis of the Smart Home
literature". Indoor and Built Environment. 24 (3): 370–
383. doi:10.1177/1420326X13516350. ISSN 1420-326X.
210. Jump up^ Westerlund, Mika; Leminen, Seppo; Rajahonka, Mervi (2014). "Designing
Business Models for the Internet of Things". Technology Innovation Management
Review. 4(7). ISSN 1927-0321.

Bibliography[edit]
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. The
specific problem is: This list needs to be de-spammed and
trimmed down to the three most essential books on this topic
only.
 When placing this tag, consider associating this request with
a WikiProject. (September 2016)

 Chaouchi, Hakima. The Internet of Things. London: Wiley-ISTE, 2010.

 Chabanne, Herve, Pascal Urien, and Jean-Ferdinand Susini. RFID and the Internet of
Things. London: ISTE, 2011.
 Hersent, Olivier, David Boswarthick and Omar Elloumi. The Internet of Things: Key
Applications and Protocols. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley, 2012.
 Weber, Rolf H., and Romana Weber. Internet of Things: Legal Perspectives. Berlin: Springer,
2010.
 Zhou, Honbo. The Internet of Things in the Cloud: A Middleware Perspective. Boca Raton:
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013.

External links[edit]
w hat is an inte
WEB RESULTS
Internet of things - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_things
The Internet of things (IoT) is the network of physical devices, vehicles, home appliances and other
items embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and connectivity which enables these
objects to connect and exchange data. Each thing is uniquely identifiable through its embedded
computing system but is ...
What is Internet of Things (IoT)? - Definition from WhatIs.com
internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/definition/Internet-of-Things-IoT
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a scenario in which objects, animals or people are assigned unique
identifiers and given the ability to automatically transfer data over a network without requiring human-
to-human or human-to-computer interaction.
What is the Internet of Things, and how does it work? - IBM
www.ibm.com/blogs/internet-of-things/what-is-the-iot
Nov 17, 2016 ... Devices and objects with built in sensors are connected to an Internet of Things
platform, which integrates data from the different devices and applies analytics to share the most
valuable information with applications built to address specific needs. These powerful IoT platforms
can pinpoint exactly what ...
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things' - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-
can-understand
May 13, 2014 ... What exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if
any?
What is the Internet of Things? Definition, Industries & Companies ...
www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-internet-of-things-definition-2016-8
Dec 19, 2016 ... robots machines internet of things ioT An engineer makes an adjustment to the robot
"The Incredible Bionic Man" at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington
October 17, 2013. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts You've likely heard the phrase "Internet of Things" —
or IoT — at some point, ...
What is the IoT? Everything you need to know about the Internet of ...
www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-the-internet-of-things-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-iot-
right-now
Jan 19, 2018 ... The Internet of Things explained: What the IoT is, and where it's going next.
Internet of Things (IoT) Definition | Webopedia
www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/internet_of_things.html
IoT is the ever-growing network of physical objects that feature Internet connectivity and the
communication that occurs between these and Internet- enabled devices and systems.
 What is the Internet of Things? WIRED explains | WIRED UK
www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-of-things-what-is-explained-iot
"It's about networks, it's about devices, and it's about data," Caroline Gorski, the head of IoT at Digital
Catapult explains. IoT allows devices on closed private internet connections to communicate with
others and "the Internet of Things brings those networks together. It gives the opportunity for devices
to communicate not only ...
What is the Internet of Things? Internet of Things definitions - i-SCOOP
www.i-scoop.eu/internet-of-things
Internet of Things definitions, terminology and acronym - your resource to understand the Internet of
Things and the many Internet of Things definitions.
How It Works: Internet of Things - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSIPNhOiMoE
Sep 3, 2015 ... The Internet of Things gives us access to the data from millions of devices. But how
does it work, and what can we do with all that data? Find out in this an...

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 Next

RELATED SEARCH

 Faster Internet
 Artificial Intelligence
 Quantum Internet
 Ambient Intelligence
 Machine to Machine
 Zigbee
 Smart Dust
 Quantum Communications
 Illuminates of Thanateros
 Quantum Computer
 Spintronics
 Radio Frequency Identification
 Privacy
 Terms
 © 2018 IAC Publishing, LLC

 TOPICS
 WEBINARS
 DOWNLOADS
 DICTIONARY
 TUTORIALS
 Q&A

TRENDING:

 VIRTUALIZATION
 MACHINE LEARNING
 BIG DATA
 ENTERPRISE
 DEVELOPMENT


 MORE



o
o
o
o



 Topics
 Webinars
 Downloads
 Dictionary
 Tutorials
 Q&A
 Trending
 More

 Home

 Dictionary

 Tags

 Internet

 Web Services

Internet of Things (IoT)

Definition - What does Internet of Things (IoT) mean?
The internet of things (IoT) is a computing concept that describes the idea of
everyday physical objects being connected to the internet and being able to identify
themselves to other devices. The term is closely identified with RFID as the method
of communication, although it also may include other sensor technologies, wireless
technologies or QR codes.
The IoT is significant because an object that can represent itself digitally becomes
something greater than the object by itself. No longer does the object relate just to its
user, but is now connected to surrounding objects and database data. When many
objects act in unison, they are known as having "ambient intelligence."

Techopedia explains Internet of Things (IoT)

The internet of things is a difficult concept to define precisely. In fact, there are many
different groups that have defined the term, although its initial use has been
attributed to Kevin Ashton, an expert on digital innovation. Each definition shares the
idea that the first version of the internet was about data created by people, while the
next version is about data created by things. In 1999, Ashton said it best in this quote
from an article in the RFID Journal:
"If we had computers that knew everything there was to know about things – using
data they gathered without any help from us – we would be able to track and count
everything, and greatly reduce waste, loss and cost. We would know when things
needed replacing, repairing or recalling, and whether they were fresh or past their
best."
Most people think about being connected in terms of computers, tablets and
smartphones. IoT describes a world where just about anything can be connected
and communicate in an intelligent fashion. In other words, with the internet of things,
the physical world is becoming one big information system.
Share this:

Related Terms
 Web of Things (WoT)
 Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
 Radio Frequency Identification Tag (RFID Tag)
 Radio Frequency Identification Reader (RFID Reader)
 Ambient Networks
 Quick Response Code (QR Code)
 Smart Client
 Semantic Web
 Internet of Overwhelming Things (IoOT)
 Always On

Related Articles
The Key to Quality Big Data Analytics: Understanding 'Different' - TechWise Episode 4
Transcript

5 Insights About Big Data (Hadoop) as a Service

3 Signs IoT Is the Killer App for Cloud Computing

How Deep Packet Inspection Is Changing Security in the IoT Age

IoT: Experts to Follow on Twitter

 Internet of Things: Great Innovation or Big Fat Mistake?
+ View More Articles

Featured Q&A
 How can cloud computing save money?
 What is the difference between big data and data mining?
 What is the difference between big data and Hadoop?

More of your questions answered by our Experts

Related Tags
Web ServicesWorld Wide Web (WWW)InternetTechnology TrendsBig DataInternet of
Things

RESOURCES

Pingdom - Real User Insights - 30 day trial:

Pingdom - 30 day trial:

What's really going on in that Cisco ASA of yours?:

E-Book: Compliance is Not Enough: Planning a Complete Security Strategy:

LATEST ARTICLES
How Machine Learning Is Impacting HR Analytics

Amazon Health Care Plans - A True Market Revolution?

Top 3 Reasons to Use Remote Management Software

SNMP: The Little Protocol That Could

Hacking Activities Increase Along with Cryptocurrency Pricing

ABOUT
 Aboutfor Us
Write

CONTENT
 Topics
Tutorials
TOPICS
 Cloud
All Computing
Topics

CONNECT
 Facebook
Feed

MORE
 Webinars
Newsletters