The Internet of Things, or the construction without an architect of an over-large ship!

It was necessary to launch a beautiful and great project for the future in order to make dream investors and the great captains of industry. And above all, we should not forget the incantations of science fiction around the myriad of miraculous and varied consequences that would bring in its wake the Internet of Things. Today, like our American friends, we can ask ourselves the question: “Why is it so difficult to remove bad projects?” [1]
Undoubtedly simply because they are too largely dimensioned and because no one yet mastered this famous artificial intelligence which, from the first announcements, could have prompted caution. Everything is not lost, of course, in this issue of the IoT, but everyone today discovers that there is far from the cup to the lips and that we will have to play the synergies to reduce the sail.

The IoT involves the realization of many families of components whose cost price, due to their varieties, should be higher than the initial estimates. We even talk about Pharaonic prizes! Next, the Usine Nouvelle reports that the subject of the security of connected objects is of concern to industrialists as well as to future users. To strengthen securities, the companies AT & T, IBM, Nokia, Symantec, Palo Alto Networks and Trustonic have created the IoT Cybersecurity Alliance consortium, which aims to educate consumers and businesses and participate in the drafting of standards in the many fields of application concerned: connected vehicles, smart city, industrial IoT, medical equipment, consumer products and also many gadgets intended to test the market. This Alliance will probably join a plethora of existing groups, including the Industrial Internet Consortium, the Thread Group, the Internet of Things Consortium and others.

Two years after the publication of very promising market research, to the great despair of the manufacturers, the new categories of products have still not found their public and even the big industrial players are obliged to admit their failure and forced to look for new strategies to seduce users. Many objects were not designed to accept regular remote updates. This commercial failure does not slow down the dynamism of young start-ups, but should lead to consolidation of efforts.

Indeed, the range of radio communication systems available for the IoT seems abundant. LTE-M, LPWA, 5G, Wi-Fi, ZigBee, Bluetooth, LoRaWan, Sigfox, etc. all feature irreplaceable originality. They are combined with ready-to-use routing components and platforms. So we have to find a market! And actors in the field of components, such as AMD, ARM, Intel, Qualcomm, among others, work there.

The European project “Autopilot”, linked to the European Horizon 2020 program, aims to enable safer automated driving of vehicles through intelligent objects and the Internet of objects. For its part, with the simplified management of car rental subscriptions, KDDI is well positioned to take a lead in this relatively new market segment of the IoT.
However, many questions arise when IBM’s new Watson IoT headquarters are located in Munich, near a Microsoft center. This collaborative center, built with Siemens, is designed to help IBM customers take advantage of the Internet of Things. With BMW in December 2016, other major companies have settled in this IBM tower: BNP Paribas and Cap Gemini, German Schaeffler, Mahindra-Tech Indian, American Avnet and many others. IBM proclaims its openness and the need to build a complete “ecosystem” to support its 6,000 IoT customers worldwide. By March 2015, IBM had announced that it would invest more than $ 3 billion in this area.

Should we see in this initiative of IBM the will not to throw the baby with the bath water? Or a strategy to take charge of the global set of IoT studies? It is certain that such a diverse set of files requires a conductor concerned with all the details related to the technical and commercial plans. So ? Not all major projects are bound to fail! www.challenges.fr/ www.vipress.com/

Daniel BATTU

Editor

[1] Why Bad Projects Are So Hard to Kill – Havard Business Review
https://hbr.org/2003/02/why-bad-projects-are-so-hard-to-kill

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enter Captcha Here : *

Reload Image

© 2015 Strategies Telecoms & Multimedia | Contact |  -