really . It is Apple ’ s proprietary way of doing things within its own ecosystem . As such , developers and hardware manufacturers can either choose to join the club or stay outside of its walled garden . HomeKit devices are actually shipping , and nothing drives a standard more than real products on the shelves . But Apple controls the HomeKit ecosystem and gets to approve which products can use it .
IoT developer ’ s dilemma : How to choose ?
If you ’ re a developer and need to select an IoT standard upon which to build , which should you follow ? That might not be the right question . It all comes down to defining your requirements and then looking for a standard that will enable them , regardless of whether you ’ re defining a device , a communications mechanism , or a centralized resource .
The larger question is , What problems do these standards solve ? There are too many standards today , and many of them are redundant . So how will it all play out ? Not all of these standards are going to make it , and no one wants to bet on the wrong horse . As with the VHS-versus-Betamax videocassette standards battle , you risk committing to a standard and that ends up being a loser .
So should you wait ?
Not necessarily . The standards shouldn ’ t lead you , but you should examine each and the value it brings for your application . For example , your devices need to communicate , so you might as well pick a standard communications protocol rather than a proprietary one .
But there is an argument here in favor of choosing a de facto standard as well . Some providers ’ products will become so popular that these companies can define a standard all by themselves . While you might be choosing a “ standard ” that they create and control , it may very well be the way in which standards evolve in this next phase .
Unfortunately , you can ’ t wait for the final standards to emerge : You need to build IoT systems now . If you wait , you ’ re likely to miss the IoT boat . Think about it this way : You ’ re building apps for devices that are expendable — that is , cheap to replace at a later date , as standards solidify . You could also make the argument that IoT is more about centralized data processing than the devices that just collect data and respond to centralized intelligence and control . In that case , standards won ’ t matter much .
You might also argue that standards are a distraction from the real problems that people need to solve , and this claim might not be far from the truth . Standards have provided blueprints for how things should be done in IT over the years , but , for the most part , they have ended up on the trash pile without delivering much value .
The Problem with IoT Standards
The biggest challenge is that there are simply too many competing IoT standards . Ultimately , the creation of IoT standards with redundant purposes offers very limited benefits . That is , until you use them to frame your own requirements for building and deploying IoT systems .
Questions that you need to ask yourself at that time include :
• What value does a given standard bring to my IoT application ?
• What are the risks of not using a specific standard ?
• What are the risks of leveraging a standard that ultimately fails ?
• Can I have input into the standard , and , if so , what is the process and degree of difficulty for participating ?
Don ’ t fall in love with one or two standards this early in the game . Just understand the value each standard brings as you consider it , and look for the best fit for your needs . Depending on your requirements , even going in a proprietary direction may not be a bad idea , for now . Ultimately , most of these competing standards won ’ t survive , and if you wait for final standards to emerge , you ’ ll miss out on market opportunities .
FALL 2016 | THE DOPPLER | 43