Computing Types for the Internet of Things
iotforall.com
Computing Types for the Internet of Things
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#2As a consumer/prosumer/user of some IoT devices, the compute model I prefer is probably most closely aligned with what the author calls the "Fog" model. For devices at my home, I want:
* No data to leave my personal private network, except to third-party APIs for necessary information to fulfill my requests. If I have a smart agent device, for example, and I ask it to tell me the movies playing at my local theater, it is acceptable for an API request to go out to the cloud to fetch showtimes. But precisely that and only that.
* Computation runs on either the edge device itself or my local computing resources. Like many households, I have several "desktop class" PCs which each are more than capable of doing the kind of processing used by today's IoT use-cases. And like many enthusiast households, I have home servers as well, which are even more powerful. Despite several starts and stops in the space, I suspect eventually we will see home servers return as more people demand local processing and data autonomy.
* Data is stored either on the edge device or on my local computing resources (as above).
* Devices are available remotely via my home network's secure tunnel that is available anywhere on the Internet. (No specific requirements for the devices themselves.)
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#3As a consumer/prosumer/user of some IoT devices, the compute model I prefer is probably most closely aligned with what the author calls the "Fog" model. For devices at my home, I want: * No data to leave my personal private network, except to third-party APIs for necessary information to fulfill my requests. If I have a smart agent device, for example, and I ask it to tell me the movies playing at my local theater, i…
You're view seems too informed by your technical background. I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician. Most applications don't justify that level of involvement.
This is the primary reason for doing compute and data storage away from the edge device. The edge device has to be dead simple that someone with hardly any technology background can place it and set it up. The customer just doesn't care enough to spend much time with any one IoT device. These class of devices are by and large adding only marginal value to the customer's life. Every detail they have to think about when working with the device becomes an impediment to their using the device at all.
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#4As a consumer/prosumer/user of some IoT devices, the compute model I prefer is probably most closely aligned with what the author calls the "Fog" model. For devices at my home, I want: * No data to leave my personal private network, except to third-party APIs for necessary information to fulfill my requests. If I have a smart agent device, for example, and I ask it to tell me the movies playing at my local theater, i…
You're view seems too informed by your technical background. I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician. Most applications don't justify that level of involvement. This is the primary reason for doing compute and data storage away from the edge device…
> I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician.
Why not? With the demise of Moore's law and the rise of zero-moving-part computers, as well as the existence of container technology, it will soon be possible to install a single compute node in a home and have it be dependably useful for over a decade. This node will be able to run all of the computing jobs necessary in a home, from the thermostat to the lighting to the TV to web browsing and games-playing (and even running web and email servers — or social networking services!). It would be easily serviced by a dedicated technician (as e.g. hot-water heaters and furnaces are today).
Not being forced to run cloud services saves device manufacturers money. Not requiring cloud services means that devices will continue to work usefully without Internet connexions. Not using cloud services means that user data is more private and secure.
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#5As a consumer/prosumer/user of some IoT devices, the compute model I prefer is probably most closely aligned with what the author calls the "Fog" model. For devices at my home, I want: * No data to leave my personal private network, except to third-party APIs for necessary information to fulfill my requests. If I have a smart agent device, for example, and I ask it to tell me the movies playing at my local theater, i…
You're view seems too informed by your technical background. I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician. Most applications don't justify that level of involvement. This is the primary reason for doing compute and data storage away from the edge device…
>The edge device has to be dead simple that someone with hardly any technology background can place it and set it up.
This is the main thing preventing adoption of home servers. They're a royal pain in the ass to set up and use right now.
Smartphones were kind of like this too before the first iPhone. There's nothing except that really preventing their widespread adoption. It's just that nobody's designed a really great one yet.
>most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products
This was also the prevailing attitude about smartphones before the first iPhone.
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#6I'm on board for moon computing
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#7I'm on board for moon computing
Falcon 9 is ready for you kind sir!
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're view seems too informed by your technical background. I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician. Most applications don't justify that level of involvement. This is the primary reason for doing compute and data storage away from the edge device…
> I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician. Why not? With the demise of Moore's law and the rise of zero-moving-part computers, as well as the existence of container technology, it will soon be possible to install a single compute node in a home and…
Hold up... when did Moore's law meet its demise?
I've heard that the conjecture is failing as we run into certain physical limits of making computer parts smaller, but I think what you've written indicates the opposite?
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician. Why not? With the demise of Moore's law and the rise of zero-moving-part computers, as well as the existence of container technology, it will soon be possible to install a single compute node in a home and…
Hold up... when did Moore's law meet its demise? I've heard that the conjecture is failing as we run into certain physical limits of making computer parts smaller, but I think what you've written indicates the opposite?
> Hold up... when did Moore's law meet its demise?
Transistor count & speeds have stagnated since around 2012–2015, and it looks like we're close to some hard limits.
Re: Computing Types for the Internet of Things
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't imagine a rise in home servers to facilitate IoT as most customers will never have that level of interest in IoT products unless this is a type of product installed and maintained by a trained technician. Why not? With the demise of Moore's law and the rise of zero-moving-part computers, as well as the existence of container technology, it will soon be possible to install a single compute node in a home and…
Hold up... when did Moore's law meet its demise? I've heard that the conjecture is failing as we run into certain physical limits of making computer parts smaller, but I think what you've written indicates the opposite?
Sandy Lake. In the 6 years between the 2500K and the 7600K they've managed to increase performance by about 20% (total, not annually). Same # of cores, same price.