As the IoT continues and as I pointed out in my CloudTweaks blog it moves from a flood to a deluge I am finding a number of interesting normality’s that need to be pointed out. I started considering cloud before the original NIST publications were set in stone. The final papers they produced (NIST) focused on primarily three deployment models for cloud. (public, private and hybrid).
Then they added in the three delivery modalities of cloud solutions IaaS, PaaS and SaaS. I realize the original publication from NIST had a different order but frankly I think its more along the lines of IaaS hosts and supports, PaaS builds and enables, SaaS delivers to the end user or organization so I have it in a different order.
But then the great changes began to occur. Desktop as a Service (DaaS), Data as a Service (DaaS) or Disk as a Service (DaaS) and even Business Process as a Service (BPaaS). Why it that interesting? Well I did in my Cloudtweaks blog talk about the IoB or Internet of Bling. There have been a number of posts lately about the IIoT as well (Industrial Internet of Things). This of course leads to the WIoT, workplace Internet of things and the HIoT the home Internet of things. Then of course you don’t want to forget the CIoT or the car Internet of things.
All of this leads to the IoCT or the Internet of confusing things. In the end people add to popular catch phrases or adopt parts of them and modify that to fit their goals. IoT is pretty straight forward and really in the end probably doesn’t need the modifiers people are adding (IIoT and IoB) but in fairness the IoB was as much a facetious poke at the wearable market as it was a serious attempt to label something.
Still the fracturing is going to occur. The one that catches right now is the concept that there is a different between industrial Internet of things and the Internet of things. What in the end does adding industrial do? In the consumer market adding industrial makes something heavy duty. Able to withstand the wear and tear of a full work day and still keep going. Industrial Strength but in effect wouldn’t hat require something that was more sturdy or worked on a different protocol?
When in the end you mix metaphors you run the risk of confusion. Personally I suspect that a sensor deployed in a factory and a sensor deployed in the same room as a 4 year old will probably have the same effective tensile strength (perhaps the one intended for the home with small children would require more tensile strength in the end). The variables that they are sensing might be different but in the end than a home sensor but not than a scientific sensor. In fact I would suspect the MOST INDUSTRIAL internet of thing devices that are the MOST well constructed are the ones sitting at the edge of a volcano. Can you imagine this page “dear Mr. Geologist your volcano sensors all melted during this current ongoing eruption can you come and put them back in place please.”
So the IIoT thing bothers me. Not because it is a distinction but rather I think at this point it is as much a point of confusion as anything else. Floods modify the landscape they pass through, deluges tend to modify everything. It is probably too late to stop the IIoT phrase from being out there, but it isn’t too late to not adopt it.
Let’s start a ban the IIoT campaign – no more confusion!!!!!!!