We have new Planet Analog blogger, Radek Tadajewski, CEO of oort. oort is a company that has invented a unique, patent-pending technology that lets users create smarter homes and businesses.
According to Gartner, by 2022 the average consumer will have more than 500 connected Internet of Things (IoT) gadgets in their home, and PWC has predicted that the IoT market will be a multi-trillion dollar industry by then. Given these predictions and the opportunities that we know the IoT can create, there’s no question that the technology will permeate everyone’s daily lives – it’s just a matter of when and how.
The “when” seems like it will be much sooner than anticipated, as the relatively simple concept of smart things has captured the imagination of the public. So much so that Gartner announced that the IoT had become the most over-hyped technology. Whether or not you concur with the research firm’s assessment, one fact that is abundantly clear is that to deliver on the market’s expectations, the IoT needs standards. Now.
The Battle for Supremacy
Major device and component manufacturers have taken sides and created competing IoT standardization groups such as the Open Interconnect Consortium and Thread Group. However, many of these standard groups won’t even begin testing until mid-2015 . Other standards currently available to the market like Z-Wave, a protocol that runs on a sub-Gigahertz frequency band or Zigbee, an IEEE 802.15 wireless communication standard, lack interoperability because they require either bridges or additional components to work. Without direct compatibility with users’ smart devices or other devices that use similar protocols, these standards reduce the range and number of IoT devices that can work together, whether within a home automation system or a connected car.
However, there are two current standards that are used in all major smart devices on the market: Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. With these two standards, the intelligent devices that people already interact with every day, such as their smartphone, laptop or tablet have the ability to control the IoT, and with Wi-Fi-enabled hubs, they can send data to the cloud and be controlled from anywhere with an Internet connection.
Many market observers have presumed that Wi-Fi, or some flavor of it, will be the default communication standard in the IoT. While wider ranges aren’t always necessary, it is expected that most IoT devices are activated within the home, Wi-Fi offers a superior range that can reach to potentially several miles . However Wi-Fi consumes more energy than many of the other standards on the market, making it useful only in specialized scenarios. This hindrance will also affect the products’ ability to work efficiently. A market standard for the IoT must be economical for power consumption. With the exception of higher data streaming use cases, such as cameras – Wi-Fi will be too cost and power-inefficient to become the number one standard.
Why We’re Betting on Bluetooth Smart
The benefits that Bluetooth Smart boasts as the standard for the IoT currently exceeds other potential standards. Bluetooth Smart was born and bred for lower power consumption – making it the ideal radio standard for developers to make lamps, lights and toasters smarter. With Bluetooth Smart, a smart sensor’s coin cell battery can last for months or even years. And with Bluetooth’s addition of mesh networking capabilities, the range at which connected devices can link is extended to over 1,000 feet and perhaps indefinitely, as billions of nodes can be supported. Bluetooth Smart with mesh networking, previously a key differentiator for ZigBee and Z-Wave, will help to extend the range and efficiency of smart home or business IoT communications, while minimizing power consumption.
Because of Bluetooth Smart’s low power consumption and tremendous potential, it’s been adopted natively by most major smartphones and tablets, in addition to many of the most popular wearable devices, which significantly reduces the barriers for widespread adoption. For people to buy into the promise of the IoT, they need to be assured that their products will work seamlessly with each other to accomplish all of their desired tasks.
Over the next several years, we can expect the interoperability race to heat up, particularly once we’re able to see what many of these new standard groups are working on. When they do, the competing standards will co-opt each others’ best features, as Bluetooth Smart did with mesh networking, and technologies will improve as a result. Standards need to allow for interoperability between devices or the IoT will not be able to evolve to maintain 500 connected IoT gadgets per household.
With the prevailing lack of standards, IoT projects are like science projects: breaking at the edges. If industry players dont converge at standards, IoT can move from being “overhyped” to “dead on arrival”.
@nasimson I agree with you, IoT define complex design challenges and requirements in order to reach a suitable technology maturity for its wide deployment and market adoption. From the beginning, IoT presents inherited challenges since they are constrained devices with low memory, processing and communications.
The need for faster setting of interoperable standards has been recognized as an important element for IoT applications deployment. The lack of open standard manifests itself at the institutional level within the Internet of Things space, currently there is no organization exists for the Internet of Things, even though the technology borrows liberally from both hardware and web development practices.Â
@nasimson, IoT is evolving and constantly changing, more devices are being added daily and the industry is still in its infancy. The challenge for the industry is the unknown devices and applications. Given this, I think there's a great needs to be flexible in all facets of development and variety of technologies to achive it.Â
@nasimson, it takes a variety of wired and wireless standards as well as proprietary implementations to connect those devices in the IoT ecosystem. The challenge is having these connectivity standards talk to one another, currently most of the solutions developed solve specific vertical applications requirements in isolation from all others. Overcoming these challenges requires adoption of standards for data communication and security.Â
I think that IoT is one of promising industry sectors. Every industry requires and needs some type of IoT.  Even though standard is immature in some degree, IoT will continue to support the customer requirement, while standard is being built.  Â
@DaeJ: Yes indeed and that is vital because you do need to support the customer requirements first to identify the loopholes. Once it's being identified only the improvements can be done.
> .. more devices are being added daily and the
> industry is still in its infancy. The challenge for
> the industry is the unknown devices and applications.
@NetCrawl: Even on the internet, new devices are getting connected everyday, but standards are open, published and well implemented. That makes connecting & integrating ANY NEW node whichever wherever not a difficult task. So the unknown devices and application should not be a problem if the standards are defined and well supported.
Interesting Article. Going through the details, I also believe that Bluetooth would be a much better option as any product or feature that comes out needs to be consumer friendy and should have factors such as lesser cost which would make the product more popular among the customers.Â
@Daej, the IoT has fast become a reality-connecting People and Things to create a fully connected lifestyle. Going way beyond the original focus of Machine-to-Machine, the world is gearing up for the IoT which will use sensor and RFID technologies to connect devices that can sense and communicate to mobile devices and even cloud. It will create a huge impact in multiple sectors, such as Home Automation, Wearables computing, Energy, Healthcare, Transportation and Manufacturing sectors.Â
@ue2014 Â I agree with you, BlueTooth has already gained a significant foothold in the smart home market with Apple, Microsoft and Google offering native support for the BlueTooth Smart at the OS level. Not just in home front, BlueTooth is also at the center of health and fitness boom and enables massive innovation in application and product development. Its low power and cost-effective, it can even run for years on a standard coin-cell batteries. I believe BlueTooth has the potential, it's very popular.
More automakers are adding WiFi to vehicles which is critical for driving through desserted areas where no signal is available on guest access and where 4G breaks down. It seems like a no-brainer in SUVs or larger size passenger vehicles especially on long trips where most people inside possess and will want to use their tablets and other mobile devices. Just hope the implementation is not as poor as the initial rounds of voice recognition command systems for GPS and other services in autos which failed miserably.
@ue2014: Agreed on all the factors you said here but in Bluetooth, there is a major limitation and that has caused many concerns for many major developments which have been identified earlier. I think it's high time for another replacement for Bluetooth and its limitations.Â
@ uchiha – Could be. That's why I said Bluetooth Vs WIFI, Bluethooth would be a better option. Two things could happen. Either, we might try out to solve and minimize the minus points in Bluetooth and develop it (as it is already being used by many applications and it would be easy to upgrade) or look / comeout with another alternative meetanism which would provide better results than Bluetooth.Â
>>Â Â If industry players dont converge at standards, IoT can move from being “overhyped” to “dead on arrival”
There is no way IoT is a hybe because it is feeding into a culture of networked people, processes and tools. I do not see how IoT cannot be central to future elements of technology and how we live. It can only happen if internet becomes outernet which means breaking the web as we know it. IoT is for real!
Things space, currently there is no organization exists for the Internet of Things, even though the technology borrows liberally from both hardware and web development practices.
I do not think not having a standard will kill IoT. There is no better standard than  TCP/IP standard which ensures any product can be connected to the web. There are many players in the space including Electric Imp which is doing a great job of connecting things to the web
 The challenge for the industry is the unknown devices and applications. Given this,
If Internet has a standard, IoT has a standard by extension. I do not understand this argument of standards on how to link things to talk among one another. This is not a new thing, we have been connecting things. The difference is that we want to connect everything now.
>> That's why I said Bluetooth Vs WIFI, Bluethooth would be a better option. Two things could happen.Â
There is a new clever way Nordic Semiconductor is using a special chip to connect biomedical device that saves you lots of power budget. These standards will work for many different applications and I am not sure one can do it all.
IoT needs to be more well-defined or it will remain a catch phrase seeking identity. Too many companies (often startups) are focusing on the sensors themselves and niche applications and there is not enough focus on infrastructure and developing a common platform for integrating devices and sensors. IoT is analogous to the smart grid which has not materialized as expected during the flurry of excitement around renewables when Pres. Obama took office. This problem was discussed during many talks at the MEMS Executive Congress focused on sensors & barriers holding the industry back.
@goafrit2 the challenges of implementing connected device application for the IoT are quite different from those associated with traditional network edge devices, for example lighting and appliance OEMs will need to bring in new networking, wireless and embedded software technology beyond their core competencies. They can either develop these technologies, acquire it from others or partner with companies that have already created products that can easily introduced into systems. Â Â
For the IoT to work, all devices must be able to talk or connect seamlessly. However, there is no one wireless or wireline technology that can efficiently serve across an entire network.Â
@goafrit2 I agree with you BlueTooth is much better. @goafrit2 how about ZigBee? connected devices need to be able to use protocols such as ZigBee or 6LoWPAN, that are lightweight and have a data rate that reflects their requirements. Devices that connect to the IoT through a centralized controller can even employ proprietary standards given that their data is aggregated and converted to a standard format before being passed out onto the internet through gateway device.Â
I think Wi-Fi is the appropriate technology when high data rates are required, and for low-bandwidth applications that do not require direct user interaction, a 2.4GHz ZigBee or a sub-GHz technologies present a lower power wireless link that is much more easily integrated into embedded systems.
@Netcrawl: That's one of the most hard blocking point to solve for the definitive success of the IoT technology. The wireless communication protocol has to be reliable, and the data present on the main communication infrastructure have to be secured by mean of a safe cryptographic process. I think that this is possible and the advantages of the IoT technology in terms of energy savings and quality of life justify the effort to solve all technical issues.
This blog talks about BT like it is an evolving standard (BT Smart) and Wifi is frozen in the past. Â What about Wifi-Direct?
It seems to me that BT is becoming a 'tweener. Â Less range than Wifi, but more power than Zigbee. Â Usually, products that sit in the middle get their market squeezed from both ends.
As far as power is concerned, I doubt anyone will power a toaster from solar anytime soon. So putting in BT vs. Wifi-Direct in a toaster has little to do with power. Â Same for refrigerators, ovens, even lights unless you're living in a poor corner of the world thinking about replacing your kerosense latern with a 1W LED.
If I must have five BT devices connecting me to my toaster while I'm in the bedroom getting dressed, I don't think cost is a consideration. Â Furthermore, Wifi-Direct is designed to work with Wifi, so no need to buy two radios in one product. Â Wifi to the router, Wifi-Direct to the headset–all from one RF chip/antenna.
And then when it comes to power, there is also data-rate. Â Does it matter if information is sent in 1s at 0.1W vs. 0.1s at 1W? Â I don't think so. Â That's the point behind Wifi-Direct–point to point, low duty cycle, lots of co-located devices multiplexing the nearby space. Â Its how cell phones put 1000s of transmitters in a small cell. Â I doubt one will every have 1000s of BT radios in a small cell.
No technology as big as Wifi will sit idle waiting to be taken over by BT. Â Two questions one should ask before they invest in BT: Â (1) Â Why did CSR sell off their BT to Samsung if the future was so golden and (2) why did Qualcomm recently acquire CSR post-Samsung sale? Â That'll be a tough gig to compete against Qualcomm.
IoT security should not be underestimated. If the infrastructure of IT and the internet moves more towards inteconnectivity and centralized servers with only cloud-style storage, the potential for even more detrimental hack attacks looms large, especially in the case of sensitive IP systems and national security top secret info. The US already lost the “secure” F35 aircraft design plans to China with encyrption.
I Trust and agree on TCP/IP for web connectvitiy more than half of the world is connected via this protocol.I believe more than connecting what will matter here is connecting securely.
Bluetooth as technology should costs less, which in turn could to be winning factor for Bluetooth smart devolopers
>>Â IoT is analogous to the smart grid which has not materialized as expected during the flurry of excitement around renewables when Pres. Obama took office
I do not see it that way. The problem with smart grid is that it is not a consumer market, that is government since you have largely minimal impact in changing what the cities do with the utilities. But in IoT you can make a decision yourself. While smart grid has not taken off because government has not stimulated it, I do not think we can say same to IoT.
>>Â For the IoT to work, all devices must be able to talk or connect seamlessly. However, there is no one wireless or wireline technology that can efficiently serve across an entire network.Â
We are making this seem very complicated. There is already a network called INTERNET. If you can get devices with IP addresses into that network, you are half way in the right part. I do not think the problem is what to do, rather, how to do it cheaply within the paradigm of electronics which always pushes for lower costs
 how about ZigBee? connected devices need to be able to use protocols such as ZigBee or 6LoWPAN, that are lightweight and have a data rate that reflects their requirements
I am yet to see a very portable ZigBee that will serve the whole nexus of consumer electronics which is the driver of the IoT. I think they need to have another game plan for ZigBee as it remains bulky and huge.
>>Â If the infrastructure of IT and the internet moves more towards inteconnectivity and centralized servers with only cloud-style storage,
I like to remind that before the cloud era, we were not secured either. In short, cloud gives us a better edge on security since you are dealing with companies with resources to invest in security. The issue of security is discussed within the constructs that if you have your data locally, you could be spared. However, provided you are in the web, it does not really matter. If they do not get it in the cloud, they come to your server.Â
Â
>>Â The US already lost the “secure” F35 aircraft design plans to China with encyrption.Â
Rightly, I am not sure they are on cloud.
@goafrit2 thanks for that, Zigbee is a low-power wireless specification based n the IEEE standard 802.15.4, this introduces a mesh networking to the low-power space and is targeted towards applications such as smart meters, home automation, and remote units. Unfortunately, ZigBee's complexity and power requirements do not make it particularly suitable for unmaintainable devices that need to operate for extensive periods from a limited source, its power-hungry.
@goafrit2 security is a wide concept which covers everything from authencity, authority, integirty and confidentiality These concepts are satisfied through a set of protocols, algorithms and cryptographic primitives, the IoT security has been one of the most discussed and yet pending issues, even after the existence of protocols for IPv6 network security such as IPSec, and for datagrams (UDP) such as DTLS.
I think security for the IoT is not excessily extended and deployed because of the difficulties in configuring  IPSec for end-users and the lack of scalable certificate management for DTLS, and the majority of the internet traffic continues being transmitted in plain text- unprotected.
@analoging: you're absolutely correct. The security is a primary requirement for all the data shared by the communication infrastructure, so the development of a big portfolio of encryption protocols that has to be agreed by the producers of IoT technology objects is a primary goal for the success of IoT technology itself.
Unfortunately, ZigBee's complexity and power requirements do not make
The number one challenge is the area budget needed to integrate it into other designs and systems. According to EE Times, NXP just bought a company that focuses on making ultra low power BT connections. That could be the roadmap for IoT.
I think security for the IoT is not excessily extended and deployed because of the difficulties in configuring
Personally, I think I am one of the people causing the challenges arising from the security complexity in the nexus of IoT. While I cannot be careless with my bank details, I am not too worried on the password used to read free editions of some online magazines. I also do not see the harm someone can cause to my son's toy by hacking into it.
Our main challenge is to know when security could stymie user-experience. Just allowing a website to store password increases usage because people hate to retype passwords. I used to be unhappy when Yahoo took that feature away. Now, it is back and I like it. But I know storing my password is bad in that way.
The best strategy is do not connect anything to your network without understand the security issues. The more critical, the more you need to understand the security element.
@fasmicro: Yes exactly, if you know the risks and knows how to avoid it then go ahead but if not you will get lost in the world of malware
@Dassa: So do you think going ahead by knowing the risk is a good option ? Don't you think it's a risky thing to do ?Â
@fasmicro I agree with you about IoT, to achieve those things, I think major technological innovations and development will need to take place. Governance, standardisation and interoperability are absolute necessities on the path towards the visions of things able to communicate with each others. New power efficient, security centred and fully communication protocols must be developed, allowing vast amount of data to be shared amongst people and devices.
@fasmicro in order to have a widespread adoption of any object system, there is a great need to have a technically  sound solution to guarantee privacy and security, the public acceptance of the IoT will happen only whe the strong securityy and privacy solutions are in place. This could be a hybrid security mechanisms that for example combine hardware security with key diversification to deliver effective security that makes attack siginificantly more difficult or even impossible to achieve.
The selection of the security features and mechanisms will continue to be determined by the impact on business processes, and trade-offs will be made between chip size, interoperability and security.
@netcrawl: Do you think there are no major improvements happening these days? I guess there are but have not got highlighted lately> Anyway do you think the government does have that kind of a hold on it ?Â
@Netcrawl: What sort of a security issue do you think is being highlighted here ? Do you mean to say that there should be more security layers involved in it ?Â
According to Gartner, by 2022 the average consumer will have more than 500 connected Internet of Things (IoT) gadgets in their homes
@Radek, thanks for the post. I am sure we will see such growth in IoT. I am curious to know which companies will comeout as winner in IoT.
With the prevailing lack of standards, IoT projects are like science projects: breaking at the edges.
@nasimson, I agree with your opinion but I am sure industry players have realised the need for standards and are working on them. Battle is already shaping up between the telecoms and the tech companies as to what kinds of standards to apply to the emerging Internet of Things.
Given this, I think there's a great needs to be flexible in all facets of development and variety of technologies to achive it.
@Netcrawl, I agree with you. I think one more requirement is that it should be made open source so that more and more people can contribute to the development of IoT.
currently there is no organization exists for the Internet of Things
@Netcrawl, Some of the leading IoT standards and protocols and standard bodies are still in formation. Some of the examples include AllJoyn, Googles “The Physical web” and Open Interconnect consortium.
I think that IoT is one of promising industry sectors. Every industry requires and needs some type of IoT.
@DaeJ, the best part is not only industry requires IoT but this technolgoy will reach all the individuals as well. I am sure we will see lot more development in IoT standards in future.
So the unknown devices and application should not be a problem if the standards are defined and well supported.
@nasimson, I agree with you. But building new standards is not an easy task. It will take lot of effort and time. I am sure we will see such new standards in future which will help us make new connection and integration easy.
@yalanad: Well its not only implementing, you should also put it into practice too. If not it's a loss and waste of time
@yaland: Well atleast it's a positive sign. There will be some results in the future
Well its not only implementing, you should also put it into practice too. If not it's a loss and waste of time
@chirshadblog, I dont think we would want to publish some standards which are still in formation and then do the changes later. I am sure such standards will be put into practice once their implementation is complete.
@yalanand multiple interoperability challenges exist within sectors and systems, the problem is compounded when services and information flow across boundaries. This problem is often treated as a standards problem but many standards are already fit for purpose of IoT means that trying to influemce all the different standards is not practical. I believe the challenge requires a different approach to work with interested bodies to establish an interoperability framework which could become a design guideline and best practice for an emerging IoT system, this will also drive a process that identifies standards which are not fit for purpose and may require new standards or modification of an existing standard to create a new one.
@yalanand the type of IoT systems that can be designed today are really an extension of internet topologies and closed M2M, we're already creating new products that cut through the disparate technologies and various supply chains. IoT developers need to inform the development of the tools and services of the future in order to ensure that the tools and services offer the capability that we need to create the rich experience that IoT can deliver.
I think IoT application can easily be developed using standard internet-based topologies, its no longer a problem.Â
>Â Â Battle is already shaping up between the telecoms and the tech companies
> as to what kinds of standards to apply to the emerging Internet of Things.
Though there are developmeents happening, but what has got these complicated is that even the vendor space in the Telecom world is not converging. There's Chinese 5G standard being developed by Huawei and expected to be implemented in Singapore, China, Taiwan and Russia. And then there is Korean 5G standard expected to be implemented in Europe, US & Korea.
So the 5G divide is not going to help IoT, further strengthening the bluetooth case.
@NetCrawl:
>Â currently there is no organization exists for the Internet
> of Things, even though the technology borrows liberally
> from both hardware and web development practices
Â
AllSeen and IOC are set up to set standards for IoT. Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC) set up by Intel as a rival to Qualcomm's AllSeen Alliance using Qualcomm's AllJoyn technology.
OIC members are: Atmel, Dell, Intel, Samsung, and Wind River. AllSeen members include Panasonic, Sony, LG, Microsoft, Sharp and Qualcomm
@nasimson thanks for tha great information, for the IoT to work, all devices must be able to connect seamlessly. However, there is no one wireless technology that can efficiently serve across an entire network. To develop cost-effective products, engineers need to able to select the optimal communications channel for their application, as a result of this, IoT will be based on a variety of standard and proprietary protocols.
@nasimson, standardization is a must thing here, and its a major showstopper for wide adoption of IoT technologies. Due to the complex and diverse nature of IoT only one interoperability solution may not be possible and integration is therefore required, here future tags and devices must integrate ddifferent communication schemes, allow different architectures and be able to communicate with other networks . Interoperability standard will always be a complex  and hot topic which requires research efforts to address the new challenges raised.
@nasimson: So it seems like there will be two consortiums when it comes to IoT devices. While this may create some compatibilty issues, I think the existence of two groups is important to ensure healthy competition takes place and innovation continues.
@tzbuair: Well what sort of compatibility issues are you referring to here ? Are those issues strict ones or just light ones which can be ignored ?Â
>>Â Â end-users and the lack of scalable certificate management for DTLS, and the majority of the internet traffic continues being transmitted in plain text- unprotected.
The Russians cracked thousands of webcams few weeks ago by simply cracking the default passwords people use in their webcams. While those are scary to have limited security in IoT, I am not in the group that thinks we need  a bank security-level for my baby's toy
>>Â According to EE Times, NXP just bought a company that focuses on making ultra low power BT connections. That could be the roadmap for IoT
I read that in EE Times and I hope they can reduce the area budget to make the technology competitive. Electric Imp may be doing a good job in that space in the IP space but we need something miniaturized for the connectivity side.
>>Â Governance, standardisation and interoperability are absolute necessities on the path towards the visions of things able to communicate with each others.
Do those really work in the hardware industry anymore when everyone is thinking of creating a niche space to dominate? Except in transportation sector, I am not sure where there is tough oversight. What oversight do we need for an electronics in a $12 toy?
>>Â Â To develop cost-effective products, engineers need to able to select the optimal communications channel for their application, as a result of this, IoT will be based on a variety of standard and proprietary protocols.
That is what I think. The absolute cost of these items are so small for any industry to agree on any shared standard. I do think they will compete but over time, they will evolve – the big ones will survive while the small ones will collapse.
Setting up Bluetooth products is easy. Bluetooth devices do most of the work for you–they can find and identify one another and what we have to do is push a button to give them permission to communicate. Also, because the devices work directly with each other, you can use Bluetooth technology almost anywhere.
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi both use second and third generation chips, with each communication method having reached a high level of maturity regarding design efficiency. However, due to the physical design of dies, Bluetooth is more efficient in terms of power consumption. Theoretically Wi-Fi does consume as much as Bluetooth but in practice, with WPA security, the consumption of a Wi-Fi module is higher than Bluetooth.
>> Bluetooth devices do most of the work for you–they can find and identify one another and what we have to do is push a button to give them permission to communicate.
The product is very simple. The weakest link is the power consumption of the BT technology. That is where the innovation needs to happen
>>Â Â However, due to the physical design of dies, Bluetooth is more efficient in terms of power consumption.
 I will like to know how the physical design of die was the main contributor in the power efficiency. I always look at power efficiency in digital chips from 0.5CV2f which captures the capacitance, voltage and frequency. How does die placement influence those? It can influence the cap but I am not sure that is the main driving factor there
>>Â I Trust and agree on TCP/IP for web connectvitiy more than half of the world is connected via this protocol.I believe more than connecting what will matter here is connecting securely.
I see security as a continuum. For the fact that Pentagon can be hacked, there is serious problem. Why? Even if the consumer market gets to the level of the security in Pentagon in 5 years, it shows we are not safe!
>Â So it seems like there will be two consortiums when it comes to IoT devices.
I think it wont stop at two. I recall hearing at least two more standardization bodies. So this space is getting pretty crowded, pretty quickly.
@nasimson: And it is bound to get crowded. Basically standards are made for focussing cost of development. If there were no standards then companies would have to have design changes for the device/technology, which would have increased the cost margins. Also, standards are made to give support to those companies that have already invested a lot in a particular type of a technology that uses the particular standard.
I wish standardization became localized, i.e. standards would be set according to the available goods criteria. That is, a particular standard would fall under the boundaries of say China and Japan because in these places there is a common supply chain element (that can also be a network) that can be manipulated to give the best results. However this would have meant that the production would also be localized, and there would be lesser and lesser silicon equipment coming from the west to these centres, so the consortiums would have to take into account these as well.
@SunitaTO: The future looks brighter if things go well but we have to make sure that those standards are being put into practice
@SunitaTO:Whats the alternative for Silicon if so ?Â
@Sunita:
Generally, at first there is a rise in R&D. Then there is a rise in standardization. Then there is a rise in commercial adoption.
It seems that next area of activity will be commercial launches & adoption.
@nasimson: It might take some time isn't it ? But surely it's a worthy waitÂ
Totally agreed, watch the last HBO Serie on Snowden, you could be fear !