Evaluate Weigh the pros and cons of technologies, products and projects you are considering.

Why everyone should care about the internet of things

I sometimes Google a word or a phrase, just to see what the search engine algorithms is de facto defining it to be these days. USA Today even published an article once about the value in Googling yourself, but that’s a topic for a different post.

In any case, I decided recently to Google “internet of things” because for me, and potentially for a lot of people, the general definition was getting cloudy.

So here’s the results of the search on July 17, 2017:

iot searchresults

I noticed a few things right off the bat:

  1. Certain organizations are paying A LOT of money to come up first in that search;
  2. Google’s default definition is appropriately broad and generic, if somewhat unhelpful; and
  3. It must be a challenge for those who have never really done any research on the topic to actually get to something useful in a search like this — only one of the articles on the first page of search results was from 2017.

I am not disparaging Microsoft and MIT here. It’s just that for a topic like IoT, getting to valuable, actionable information on the topic may require a bit more context and clarity. Certainly, these search results did not provide that. So I wondered: If I only had 30 seconds to tell someone about the value of IoT, what would I say? What “elevator pitch” would I give to get that person to care about this latest technical evolution?

I think I would ask this question: If you could know in advance that something you own, are responsible for or care about — an appliance, a car, an inventory of machines, a body part — was going to have problems, wouldn’t you want to know so that you could fix it? Well, to quote the oft-used but inaccurate Morpheus meme, “What if I told you that you COULD know?” That is the power of IoT — to allow things to “send and receive data,” but more critically, to know something new and valuable that could change a life for the better.

It may be a stretch to say that knowing that my car battery needs to be replaced is the same as knowing when my drinking water has been contaminated. The technological advancements behind one does support the other though, and the use cases for the tech are only limited by our imagination. As Eric Schmidt of Google said in 2015, “Everyone gets smarter because of technology, and the empowerment of people is the secret to technological progress.” Many who read this site are already implementing complex advanced services like machine learning and artificial intelligence. But Cisco recently reported that almost 75% of IoT projects are failing, and I think that’s in part because those not “in the know” don’t get it.

It is time for us to hone our elevator pitch — think of IoT as a startup and get really good at telling everyone we meet why what we’re doing matters. Tell them about the 200,000 babies that were saved, or the innovations in chemical-free water treatment. The data is out there, but not very easy to find for the average web searcher, so it is up to us to help — or the technology will take longer to “empower” the people and achieve lasting value.

All IoT Agenda network contributors are responsible for the content and accuracy of their posts. Opinions are of the writers and do not necessarily convey the thoughts of IoT Agenda.

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Please create a username to comment.

Andy you are giving us WRONG information. If you want to compare Exchange Online with Exchange On-Premises. Exchange Online with DLP & Hold cost $8/Mailbox/Month=$8X6000X12 = $580000 per year
Then you said a company with 6000 man will SAVE $56000.
A company with 6000 man makes $10 Mill + do you really think $56K matter for the CIO. But this part makes sense "Many of drawbacks of Public Cloud includes security, sight and ownership of data".
Andy you are a MVP, but this Article sound like a "Used car sales man for Public Cloud”. Shame to see a MVP getting into “Sales for Public Cloud” instead of writing a deep dive Article about Exchange.
Dumbest article I have seen here. A 6000 men company will NOT give up control & security for $56000 saving. A 6000 men company will NOT give its jewel to Public Cloud.
Sure the Software costs less, but what about the comms costs. 6000 people using email to communicate & collaborate amounts to a huge amount of data traffic. When some moron today sends a 5M attachment to everyone that traffic is all in-house - with the O365, all that traffic is at ISP prices & slow, very slow. 6000 users - some ISP is going to get very rich.
Surely when that 'moron' sends the mail to all users the traffic is initially between their client, the ISP (either theirs if outside the organization or the companies) then finally the O365 cloud? Therefore still a single 5MB?
Once in the cloud the message is delivered to multiple recipients as your would expect in a local scenario. I have to admit that I don't see your point. Most larger organizations will have the redundant links and bandwidth provisioned anyway.
Just a couple of points on the comments here. I have read this article several times and I cannot see where Andi referenced a $10 mil organization and I don't think that there are many 6000 mailbox orgs that have that turnover. He also said that the figures were samples based on a scenario where I cannot see mention of DLP or Hold (which are enterprise features) - perhaps he should have been clearer but to assume those costs skews your argument in your favor. I would also argue that $56K per annum in the current climate is something that any good CIO would not write off as pocket change. To the person who claimed Andi sounded like a used car salesman. Why? He did not say you had or should go to the cloud just gave you some options to consider. I am not a fan of the cloud approach but know that more and more company are being asked to look at it by the CFO mine has. The person who said dumbest article they had ever seen I think that what you have said it not smart either. You seem to be saying that you can only get proper infallible security if servers are in house and most 6000 user companies have some form of IT system via another vendor. That is the wrong assumption as well company have inside threats no financial liabilities for in house theft and cannot match the resilience of most cloud vendors anyone who says they can meet 99.99 for a 6000 user organization and have that financially backed is crazy. There are things that Andi could make clearer but the article from my point of view makes some sense. If you feel that strongly about it why not contact him via his website and not be anonymous I know that I am going to.
A comparison between an Exchange 2007 environment and Exchange Online is not a fair comparison. Exchange 2007 for instance requires high performance storage while 2013 uses low performance storage. For the enterprise client this means a huge difference in costs. High availability is enhanced in Exchange 2013, making support and administration alot lessa expensive. This is a mistake which many companies make. When comparing to Exchange Online, compare it with the latest version of Exchange, not with a 6 year old product.
Why would it not be a fair comparison? Many organizations are still on Exchange 2007 and some even in the light of PRISM are looking to move to the cloud. Naturally they would need to make a comparison against what they have against what is available. Point taken about disk performance but in the grand scheme of things to compare that is merely one parameter. On the basis of what you are saying the company should compare on-premise Exchange 2013 with O365. That being the case - then the company in question would only look at the local costs of Disk, CPU, Memory etc (which would increase their capital expenditure even for lower performance disk - as with O365 you don't need to spec these Microsoft takes care of it for you therefore there still isn't a comparative bench mark as in one solution you have to worry about and in the other you don't.
This article seems to have some pretty fuzzy math...

Under no current plan, can you get 6000 users on O365 for just 21k per year. Per month yes, per year no.

There is also the Exchange On-Premise math, were did the 13/head come from? Is that per month, per year, per 3 years(typical length between Exchange releases), per 6 years(skip one version)? It also doesn't explain the CAL scheme that is being used. Depending on the organization, you can obtain great savings by mixing user cals and device cals (for example front line staff at a hotel don't need user cals, since they will be on at most the front computers and maybe one or two back office, however the GM would be better off with a user cal due to having multiple devices. PC's and there could potentially be a large number of front line staff.)

Fuzzy math doesn't help anyone in a situation like this.

As an example, for a 500 user(read: user cals) over 3 years, with no hardware expenditure (utilizing existing infrastructure) O365 and Exchange 2013 On-Premise break even with 4 "servers". That is after 3 years, which approximately 3 years less then the typical life cycle of exchange.

Again, it does depend on a lot of circumstances, but the "comparison table" here is very, very inaccurate.
The IoT causes significant security vulnerabilities, which need clarification in a future installment perhaps.