The evolution of the Internet of Things

Cooking Hacks shows how the internet of things evolved out of other technologies

One of the notable things about modern technology is that few of the developments are actually new, the Internet of Things is a good example of this.

Most of the tech we talk about is a collection of existing technologies that have been cobbled together — cloud computing, 3D printing and the Internet of things are all good examples of this.

Libelium’s Cooking Hacks community page has a good infographic on how the makers’ movement, crowd funding and miniaturization have driven the development of the Internet of Things, 3D printing and wearable technologies.

The diagram, shown at the bottom of the post, is a good illustration of how technologies are evolving and the businesses that are being spawned from the developments.

Cooking Hack’s infographic show why it’s an exciting time to be in business.

maker_movement_cooking _hacks_infographic

 

 

 

 

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

On looking foolish

Looking foolish is one of the biggest risks when taking chances in business. It’s something every innovator and entrepreneur has to consider.

Looking foolish is one of the biggest risks when taking chances in business. It’s something every innovator and entrepreneur has to consider.

Venture Capital investor Mark Suster explains why he doesn’t mind looking foolish with his choice of investors on his blog today.

One of the toughest things in life is taking the risk of looking foolish in front of your peers yet that’s what the real high risk inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs do with their ventures.

Light bulbs and the telephone looked ridiculous to many at the time they were invented and no doubt the inventor of the wheel or the Neanderthal who came up with the idea of cooking meat in a fire both probably received a far bit of scorn when they told the others in their tribe about their idea.

While Suster is talking about ‘moonshot investments’, even the most modest venture is going to attract scorn.

There would be few people who decided to buy a doughnut franchise, establish a cafe or set up a lawn mowing service who weren’t told by some of their relatives, friends or colleagues that they are doing the wrong thing and they should stick to their safe job in their cosy cubicle.

Should someone want to change the way doughnuts are made or lawns mowed, then they can expect even more naysayers laughing at them.

In this current craze about ‘entrepreneurship’ it’s easy to overlook the real costs and risks of running any sort of business. Looking foolish is another of those risks.

Having a thick hide is another useful attribute when you’re investing, running a business or changing an industry.

Similar posts:

Peak employment and the political challenge

The current angst about employment in an age of automation is a political, not technological, problem

This week’s edition of The Economist asks about the Future of Employment and where the jobs are in a society where work is increasingly done by machines.

For the Economist the conclusion is that the future of employment is ‘complex’ and observes economists and politicians haven’t given enough thought to the effects of the changing workplace and the dislocation of many workers.

Much of the Economist’s story is based around the ideas of professors at MIT Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in their upcoming book “The Second Machine Age”.

The race with the machines

Professor Brynjolfsson gives his view at TED 2013 in the key to growth? Race with the machines, a presentation countered by Robert Gordon in the ‘death of innovation, the end of growth’ and followed by an excellent debate between the two.

Brynjolfsson cites the dilemma of bookkeepers being displaced by software applications such as Intuit Turbotax as an example of where service sector staff are being displaced.

“How can a skilled worker compete with a $39 piece of software?” Brynjolfsson asks.

“She can’t. Today millions of Americans do have cheaper, faster, more accurate tax preparations and the founders of Intuit have done very well for themselves. But 17% of tax preparers no longer have jobs.

“That is a microcosm of what’s happening not just in software and services, but in media and music, in finance, manufacturing, in retailing and trade. In short, in every industry.”

The great decoupling

Brynjolfsson’s key point is that workers’ wages have been decoupled from productivity and that the workforce isn’t sharing the rewards of improved practices and increased wealth.

That is certainly true over the last forty years, however that may not be a technological effect, but the business consequences of liberalising the financial sector which has seen massive pay increases to the banking industry and managerial classes that has been way out of kilter with the rest of the workforce.

It may well be the current golden era of high executive salaries is a transition effect of an evolving economy, albeit one where our grandchildren will puzzle over an era where a failed executive can receive a $100 million payout on being fired.

As The Economist points out technological change itself tends to create new jobs that make up for those displaced in old industries, this is a view supported by GE’s Chief Economist Marco Annunziata.

The main problem that Brynjolfsson identifies is the medium term issue of dislocated workers finding themselves out of work with superseded skills and, as The Economist point out, it’s clear the developed world’s political leaders haven’t though through the consequences of that transition.

In almost every sense, the current crisis of confidence about employment prospects is more a political and social problem rather than technological.

Helping displaced workers is going to be the greatest challenge for today’s generation of business and political leaders, the real question is are they up to that task?

Similar posts:

Building a house with 3D printing

Will 3D printing deliver on its promises to disrupt the building industry?

Much of the discussion around 3D printing has focused on making your own coffee cups, toys and small mechanical parts, but what if we start thinking about using these devices to build houses?

University of Southern California spin off Contour Crafting received attention at the CES over the bold claim by the program’s director, Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis, that it will be soon possible to build a house in 24 hours.

That’s an audacious claim although it doesn’t include site works or fitting out, much less the design of the structure.

Contour Crafting isn’t the only university spin off experimenting with 3D printing to build structures; Freeform Construction, part of the UK’s University of Loughborough, has also been working on developing the technology.

The British team haven’t been as audacious as their US colleagues and, rather than see whole buildings being constructed, they see potential applications being in fabricating specialised parts including cladding panels and complex structural components.

Like all robotic applications working in hazardous environments is another aspect touted for the technology.

The British team is almost certainly right in their view, 3D printing is unlikely to fabricate entire buildings onsite but it will have applications in the building industry which will have ramifications for tradesmen, architects and project managers.

For architects this technology could prove to liberating as it gives designers the opportunity to create structures that haven’t been feasible or possible with existing materials and techniques.

Some trades though may not fare so well should this technology appear on building sites, it certainly doesn’t look like good news for bricklayers and form workers.

It will probably take sometime for this technology and it’s still very much under development, Contour Crafting itself won awards in 2006 and the machines are still under development.

Bill Gates famously pointed out that in the short term we over-estimate the effects of technology while in the long term we underestimate them and that’s almost certainly the case with using 3D printing to build structures.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Uber and the evolving business model

Where does the future lie for car hire service Uber?

Last year we looked at Uber and speculated the software that runs the business positions the company to be more than just a hire car booking service with applications in logistics and other sectors.

This week Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick is getting plenty of coverage in the media with extensive profiles in both the Wall Street Journal and Wired.

Wired’s profile of Kalanick and Google raises Uber’s potential in logistics, funded by a $258 million fund raising led by Google Ventures last August.

“We feel like we’re still realizing what the potential is,” he says. “We don’t know yet where that stops.”

While Wired speculates about how Uber would perform against Amazon and Walmart, the car service is different in being more of a big data play than its established, possible competitors.

The three businesses would be very different creatures in the way they would address consumer markets, it may even be that Uber is more suited to being a B2B or wholesale operation rather than a retailer like Walmart.

Interestingly Kalanick looks at a target of 2,000 staff by the end of this year reports in his Wall Street Journal interview.

Mr. Kalanick: We have 550 employees. That’s approximate. We’re definitely going to be well over 1,000, maybe in the 1,500 to 2,000 range [by the end of 2014].

Having a staff target so high is interesting, it certainly indicates Kalanick sees plenty of growth ahead in the business.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Does the motor industry matter in the 21st Century?

Is the automobile industry the driver for 21st Century economic growth?

One of the key drivers of Twentieth Century industrialisation was the motor industry. Today it’s an industry plagued by over production, distorted by government subsidies and increasingly dominated by a small group of major players.

In Australia, the Productivity Commission examined how the motor industry was evolving and its preliminary report (PDF) is a good snapshot of the current state of play in the global automobile sector.

Chronic worldwide overcapacity is what stands out most starkly in the report with most of the world’s manufacturers operating at less than the 80% production break even point that’s assumed in the industry.

global-motor-industry-overcapacity

Australia is a good example of how the motor industry was held as being essential to a country’s development. Like most of the world, the early Twentieth Century saw dozens of small automobile manufacturers pop up in the backyards of enthusiastic tinkerers – it’s like the surge in smartphone apps today.

Eventually only a handful survived the industry shakeout following the Great Depression and by the end of World War II the industry was largely dominated by US, British and European manufacturers, today that consolidation has increased with East Asian producers replacing the UK carmakers.

The lessons of World War II

One of the lessons from World War II was that having a strong domestic manufacturing industry was a nation’s strategic advantage. So governments around the world protected and subsidised their automobile industries along with other factories.

For Australia, bringing in the required labour to run those manufacturing industries was a seen as a key to the nation’s post World War II growth and it was one of the contributors to the country’s ethnic diversity that started to flower in the late 1970s.

Today the echoes of those policies remain with governments around the world still subsidising their motor industries despite the economic and strategic military benefits of automobile manufacturing being dubious at best.

Australia’s failure

In Australia the modest incentives provided by governments hasn’t been enough to keep local car plants operating, which was the reason for the Productivity Commission’s report into the future of the industry.

The report’s message is stark for Australia, as a high cost nation that hasn’t invested in skills or capital equipment there’s little reason for the world to buy Australian technology as there’s little being built that the world wants or needs.

With the nation’s advantages in agriculture and mining – not to mention solar power – Australia should be leading in technologies that exploit these advantages but instead the nation is a net technology importer in all three of those sectors.

To be fair to Australian industrialists, they responded rationally to government policies that favour property and share speculation over productive investment. Coupled with the drive to create duopolies in almost every sector of the Aussie economy, it didn’t make sense to invest when they could exploit domestic markets rather than invest in new technologies.

Becoming high cost economies

For nations moving up the value chain such as China, Thailand and Brazil; Australia’s failure to develop high tech manufacturing and inability in adapting to being a high cost economy is a powerful lesson in the importance of framing sensible long term economic policies.

The Australian Productivity Commission report illustrates how the motor industry does have a role in helping countries move into being industrial powerhouses, but once a nation becomes a high cost economy it takes more than dumb subsidies to maintain a competitive advantage.

Germany and the US illustrate this, and the fact both countries’ motor industries are running at greater than 80% capacity shows how their automotive sectors are evolving. It’s no co-incidence that electric car manufacturer Tesla Motor’s plant in Fremont, California was a former GM-Toyota joint venture factory.

As motor vehicles become increasingly clever so too are their manufacturers; unless car builders and governments are prepared to invest in the brains of their workers and modern technology then they have little future in the 21st Century.

For nations, the question is whether the Twentieth Century model of building a car industry is relevant in this century. It may well be that other industries will drive the successful economies of the next hundred years.

Similar posts:

Britain’s smart cities agenda

Can Britain’s national innovation strategy give the UK leadership in the smart city movement?

Yesterday the UK government held its first Smart Cities Forum on what it sees are the economic opportunities for the British economy and its cities.

The Smart Cities Forum is part of the British government’s innovation policy that’s seen £50 million allocated to smart city projects including £24 million for Glasgow’s Future City showcase.

While the British government sees this as being an investment in grabbing the nation a share of what they believe to be a £400 billion global market, it’s also an opportunity to rejuvenate the county’s cities, as this video clip explaining what being a smart city has to offer Birmingham.

Like Barcelona and San Francisco tech and smart city policies, the UK initiative was born out of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis which forced the British political and business establishment to rethink the nation’s economic position and policies.

A key part of that rethink is how infrastructure spending can be co-ordinated with new technologies and this is something Barcelona is doing with its own smart city project in rolling out fiber networks as part of scheduled maintenance around the town.

The Glasgow pilot project is probably one of the more ambitious smart city projects, as the UK’s Technology Strategy Board says in its media release;

The Glasgow Future Cities Demonstrator aims to address some of the city’s most pressing energy and health needs. For example, developing systems to help tackle fuel poverty and to look at long-standing health issues such as low life expectancy.

Glasgow’s objectives go beyond the usual open data and parking spot strategies and attacking low life expectancy and poverty are strong social challenges.

With buy-in from the national government, the UK is making a strong big to lead the smart city industries. The challenge now is for British businesses to step up and find the commercial opportunities.

Similar posts: