Talk:Internet of things/Archive 2

I feel some security talk is needed on this page?

^{[1] [2]}

I would suggest there needs to be quite a bit more talk on the topic of IoT security. A grand total of 1 sentence talking about how the first DDoS attack from a IoT botnet was several times larger than any other DDoS previously recorded? Stuxnet is also a good topic and an example of the reverse (targeting IoT-type devices, rather than IoT-type devices targeting the Internet). 207.172.210.101 (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this page and patent may help clarify how SCADA and IOT kinda fused: http://www.ajawamnet.com/amnet/index.html - and yea that's me (the goofy dude with the cig) Link to patent - https://www.google.com/patents/US6208266 The date of priority is aug 1995; I was working on that back in June of 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wamnet (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the File:Internet of Things.jpg cartoon a useful lede image for this article? It seems a little jumbled and cryptic to me. I think a picture of a connected object (like File:Nest_Learning_Thermostat_(cropped).JPG) gets the "it's a thing, but connected to the internet" message across more clearly. --McGeddon (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The thermostat is to me just one thing. The cartoon expresses better the many, many things that are connected. Just my 2-cents. --Ajv39 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a montage of photos, then? At thumbnail size, most of the illustrated objects are unclear (and even full-size I have no idea what the flowers, the red "4", the arm-muscle or the figure squatting and saying "II" are about). --McGeddon (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that the cartoon is very illustrative. But such a montage would be better. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for the 1985 Lewis coining? The reference doesn't exist, and most sources seem to agree on Ashton Grusl2017 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So remove then? Grusl2017 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I scrubbed through both Google Scholar and Google proper for every related search term that I could think of, and I cannot find any evidence for this claim. There are plenty of blogs that present it as fact, but all of them link to the source used in this article. My vote is for removal. Edit -- Found a couple of decent sources that refer to Ashton as the coiner. Ashton claims to have coined it during a presentation at Proctor and Gamble in 1999, but he also mentioned it in a Forbes interview in 2002. ^{[1] [2] [3]} SnowdogU77 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.

Enterox IoT framework formerly known as Eraspaas provides capabilities such as protocol translation for example devices that communicate over MQTT protocol can connect with Enterprise System that communicate over web based protocols such as REST or SOAP; even legacy industrial automation devices that communicate over Modbus protocol can connect with new cloud based enterprise systems such as Microsoft Dynamics CRM or Enterox Enterprise Suite, that provide web based API. This technology is extremely useful for Enterprise Integration scenarios that involve integration with IoT devices - sensors, actuators and physical machines.^[1][2]

Arunav.net (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia mention Enterox? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Enterox IoT framework (formerly known as the Eraspaas framework) has a much longer history of research and development in Internet of Things than some of the companies mentioned in the framework section. It will be unfair to allow mention of other companies while not mentioning Enterox or Eraspaas. For the article to be unbiased, I have made the necessary edits to remove mention of other companies if the change is reverted then the proposed change about Enterox IoT framework and the unique approach in which it connects IoT devices with enterprise system by allowing data structure mapping and protocol translation should also be mentioned.

Arunav.net (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arunav.net: You just removed the other companies from that section. I think that was an improvement, and now as you say, no companies are there. That part seems resolved. Anything more? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest to scratch

   Bruce Sterling (are personal references necessary?)
   Josef Preishuber-Pflügl (are personal references necessary?)
   Pachube (already referred to under applications)

from the "see also" section. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by IoTCruiser (talk • contribs) 3 mei 2011 10:33‎ (UTC)

It's gibberish. Perhaps the Internet of Things itself is gibberish. I wish one could tell from reading the lead of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.22.127.117 (talk • contribs) 7 nov 2014 18:03‎ (UTC)

I made significant changes to improve the leading section. I removed many statements that were repetitive and rearranged some to improve the readability. Below are the statements I removed:

• Typically, IoT is expected to offer advanced connectivity of devices, systems, and services that goes beyond machine-to-machine (M2M) communications and covers a variety of protocols, domains, and applications.^[1] The interconnection of these embedded devices (including smart objects), is expected to usher in automation in nearly all fields, while also enabling advanced applications like a smart grid,^[2] and expanding to areas such as smart cities.^[3][4]

• Examples also include Smart cities, wearables like Apple watch, Fitbits for entertainment, fitness and health monitoring, Industrial automation for gathering of data for predictive analysis and for scheduling preventive maintenance.^{[5][citation needed]}

• IoT is one of the platforms of today's Smart City, and Smart Energy Management Systems.^[6][7]

--Baumergrl (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made significant changes to the lead section and believe it is now an acceptable length for the article. --Baumergrl (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe the following measure to restructure the site will improve its readability and overall quality:

• Directly after the History of the IoT, add a section titled "Definition of 'Things'" that would encompass the definition and discussion of what qualifies as a part of the IoT.
  • Reviewed this section and for the time being, I believe that the definition doesn't need it's own section and should remain in the introduction. --Baumergrl (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• "The Unique Addressability of Things" section can be dissolved into the "Enabling Technologies for IoT" since it primarily discusses the use of IPv6. (Completed.--Baumergrl (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)) "Simulation" can also be absorbed into this section as it is primarily discussing the technology used for the testing phase of IoT.
• Applications has way too many headings. My suggestion is to combine and utilize subheadings so that it is condensed to:
  • Consumer Products - Smart Home, Wearables, Home Appliances, and likely more categories.
  • Enterprise - Business, corporate, marketing
  • Infrastructure management - Environmental, Agriculture, Corporate Uses
  • Other Applications (completed all of the sections above --Baumergrl (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC))
  • Research and Data Collection - this would be a new section that I feel needs to be addressed. This change will come after the existing data has been formatted and I will create a heading in this Talk page for everyone to discuss what could and should be included.
• "Government Regulation" and "Standards" can be combined into a new section called "Legal Considerations." This section is vital because with the rise of IoT there will be a quick expansion on the laws and legal precedences set for the use of IoT devices.

My plan is to continue working on this piece by piece and I'll be time stamping as I complete each bullet. Baumergrl (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. When adding new sources or reviewing existing sources, please make sure they are WP:RS, as this topic is covered by many superficially informative sources which are covert spam for commercial services. All content should be cited to reliable sources, and any subjective conclusions or predictions should be attributed to those sources. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the link, I'll work towards getting higher quality sources for the page. --Baumergrl (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Just reverted a big homework/essay by 105.48.215.211. A few interesting points, well referenced, but not in correct form and far too long. - Snori (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good move, but for the record your description does not seem to match what happened. It looks like the IP blanked the article and replaced it with one paragraph, and you reverted that change. But good move. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the page history. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet of things. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024003031/http://www.techvibes.com/blog/from-m2m-to-the-internet-of-things-viewpoints-from-europe-2011-07-07 to http://www.techvibes.com/blog/from-m2m-to-the-internet-of-things-viewpoints-from-europe-2011-07-07

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet of things. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311220327/http://web.media.mit.edu/~anjchang/ti01/weiser-sciam91-ubicomp.pdf to http://web.media.mit.edu/~anjchang/ti01/weiser-sciam91-ubicomp.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617134934/http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/377197/3/full to http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/377197/3/full

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is comprehensive and informative but a bit too long. Wonder if we can shorten it and move the more bulky parts to another article? Nice figures. I saw the mentioning of specific companies and products such as "Nest" and GE. Maybe another page on "Industry players and solutions in IoT" would be attractive to provide a more comprehensive spread of industries work? Abr1993 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is definitely too long, but I'm confused about your suggestions. Specific examples are barely mentioned and are well-integrated into the article, so how would this reduce the length? Further, "players" and "solutions" are both WP:BUZZWORDS. This article and topic already attract disproportionate quantities of spam, so any article about companies in the industry would need very strict inclusion criteria provided by reliable, independent sources to avoid becoming a spam-hole. You may find WP:SPINOFF helpful. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

IOT is really just the current hype word that covers what is really about 100 technologies and topics. And a word that encompasses half the world and which everybody wants to associate themselves with. Good luck in trimming this. If I were starting over, it would probably describe the common uses/ meanings of the term, have a little bit on the dozen technologies closely identified with it. And not a whole lot else. First to go would be listings of uses/ application. A good guide would be an article on something that is similarly ubiquitous and broad like the Internet. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Currently (06-Oct-18) the first paragraph in the intro describes the concept of the IoT, and ends by stating that the IoT ″[will result] in efficiency improvements, economic benefits, and reduced human exertions.″ There is no allowance for the inevitable law of unintended consequences. The IoT-related corporations are making "pie-in-the-sky" prophecies. I came here to find out what the acronym "IoT" stands for & so, can't comment on the rest of the article. Just saying the intro could use some qualifiers like: "The promoters of the IoT predict that it will result in in efficiency improvements, economic benefits, and reduced human exertion. Aimzzz (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That was pretty ugly. I have moved this material to the body for now. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, internet of things is not a proper noun and should, therefore, be lower-cased. --EnOreg (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

After a week with no objections I fixed it. EnOreg (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The next step will be to move the article to the correct spelling. To this end, I've nominated the current redirect at internet of things for deletion. --EnOreg (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Move completed. --EnOreg (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Internet is a proper noun however, so it's normal when included in a larger noun to keep that part upper case. Done. I think it does need looking at per WP:COMMONNAME what the title is, checking against MOS as it is most commonly stylised in uppercase, which we need to at least say as such in the lede. (not yet done). Widefox; talk 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:MrOllie can you part revert as at least "Internet" needs to be capital. I've only just fixed that, but your undo reverts without giving a reason (reason was for IP editor). User:Dawkeye please use this talk section as we're flipping between upper and lowercase, so would be worth reaching consensus here (see above). Widefox; talk 11:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "Note: In U.S. publications, the capitalized form Internet continues to be more common than internet, although the lowercase form is rapidly gaining more widespread use. In British publications, internet is now the more common form."

WP:CAPITALIZATION says to follow normal spelling rules, not community preferences. Therefore, things is clearly lower case. --EnOreg (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning for capitalizing internet seems flawed here, as the internet of things and the internet are separate and distinct concepts (although obviously the former cannot exist without the latter). The consideration in this case should be "is 'internet of things' a proper noun?" rather than whether internet in isolation is a proper noun. I would argue it should be handled in the same way that one would handle writing other technologies like car phone, smartphone or tablet computer. --ClacTom (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

How is 'Internet of Things' not a proper noun? There is only one of it, as stated by this very article: "The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of physical devices, vehicles, [...]" 2001:638:708:303:AA:6127:17E5:4E57 (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The letter "t" for the "Internet of things" tittle should be edited in capital letter. Immeasurable radiance (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

At present we have "Internet of things", "internet of things" and "Internet of Things" all in play in the article. We need to choose one of these and apply it consistently. I propose we find Internet of Things to be a proper noun because it probably is and because this lets us avoid the question of whether internet should be capitalized. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng: As an interim measure, all spellings should be standardised as "Internet of things" as it is how the article title is styled. Afterwards, a WP:RM could be opened. TeraTIX 23:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Teratix: unless a specific exception is made, the system automatically capitalizes the first letter of titles so "Internet of things" and "internet of things" would both be consistent with the title. ~Kvng (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng: I don't mind either 'Internet' or 'internet' as long as it's internally consistent. TeraTIX 02:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Teratix: go ahead and make a decision and make some edits. Consistency would definitely be an uncontroversial improvement. I personally would try to sort out whether IoT is a proper noun first. Actually I'm often wrong about titles so I try to let others sort it out and then follow along. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

While adding some information in the Architecture subsection of the Trends and characteristics section^[1], I found that the bulk of the info was copy-pasted from this source (Traukina et al.). I did some editing to change the wordings and referenced the entries accordingly. However, I would like to note that the case could be the same in other parts of this article. I have not checked the entirety of this article because it is quite extensive and also I do not have access to the references used. Perhaps those who do could help in this area. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I can't add it (since it was my thing back then) but here's link to a story and a patent filed in 1994-5 for an early IoT device:

http://www.ajawamnet.com/amnet/index.html

Note the amount of references/citations to that patent... Wamnet (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The MIT device to open the computer room door and call the elevator was operational in 1979, so predates the CMU coke machine. Lars Brinkhoff (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon which details the invention of a digital language for networked devices around the home or office which began in 1975. I do not see any definition by which this should not be a key historical element in the Internet of things article. I considered that perhaps this omission was due to a strict adherence to devices communicating only to other devices without human involvement, but this makes no sense 1. because the x10 was used for home security sensors which would actively ping the alarm unit indicating an "all is well" signal to a receiving unit and 2. a great variety of the modern Iot devices actually necessitate human interaction and would be pointless in their absence. If I get no replies to this I will add the x10 history bit to the Iot article. --Luke Kindred (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that this is its own network, which had no conection then to the Internet. - Snori (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Snori. While I can see your point, I also think that the way in which "Things" are accessing and utilizing the modern internet more closely resembles a Wide Area Network (WAN) and often a glorified LAN. Such as when you use a web based email account to send a photo to yourself in order to move a file from your desktop computer to the smartphone in your pocket, a large and rather complicated use of the internet for a function which could have been accomplished with much more simplicity and efficiency over a LAN. Thought provoking stuff.--Luke Kindred (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315614187_Optimizing_Mission_Critical_Data_Dissemination_in_Massive_IoT_Networks https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8360491. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 20200412- internet of things diagram.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LanceLam. Peer reviewers: LanceLam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vasquezmedia. Peer reviewers: RGrulich.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

IoT is internet of 203.114.235.166 (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Well there’s a thing. Mr Larrington (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect IoT and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 1#IoT until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)