> > Is there any part of the "Internet of Things" that is well thought out?

> The part where we use this largely ubiquitous, globally accessible network to give folks the power to control and/or monitor the devices that they own from any place of their choosing?

I think IoT conflates a few different ideas, some of which are better than others:

- Remote control. Moving household controls like heating to a virtual interface would allow me to control everything from the same place, eg. my laptop (which I'm normally sat in front of anyway). It also allows meta-level controllers to be written, eg. using cron jobs, or defining a bunch of common settings like "cold night", "frugal", etc.

- Home automation. This makes control automatic, and can involve homeostatic properties, eg. thermostats keeping a constant temperature; reactive systems like motion sensors switching on lights; to constraint/rule-based scheduling of tasks and appliances (eg. the washing must be done by Friday, but use the cheapest electricity; ensure heating and cooling are never on at the same time; etc.)

- Putting it all online. I think this is the biggest problem at the moment. It's being pushed by vendors, presumably because they can gather usage data, push automatic updates, and mobile access is easier to set up with one centralised server rather than using WiFi. There are benefits to doing this, but I think they're massively outweighed by the security considerations; it would take a big technological leap from the current models to change that (eg. the widespread use of practical verification; or robust damage limitation mechanisms, like capability models; etc.)

If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment.

And it's always worth questioning what value the "things" are providing. Home automation has been around for decades and remains a niche. Even business computerisation (other than communications and ecommerce) seems to result in surprisingly marginal productivity improvements.

> Even business computerisation (other than communications and ecommerce) seems to result in surprisingly marginal productivity improvements.

You must be joking. :) The spreadsheet is an enormous force multiplier. Email -when used for useful communication- often substantially reduces the time to close a decision making loop. You can point to telephones as a replacement for email, but telephone switches -themselves- have been computerized for many, many, many decades.

> If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment.

You appear to be talking as if I don't understand that the state of system security in the consumer electronics space is dire. I... kinda covered that in the comment to which you replied. There was no need to qualify your "Yes.". :)

(And yes, I do notice that you're not my original conversation partner.)

I was referring to the Solow productivity paradox: computerised technology certainly feels much more efficient, but in terms of the economic variable "productivity per person-hour" the difference is not as striking as expected.

The qualified yes was really a no: I believe that the market structure can't and won't deliver open, secure, interoperable devices in the forseeable future (say 10 years).

> The qualified yes was really a no: I believe that the market structure can't and won't deliver...

My hypothetical to which you replied was: "Assume that all IoT devices are secure and only exist to serve your interests, rather than the interests of a national intelligence agency or corporate overlord. Doesn't the ability to remotely monitor and control the devices that you own from any place of your choosing bring benefit to you directly, and -directly or indirectly- to society as a whole?".

I even took pains in my comment to mention that I recognised the wide gulf between the situation in my hypothetical and the abysmal state of consumer electronics security.

Now that you've been reminded of what my hypothetical question was, is your answer an unqualified yes, or an unqualified no? Remember that market forces don't apply here; these devices are correctly designed, implemented, secure, and only serve your interests.

> I was referring to the Solow productivity paradox: computerised technology certainly feels much more efficient, but in terms of the economic variable "productivity per person-hour"..

Ah. shrug

Good software to solve complex problems is often not easy. There are clearly areas where the proper application of computerized systems either save substantial amounts of time and effort, or let personnel more easily collect and digest the information required to do his job.

But, but, I'm on a desktop running an open, secure, interoperable device right now. Just migrate this software into a device, right? The capability of devices right now is comparable to desktop computers in the 90s. And way beyond what it took to put a man on the moon. So it'll fit, soon if not now.

It's the capability of markets and coporations that is in question, not that of devices.

You know, there've been a few months since the last article about bullshit jobs here. But it is still funny how people can now discuss the productivity paradox and nobody mentions it.