Intelligent Networking – Interviews with Experts
An Internet of Things? Yes! But Hold onto Your Hat
Interview with Friedemann Mattern
Friedemann Mattern is a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and is Director of its Institute for Pervasive Computing. He is developing visions of a future in which all objects are networked
In your new book, The Internet of Things, you describe a world in which nearly every object is intelligently networked with other objects. What makes you so sure that this vision will become reality?
Mattern: Very simply because it’s technically doable! In the great technology trends—microelectronics, wireless communications, sensors, new materials—there’s no end in sight to their progress. The convergence of these technologies will almost automatically lead to smart objects. As these objects perceive their environment, process data and communicate with other objects, the informatization of our world will increase rapidly. This may look like a kind of invisible magic, but I wouldn’t call it intelligence, because objects lack the knowledge and interpretive faculty that people have—which isn’t likely to change in the next 20 years.
You make it sound as though all technical problems are solvable. What obstacles do you foresee?
Mattern: With respect to pure technology, I am really optimistic—with one exception: The energy problem. Progress on reducing power consumption and increasing battery life is not moving as fast as I’d like. For example, if we wanted to drop tiny autonomous sensors from airplanes to monitor the environment, we could hardly replace their batteries afterwards. Another open issue is what the infrastructure will look like, for instance which wireless standards will work best. People will try to link sensors via ad-hoc networks like Bluetooth, for instance a lawn sprinkler with a sensor that measures soil moisture. But to save water, a smart sprinkler would also need to obtain the weather forecast from the Internet. For that, however, it would have to use a network, and that costs money.
And not everything that’s technically feasible would actually be useful ...
Mattern: That’s right! So far, no one has missed intelligent and networked objects. We can live without them. On the other hand, we’re getting used to calling up and starting our car with a keyless entry chip on a key ring. Our pursuit of safety, status, comfort and entertainment will cause many such applications to become accepted practice.
When surfing the Internet, you make a conscious decision either to be networked or not. But in a world of intelligent objects, this isn’t possible. Do you think users will accept that?
Mattern: The Internet of things does indeed blur the boundaries between online and offline. There are going to be areas where user acceptance will be essential. And this will be especially true for applications that make it possible to locate and trace objects—and their owners. That’s great if you’ve lost your keys, but not so great if your spouse uses it to track you down while you’re having an affair, or if a government wants to snoop on its citizens.
WIn your opinion, will we be able to really rely on intelligent objects?
Mattern: When things become smarter and more autonomous, they won’t always behave the way we expect—that’s normal. But as networking becomes pervasive, faults could have worldwide effects. That’s why some people insist on being able to deactivate objects’ intelligence—just as you can switch off the ESP in some cars. But that’s easier said than done, and in a pervasively networked world, where all things are interdependent, it may not always be possible or even advisable. That’s because networking is what provides the real added value—just like the value of a human being is greater than the sum of its body cells. We must use fault-tolerant designs and appropriate caution in introducing intelligent systems to ensure that exceptional situations remain manageable. Ground rule number one must be that our environment must always be able to function without help from intelligent objects.
The ultimate fate of the Internet of things will also depend on whether people can make money with it. Are there any business models yet?
Mattern: In cooperation with the University of St. Gallen, we’re working with several large firms to develop such models. In this connection, we’re interested not only in technical implementation, but also in security and privacy issues. Pay per use will certainly be a significant trend. Instead of charging a flat rate, providers could charge usage-based fees, which we already know from our phone bills. For example: If a car can continuously report how many miles it travels at what speed, and where it’s parked overnight, the insurance company could compute charges for liability and collision coverage on an individual basis. Many customers would be able to save money that way. At present, however, a flat-rate mentality seems to prevail—not only on the Internet but also in the travel business, where package deals are all the rage. I’m very curious myself about what kinds of business models will develop with smart objects!
                                                                                              Interview by Bernd Müller
