Anyone starting a new company should understand the concept of the “corporate life cycle”, and use it as a guide for understanding where the company is in that cycle, to understand the risks at each stage, and to recognize the need for action to change course. This graphic shows a typical corporate life cycle and different possible paths as the company matures. Management of the corporate life cycle also dovetails with the concept of a “strategic inflection point,” which I briefly discussed in my Week 5 Report, The Internet of Things. John Chambers, the former CEO of Cisco Systems has pointed out that the rapid acceleration in market changes has also accelerated the corporate life cycle, emphasizing the importance of understanding it. Companies abound that were initially very successful and yet eventually closed their doors, or were acquired because the company did not anticipate market changes and the need to adapt to the new situation.
As Change Accelerates, More Important Than Ever
Anyone starting a new company should understand the concept of the “corporate life cycle”, and use it as a guide for understanding where the company is in that cycle, to understand the risks at each stage, and to recognize the need for action to change course. This graphic shows a typical corporate life cycle and different possible paths as the company matures. Management of the corporate life cycle also dovetails with the concept of a “strategic inflection point,” which I briefly discussed in my Week 5 Report, The Internet of Things. John Chambers, the former CEO of Cisco Systems has pointed out that the rapid acceleration in market changes has also accelerated the corporate life cycle, emphasizing the importance of understanding it. Companies abound that were initially very successful and yet eventually closed their doors, or were acquired because the company did not anticipate market changes and the need to adapt to the new situation.
This week I want to discuss the importance of strategic focus, while still being open to possible opportunities, sometimes called corporate “nimbleness,” which may seem like a contradiction. I am a strong believer in strategic focus, however I have also personally experienced a case where an “openness” to opportunity transformed the enterprise from a pedestrian company into a Silicon Valley legend. Ascend Communications was “focused” on ISDN based video conferencing with a modest and profitable OEM agreement with AT&T. However, AT&T came to Ascend and asked if it could solve a much bigger problem…
This week I want to discuss the importance of strategic focus, while still being open to possible opportunities, sometimes called corporate “nimbleness,” which may seem like a contradiction. I am a strong believer in strategic focus, however, I have also personally experienced a case where an “openness” to opportunity transformed the enterprise from a pedestrian company into a Silicon Valley legend. Ascend Communications was “focused” on ISDN based video conferencing with a modest and profitable OEM agreement with AT&T. However, AT&T came to Ascend and asked if it could solve a much bigger problem…
Aix/Marseilles, Bourdeaux, Lyon, Paris, and Toulouse Are All Thriving French Tech Innovation Hubs
This article and others have focused on the recent meteoric rise of Paris as an emerging high technology innovation hub. However, there is much more to it than just Paris. There are thriving La French Tech Hubs all over France and in international locations around the World. Both KPMG’s annual global Technology Industry Innovation Survey and the 2019 Startup Genome Global Startup Ecosystem Report have validated the significant advance of France and Paris as a leading innovation center.
The French, with their 35-hour workweek and café culture, might be poised to attract the next great tech talent.
Rand Hindi has the quintessential tech guru genesis story. He started coding at age 10 and built a social network by 14. After getting a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence, the entrepreneur set his sights on Silicon Valley. But that’s where the narrative began to fray. Despite all the hype, the Bay Area, known for innovation, felt like a bust. “When you [speak] to people, everybody says they want to do something great,” Hindi says. “But what people really want is to work at Google or sell their company to Google.” So Hindi returned to his native France, started Snips, a company specializing in AI voice technology, and watched his company flourish from three employees in 2013 to 80 today.
As a growing souring on Silicon Valley sinks in, young tech workers aren’t just leaving hot spots like San Francisco and New York, as OZY has previously reported. They are also leaving the country altogether. And while Asia’s — and in particular China’s — tech advances are drawing the world’s attention, it turns out that a growing number of startups are swooning for the City of Love.
For the first time, more than half of respondents to KPMG’s annual global Technology Industry Innovation Survey in 2019 believed that Silicon Valley will no longer be the technology innovation center of the world in four years — due to questions around its escalating cost of living, lack of diversity and troublesome corporate cultures. Cities like Beijing, Tokyo, Shanghai and Taipei are best placed to replace it, the survey suggests. But it’s Paris that is gaining the most steam. After not being ranked in last year’s KPMG survey, it moved up to No. 14 — behind only London among European cities. Other analysts are even more bullish: Paris ranked fourth in the A.T. Kearney Global Cities Report and third in the IESE Business School Cities in Motion Index.
IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE THINKING ENTREPRENEURIALLY WOULD WANT TO BLAZE A DIFFERENT PATH.
ANDREW RUSSELL, SUNY POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
Driving this shift is a growing contrast in France’s approach toward global tech innovations to the U.K. and the U.S., experts say. On the one hand, London’s status as a financial and innovation hub stands challenged by Brexit’s enduring uncertainties. And America and Britain are tightening up on immigration. On the other hand, the French government is aggressively courting tech entrepreneurs and investments — a strategy that’s showing results. Paris rents are also 61 percent cheaper than San Francisco’s, according to Numbeo, the crowd-sourced global database of statistics such as consumer prices, perceived crime rates and quality of health care.
In 2017, the Emmanuel Macron government introduced a program that fast-tracks four-year residence visas for tech entrepreneurs and their families. Since then, French tech startups are witnessing a dramatic increase in funding: There were 743 French startups raising money in 2017, a 45 percent increase from 2016, according to CB Insights. Global giants are taking notice, with both Facebook and Google opening new AI research centers in Paris. Google has even announced plans to create local “hubs” to teach digital skills in other French cities, such as Rennes, with the goal of getting more people online (and using Google products).
The private and nonprofit sectors are pitching in too. Since June 2017, Paris has hosted the 366,000-square-foot Station F, the world’s largest startup incubator, backed by French billionaire Xavier Niel and Iranian-American executive Roxanne Varza. In October 2018, nonprofit StartHer hosted Europe’s biggest startup competition in Paris explicitly catering to female founders, with a record 363 applications from 30 countries. And this March, the French government further expanded access to its tech visa, from around 100 qualifying startups to more than 10,000.
“It makes perfect sense that people who are thinking entrepreneurially would want to blaze a different path” given the high rent, cost of living and income disparities emerging in the Bay Area, says Andrew Russell, dean of the College of Arts & Sciences at SUNY Polytechnic Institute. Cities like Paris see “an opportunity to capture some of the energy” of Silicon Valley “without falling into some of the excesses and toxicity,” Russell adds.
Admittedly, the European market does not hold the same kind of stratospheric (and, to this point, largely unrealized) potential of Asia. But the new buzz around France’s startup scene simply didn’t exist just a few years ago. Hindi remembers the policies of François Hollande being “anti-startup” when the former French president first took over in 2012. But a rising backlash driven by business leaders led to significant change, says Hindi, a former member of the French Digital Council advising on AI and privacy issues.
Before, if your company went bankrupt, you were banned from starting another one for nine years, making students from French business and tech schools risk-averse. That policy has since been scrapped. Tax credits for hiring people were created, and up to 30 percent of a startup’s technology and salary expenses are reimbursed by the French government, allowing French companies to operate at a fraction of the cost of their foreign competitors. Then there’s the tech visa and its expansion.
Those incentives are sorely needed, considering the obstacles France does have. While the country has enough angel investors — and a de facto investor with the government — there isn’t much of an exit market. Unlike American companies, European companies have a tradition of more of a revenue-profit mindset and less of a willingness to take on the (substantial) risk of acquiring a mid-tier player and turning it into a massive, industry-defining giant, Hindi says. They also prefer to invest in goods and services over potentially groundbreaking technology that needs a few years to develop before producing, he adds. The even bigger challenge? The language, which is why London has typically reigned supreme in the European market.
Some of those issues are more perception than reality, say entrepreneurs and tech workers in France. Snips engineer Allen Welkie — who moved to Paris after working at startups along the East Coast of the United States —says many French-based companies are bilingual and that the visa process was simple. A better work-life balance than in the U.S. helps boost retention too, Hindi says. “In Silicon Valley, everybody is fighting for the same few talented people. … If you’re lucky, they’re going to stay a couple of years. How can you build a company if people are constantly leaving?” As San Francisco becomes more and more untenable for everyone but the highest earners, it’s worth asking whether you can build a city that way either.
The concept of a Total Product or Complete Product is essential to product success, particularly in an emerging new company. This concept was pioneered by Harvard Business School professor Ted Levitt and later updated and adapted to the high technology industry by a group of us at Intel.
The concept of a Total Product or Complete Product is essential to product success, particularly in an emerging new company. This concept was pioneered by Harvard Business School professor Ted Levitt and later updated and adapted to the high technology industry by a group of us at Intel. Engineers commonly believe that when their product development is finished, the product is ready for market. Nothing could be further from the truth. The engineering “deliverable” is not a product. It must be surrounded by a number of other intangible value items before it is a Complete Product. In Levitt’s model, these items are the augmented product, the expected product, and the potential product. The Intel variant, shown here, is more detailed but essentially very similar.
This is yet another excellent article questioning the Canadian tech industry’s appreciation of its significant deficiencies and challenges. It reflects my own view after much research and many interviews. It is also the view of UoT Professor Richard Florida who published a similar article in the Globe & Mail recently. Venture capital is anemic, but many also believe that there is a lack of scale-up management talent. Another factor is deeply-embedded Canadian conservatism, as evidenced by the bizarre entry of high street banks’ debt offerings to entrepreneurs.
Canadian Tech Industry Still Not Confronting Its Infrastructure Issues
This is yet another excellent article questioning the Canadian tech industry’s appreciation of its significant deficiencies and challenges. It reflects my own view after much research and many interviews. It is also the view of UoT Professor Richard Florida who published a similar article in the Globe & Mail recently. Venture capital is anemic, but many also believe that there is a lack of scale-up management talent. Another factor is deeply-embedded Canadian conservatism, as evidenced by the bizarre entry of high street commercial banks’ debt offerings to entrepreneurs.
CANADIAN TECH NEEDS TO REDEFINE ITS SENSE OF SCALE/BetaKit
If like me, you spend a lot of time poring over the latest in Canadian tech, chances are good that you see both the huge potential of our technology companies and the simultaneous challenge: too often, they’re being held back by Canada’s scale-up deficit.
This, of course, isn’t news. In all the years I’ve participated in this sector, it’s been an ongoing challenge—one that has been the topic of countless discussions, panels, and debates. It’s an issue that has long challenged our innovation and technology sectors, and though it’s been talked about at length, it’s a conversation that deserves our full attention until we get it right.
Canada has become a launch-pad for early-stage companies, but, with a few notable exceptions, we are largely still lacking later-stage success stories.
PwC Canada’s recent MoneyTree report shows that our technology sector has seen a significant increase in funding deal volume in the last year—up 30 percent from 2017. But when one reads between the lines, it’s also clear that our homegrown tech companies are still largely stuck in a middle ground. In fact, of all the companies raising seed or early-stage funding during 2015-2017, only roughly 10 percent of them raised expansion or later-stage funding during 2016-2018.
Even if we leave room for successful shops that don’t need to raise further VC, that still doesn’t account for all of it. Many stall, naturally. They don’t continue to climb the curve and thereby miss the opportunity to hit scale. Of course, some companies shouldn’t scale and falter for good reasons. But many should and, for one reason or another, don’t. As a result, it seems that Canada has become a launch-pad for early-stage companies, but, with a few notable exceptions, we are largely still lacking the later-stage success stories we see in many other ecosystems.
Addressing this begins with challenging our very definition of scale. When we talk about Canada’s scale-up dilemma, we tend to focus on the obvious: raising capital, multiplying sales, and increasing market share in large, global, addressable markets. All of this is important but, in my experience, it’s only a part of the equation. Whether founders are on their first venture or their fifth, early-stage companies face many challenges to growth, and mature technology ecosystems support them by ensuring they see the bigger picture, beyond raising capital and increasing sales. It’s time to redefine our collective understanding of what scale means, and arrive at a new recipe that touches on all the moving parts companies need to master if they’re going to level-up.
To redefine scale, we need to take a closer look at the state of our ecosystems, which can become global hubs for highly skilled digital, creative, and leadership talent, and at the roadblocks that are currently preventing companies from scaling up. Let’s start by looking to the key stakeholders who will inevitably play an important role in shaping the future of the tech sector, including our government, VCs, and the public and private sector buyers of technology.
Government, of course, has several levers to pull when it comes to helping companies scale, like shaping policies and regulations that work to benefit our technology sector, while ensuring tax dollars are well spent through targeted incentive programs matched with data and IP policies that achieve the right balance.
Government(s) of all levels need to re-commit to working with Canadian technology companies at all stages of their evolution. They need to commit to procurement policies and practices that produce a real and predictable market for our tech companies to address and sell into. Federal and provincial governments of all stripes have made promises in this regard, but the velocity of, and commitment to, local sourcing hasn’t yet translated for our entrepreneurs.
Our government can also work to modernize our federal and provincial processes that foster the development and retention of IP, and continue to evolve tax incentives that support later-stage companies. These improvements would also encourage greater global investment in the Canadian ecosystem. According to the World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey, two of the most problematic factors of doing business in Canada are inefficient government bureaucracy and tax rates.
Data regulations and privacy policies, too, are of particular focus for governments worldwide. Ours can help us ensure that Canadian technology shops want to stay here, to do their important work, while being intentional about our data protection policies. After all, scaling does not mean scaling by any means, and protecting our data sovereignty is important.
Beyond government support, we should also look to VCs and other sources of private capital to enable companies to scale. Here, we often turn to Silicon Valley for inspiration, as investors there tend to be more willing to place big bets and write big cheques. Canada can learn from this. Any investor is going to have more misses than hits and, without higher risk tolerance, we won’t be able to finance the technological sophistication that will propel us to the next level.
According to the 2019 Canadian Startup Outlook Report, 56 percent of companies state that their long-term goal is to be acquired.
There is good news for Canada: CPPIB recently announced investments of $1 billion in venture funds, much of which will focus on technology companies. I’d love to see our wider investment community follow their lead. Funds like Novacap, Georgian Partners, OMERS Ventures, and more occupy the unique position of helping shape the future of Canada’s innovation economy. They’re already investing in some great home-grown companies, and their continued willingness to take bigger risks on innovative, growth-stage companies will help create the culture we need.
There’s even more good news when it comes to talent in Canada: we’re well positioned to become a hub for top tech and innovation talent. Our immigration policies, like BC’s Provincial Nominee Program and the federal Global Skills Strategy, are helping to draw the global talent stream north; our colleges, universities, and research hubs are world-renowned. Still, as I’ve seen with the corporate boards and senior leadership teams I’ve been involved with, companies need seasoned global talent if they want to become truly global players. It’s time we cast a wider net, finding ways to incentivize governance and executive talent from technology hubs like Boston, New York, Shenzhen, Dublin, Tel Aviv, and beyond to help Canadian companies reach their next stage and deliver on the promise of scale.
Established Canadian corporates have a big role to play here too. While our market is small by comparison to our neighbour, there is big buying power in our financial services, energy, retail, healthcare, automotive, and other major industries. Without a hint of protectionism, we can look to the Canadian innovation and technology markets each and every time we are procuring a solution, looking for new technologies or even looking for a problem to solve. In fact, according to the 2019 PwC annual CEO survey, 52 percent of Canadian CEOs surveyed see collaboration with start-up entrepreneurs as a key growth strategy.
Another way for companies to level-up and scale quickly is to reconsider some elements of the growth strategy playbook. Not surprisingly, according to the 2019 Canadian Startup Outlook Report by Silicon Valley Bank, 56 percent of companies state that their long-term goal is to be acquired. However, we should consider a shift in mindset that focuses on growth by acquisition rather than looking primarily at exit strategies or organic growth. This approach works well in dynamic sectors like fintech and healthcare. I’ve seen companies enjoy success by expanding into international markets or adjacent spaces, growing horizontally through acquisitions. Our tech leaders need to be thinking long-term so that, whether they’re building to grow, to expand, or to sell, they have the right structures and systems in place.
I am hopeful that these thoughts are provocative and assist some in considering strategies and actions that will lead to the scale Canada needs. True scale is critical if we want our technology companies to drive our GDP, provide high-paying jobs, and spur the innovations that will elevate us on the world stage.
This article was originally published on LinkedIn. Photo courtesy @dingle.
I want to talk a bit about networking with new acquaintances or renewing old contacts. Networking is often dreaded because it sounds like being disingenuous or insincere. Good networking is genuine and sincere. I made the point in Week 1 that communication skills are crucial, and they can be learned. Warren Buffett has said that “public speaking” is the most important skill he ever learned. So let’s discuss a few ideas on how to make networking less stressful and more successful. In this video, I will list three key things to remember when networking and expand on why they are so important. My UBC Management students will remember this from my Management Communication course.
Welcome to a bonus Week 2 Update of Mayo615’s Odyssey to France.
I want to talk a bit about networking with new acquaintances or renewing old contacts. Networking is often dreaded because it sounds like being disingenuous or insincere. Good networking is genuine and sincere. I made the point in Week 1 that communication skills are crucial, and they can be learned. Warren Buffett has said that “public speaking” is the most important skill he ever learned. So let’s discuss a few ideas on how to make networking less stressful and more successful. In this video, I will list three key things to remember when networking and expand on why they are so important. My UBC Management students will remember this from my Management Communication course.
Welcome to Mayo615’s Odyssey to France and the first of our Tuesday weekly updates. We invite you to subscribe to our YouTube Channel and follow our weekly updates. In this Week One update we will focus on my first Big Idea, and how I achieved it. I will also discuss my three most important key takeaways from that experience. We hope that you find this video helpful in achieving your own Big Ideas and goals. So here we go.
Welcome to Mayo615’s Odyssey to France and the first of our Tuesday weekly updates
We invite you to subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to follow our weekly updates
In this Week One update we will focus on my first Big Idea, and how I achieved it. I will also discuss my three most important key takeaways from that experience. We hope that you find this video helpful in achieving your own Big Ideas and goals. So here we go.
On this YouTube Channel, we will share our Big Idea: our personal goal and invite you to participate with us, share your comments and questions and perhaps motivate you to achieve your own Big Idea. We will post an update on our project every Tuesday. We invite your comments and questions about your own Big Idea while you follow ours. We will both reply to all comments and will feature the best questions in our YouTube update videos each week. So click SUBSCRIBE and let’s get started!
The launch of the Mayo615 YouTube Channel Trailer
On this YouTube Channel, we will share our Big Idea: our personal goal and invite you to participate with us, share your comments and questions and perhaps motivate you to achieve your own Big Idea. We will post an update on our project every Tuesday. We invite your comments and questions about your own Big Idea while you follow ours. We will both reply to all comments and will feature the best questions in our YouTube update videos each week.
I want to return to France to give back my experience, skills, and technical knowledge to the country of my heritage. France’s industrial economy is in the doldrums, but new policies are stimulating innovation, the key to economic growth and productivity, and technology industry leaders in France with strong technology industry backgrounds are looking to contribute to this new economy in France. I want to join them and give back.
In less than 24 hours since our campaign launch, we are nearing 10% of our goal
I am a native-born Californian with French family heritage and a French wife. We are both French citizens preparing to return to France. My university background is in the Humanities and Social Sciences, with a year of graduate study at Oxford University, researching in the Bodleian Library. When I returned to northern California, I eventually landed an entry-level job at Intel Corporation, which proved to be the crucible for my entire career. I eventually rose to be a senior executive in international business development with Intel. I have continued in international business for all of my career, working for a number of tech startups and venture capital investment firms over the years. I have led two tech industry consortia to develop global industry standards. I have been the director of a tech entrepreneurial incubator in Silicon Valley for the government of New Zealand and collaborated on mentoring promising entrepreneurs in locations here and around the world. I was an Adjunct Professor of Management at the University of British Columbia for four years.
I want to return to France to give back my experience, skills, and technical knowledge to the country of my heritage. France’s industrial economy is in the doldrums, but new policies are stimulating innovation, the key to economic growth and productivity, and technology industry leaders in France with strong technology industry backgrounds are looking to contribute to this new economy in France. I want to join them and give back.
I am now semi-retired, but very eager to return permanently to France to donate my technology industry experience and knowledge to assist French entrepreneurs to transform France into an innovation-based economy.
FundRazr Campaign Story:
We are David Mayes and Isabelle Roux-Mayes, a married couple, who are also French citizens. I am also a native Californian who has spent my career working for a number of Silicon Valley companies and investment firms, beginning with Intel Corporation. I am now semi-retired, but very eager to return permanently to France to donate my technology industry experience and knowledge to assist French entrepreneurs to transform France into an innovation-based economy. I am focusing specifically on building working relationships with three major new initiatives that could benefit from my background and achievements: The Camp in Aix-en-Provence, launched last year, Startup Garage, Paris, and 1kubator in Bourdeaux.
I am more than happy to share my achievements and references to validate my credentials and verify my ability to make a serious contribution. You can start here with my LinkedIn profile and references David Mayes on LinkedIn. You may also contact me here or on FundRazr where we can discuss my crowdfunding project.
Five years ago, I wrote a post on this blog disparaging the state of the Internet of Things/home automation market as a “Tower of Proprietary Babble.” Vendors of many different home and industrial product offerings were literally speaking different languages, making their products inoperable with other complementary products from other vendors. The market was being constrained by its immaturity and a failure to grasp the importance of open standards. A 2017 Verizon report concluded that “an absence of industry-wide standards…represented greater than 50% of executives concerns about IoT. Today I can report that finally, the solutions and technologies are beginning to come together, albeit still slowly.
The Evolution of These Technologies Is Clearer
The IoT Tower of Proprietary Babble Is Slowly Crumbling
The Rise of the Intelligent Assistant
Five years ago, I wrote a post on this blog disparaging the state of the Internet of Things/home automation market as a “Tower of Proprietary Babble.” Vendors of many different home and industrial product offerings were literally speaking different languages, making their products inoperable with other complementary products from other vendors. The market was being constrained by its immaturity and a failure to grasp the importance of open standards. A 2017 Verizon report concluded that “an absence of industry-wide standards…represented greater than 50% of executives concerns about IoT.” Today I can report that finally, the solutions and technologies are beginning to come together, albeit still slowly.
One of the most important factors influencing these positive developments has been the recognition of the importance of this technology area by major corporate players and a large number of entrepreneurial companies funded by venture investment, as shown in the infographic above. Amazon, for example, announced in October 2018 that it has shipped over 100 Million Echo devices, which effectively combine an intelligent assistant, smart hub, and a large-scale database of information. This does not take into account the dozens of other companies which have launched their own entries. I like to point to Philips Hue as such an example of corporate strategic focus perhaps changing the future corporate prospects of Philips, based in Eindhoven in the Netherlands. I have visited Philips HQ, a company trying to evolve from the incandescent lighting market. Two years ago my wife bought me a Philips Hue WiFi controlled smart lighting starter kit. My initial reaction was disbelief that it would succeed. I am eating crow on that point, as I now control my lighting using Amazon’s Alexa and the Philips Hue smart hub. The rise of the “intelligent assistant” seems to have been a catalyst for growth and convergence.
The situation with proprietary silos of offerings that do not work well or at all with other offerings is still frustrating, but slowly evolving. Amazon Firestick’s browser is its own awkward “Silk” or alternatively Firefox, but excluding Google’s Chrome for alleged competitive advantage. When I set up my Firestick, I had to ditch Chromecast because I only have so many HDMI ports. Alexa works with Spotify but only in one room as dictated by Spotify. Alexa can play music from Amazon Music or Sirius/XM on all Echo devices without the Spotify limitation. Which brings me to another point of aggravation: alleged Smart TV’s. Not only are they not truly “smart,” they are proprietary silos of their own, so “intelligent assistant” smart hubs do not work with “smart” TV’s. Samsung, for example, has its own competing intelligent assistant, Bixby, so of course, only Bixby can control a Samsung TV. I watched one of those YouTube DIY videos on how you could make your TV work with Alexa using third-party software and remotes. Trust me, you do not want to go there. But cracks are beginning to appear that may lead to a flood of openness. Samsung just announced at CES that beginning in 2019 its Smart TV’s will work with Amazon Echo and Google Home, and that a later software update will likely enable older Samsung TV’s to work with Echo and Home. However, Bixby will still control the remote. Other TV’s from manufacturers like Sony and LG have worked with intelligent assistants for some time.
The rise of an Internet of Everything Everywhere, the recognition of the need for greater data communication bandwidth, and battery-free wireless IoT sensors are heating up R&D labs everywhere. Keep in mind that I am focusing on the consumer side, and have not even mentioned the rising demands from industrial applications. Intel has estimated that autonomous vehicles will transmit up to 4 Terabytes of data daily. AR and VR applications will require similar throughput. Existing wireless data communication technologies, including 5G LTE, cannot address this need. In addition, an exploding need for IoT sensors not connected to an electrical power source will require more work in the area of “energy harvesting.” Energy harvesting began with passive RFID, and by using kinetic, pizeo, and thermoelectric energy and converting it into a battery-free electrical power source for sensors. EnOcean, an entrepreneurial spinoff of Siemens in Munich has pioneered this technology but it is not sufficient for future market requirements.
Fortunately, work has already begun on both higher throughput wireless data communication using mmWave spectrum, and energy harvesting using radio backscatter, reminiscent of Nikola Tesla’s dream of wireless electrical power distribution. The successful demonstration of these technologies holds the potential to open the door to new IEEE data communication standards that could potentially play a role in ending the Tower of Babble and accelerating the integration of AI, IoT, and Big Data. Bottom line is that the market and the technology landscape are improving.
My IEEE Talk from 2013 foreshadows the development of current emerging trends in advanced technology, as they appeared at the time. I proposed that in fact, they represent one huge integrated convergence trend that has morphed into something even bigger, and is already having a major impact on the way we live, work, and think. The 2012 Obama campaign’s sophisticated “Dashboard” application is referenced, integrating Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile was perhaps the most significant example at that time of the combined power of these trends blending into one big thing.
READ MORE: Blog Post on IoT from July 20, 2013
The term “Internet of Things” (IoT) is being loosely tossed around in the media. But what does it mean? It means simply that data communication, like Internet communication, but not necessarily Internet Protocol packets, is emerging for all manner of “things” in the home, in your car, everywhere: light switches, lighting devices, thermostats, door locks, window shades, kitchen appliances, washers & dryers, home audio and video equipment, even pet food dispensers. You get the idea. It has also been called home automation. All of this communication occurs autonomously, without human intervention. The communication can be between and among these devices, so-called machine to machine or M2M communication. The data communication can also terminate in a compute server where the information can be acted on automatically, or made available to the user to intervene remotely from their smart mobile phone or any other remote Internet-connected device.
Another key concept is the promise of automated energy efficiency, with the introduction of “smart meters” with data communication capability, and also achieved in large commercial structures via the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design program or LEED. Some may recall that when Bill Gates built his multi-million dollar mansion on Lake Washington in Seattle, he had “remote control” of his home built into it. Now, years later, Gates’ original home automation is obsolete. The dream of home automation has been around for years, with numerous Silicon Valley conferences, and failed startups over the years, and needless to say, home automation went nowhere. But it is this concept of effortless home automation that has been the Holy Grail.
But this is also where the glowing promise of The Internet of Things (IoT) begins to morph into a giant “hairball.” The term “hairball” was former Sun Microsystems CEO, Scott McNealy‘s favorite term to describe a complicated mess. In hindsight, the early euphoric days of home automation were plagued by the lack of “convergence.” I use this term to describe the inability of available technology to meet the market opportunity. Without convergence, there can be no market opportunity beyond early adopter techno geeks. Today, the convergence problem has finally been eliminated. Moore’s Law and advances in data communication have swept away the convergence problem. But for many years the home automation market was stalled.
Also, as more Internet-connected devices emerged it became apparent that these devices and apps were a hacker’s paradise. The concept of IoT was being implemented in very naive and immature ways and lacking common industry standards on basic issues: the kinds of things that the IETF and IEEE are famous for. These vulnerabilities are only now very slowly being resolved, but still in a fragmented ad hoc manner. The central problem has not been addressed due to classic proprietary “not invented here” mindsets.
The problem that is currently the center of this hairball, and from all indications is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. It is the problem of multiple data communication protocols, many of them effectively proprietary, creating a huge incompatible Tower of Babbling Things. There is no meaningful industry and market wide consensus on how The Internet of Things should communicate with the rest of the Internet. Until this happens, there can be no fulfillment of the promise of The Internet of Things. I recently posted “Co-opetition: Open Standards Always Win,” which discusses the need for open standards in order for a market to scale up.
A recent ZDNet post explains that home automation currently requires that devices need to be able to connect with “multiple local- and wide-area connectivity options (ZigBee, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GSM/GPRS, RFID/NFC, GPS, Ethernet). Along with the ability to connect many different kinds of sensors, this allows devices to be configured for a range of vertical markets.” Huh? This is the problem in a nutshell. You do not need to be a data communication engineer to get the point. And this is not even close to a full discussion of the problem. There are also IoT vendors who believe that consumers should pay them for the ability to connect to their proprietary Cloud. So imagine paying a fee for every protocol or sensor we employ in our homes. That’s a non-starter.
The above laundry list of data communication protocols, does not include the Zigbee “smart meter” communications standards war. The Zigbee protocol has been around for years, and claims to be an open industry standard, but many do not agree. Zigbee still does not really work, and a new competing smart meter protocol has just entered the picture. The Bluetooth IEEE 802.15 standard now may be overtaken by a much more powerful 802.15 3a. Some are asking if 4G LTE, NFC or WiFi may eliminate Bluetooth altogether. A very cool new technology, energy harvesting, has begun to take off in the home automation market. The energy harvesting sensors (no batteries) can capture just enough kinetic, peizo or thermoelectric energy to transmit short data communication “telegrams” to an energy harvesting router or server. The EnOcean Alliance has been formed around a small German company spun off from Siemens, and has attracted many leading companies in building automation. But EnOcean itself has recently published an article in Electronic Design News, announcing that they have a created “middleware” (quote) “…to incorporate battery-less devices into networks based on several different communication standards such as Wi-Fi, GSM, Ethernet/IP, BACnet, LON, KNX or DALI.” (unquote). It is apparent that this space remains very confused, crowded and uncertain. A new Cambridge UK startup, Neul is proposing yet another new IoT approach using the radio spectrum known as “white space,” becoming available with the transition from analog to digital television. With this much contention on protocols, there will be nothing but market paralysis.
Is everyone following all of these acronyms and data comm protocols? There will be a short quiz at the end of this post. (smile)
The advent of IP version 6, strongly supported by Intel and Cisco Systems has created another area of confusion. The problem with IPv6 in the world of The IoT is “too much information” as we say. Cisco and Intel want to see IPv6 as the one global protocol for every Internet connected device. This is utterly incompatible with energy harvesting, as the tiny amount of harvested energy cannot transmit the very long IPv6 packets. Hence, EnOcean’s middleware, without which their market is essentially constrained.
The Brave New World of Internet privacy issues relating to this tidal wave of Big Data are not even considered here, and deserve a separate post on the subject. A recent NBC Technology post has explored many of these issues, while some have suggested we simply need to get over it. We have no privacy.
Stakeholders in The Internet of Things seem not to have learned the repeated lesson of open standards and co-opetition, and are concentrating on proprietary advantage which ensures that this market will not effectively scale anytime in the foreseeable future. Intertwined with the Tower of Babbling Things are the problems of Internet privacy and consumer concerns about wireless communication health & safety issues. Taken together, this market is not ready for prime time.
mayo615 