How to Fix the Edge

All that is good as far as it goes, which is toward what companies will do. But what about the human beings who own and use this self-educating and self-actualizing machinery? Experts on that machinery will have new work, sure. And all of us will to some degree become experts on our own, just as most of us are already experts with our laptops and mobile devices. But the IoT domain knowledge we already have is confined to silos. Worse, silo-ization of smart things is accepted as the status quo.

Take for example "Google Home vs. Amazon Echo—a Face-Off of Smart Speakers" by Brian X. Chen in The New York Times. Both Google Home and Amazon Echo are competitors in the "virtual assistant" space that also includes Apple's Siri and Microsoft's Cortana. All are powered by artificial intelligence and brained in the server farms of the companies that sell them. None are compatible with each other, meaning substitutable. And all are examples of what Phil Windley called The Compuserve of Things in a blog post by that title exactly three years ago. His summary:

On the Net today we face a choice between freedom and captivity, independence and dependence. How we build the Internet of Things has far-reaching consequences for the humans who will use—or be used by—it. Will we push forward, connecting things using forests of silos that are reminiscent of the online services of the 1980s, or will we learn the lessons of the internet and build a true Internet of Things?

If progress continues on its current course, the distributed future Peter Levine projects will be built on the forest-of-silos Compuserve-of-things model we already have. Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft are all silo-building Compuserves that have clearly not learned the first lesson of the internet—that it was designed to work for everybody and everything, and not just so controlling giants can fence off territories where supply chains and customers can be held captive. For all their expertise in using the internet, these companies are blindered to the negative externalities of operating exclusively in their self interest, oblivious to how the internet is a tide that lifts all their economic and technological boats. In that respect, they are like coal and oil companies: expert at geology, extraction and bringing goods to market, while paying the least respect to the absolute finitude of the goods they extract from the Earth and to the harms that burning those goods cause in the world.

But none of that will matter, because the true Internet of Things is the only choice we have. If all the decisions that matter most, in real time (or close enough), need to be made at the edge, and people there need to be able to use those things expertly and casually, just like today's fighter pilots, they'll need to work for us and not just their makers. They'll be like today's cars, toasters, refrigerators and other appliances in two fundamental ways: they'll work in roughly the same ways for everybody, so the learning curve isn't steep; and they'll be substitutable. If the Apple one fails, you can get a Google one and move on.

For an example, consider rental cars. They're all a bit different, but you know how to drive all of them. Sure, there are glitches. Every Toyota I rent plays Edith Piaf (from somewhere in my music collection) as soon as I plug in my phone to the car's USB jack. Other car brands have their own dashboard quirks. (Last month, my visiting sister rented a Chrysler 200, which had the stupidest and least useful climate control system I've ever seen, but it was easy for both of us to drive.)

Also, as the ever-more distributed world gets saturated by smart things on Peter Levine's model, we will have more need to solve existing problems that get worse every day in present time. Some examples:

  • Too many login and password combinations, plus the fact that we still need logins and passwords at all. Geez, it's 2017. We can do better than that.
  • Too many ways to message each other. Last I counted, Apple's App Store had something like 170 different messaging apps, and Google Play had more than a hundred. The only standard we ever had for bridging them all was XMPP, originally called Jabber, which I advocated mightily in Linux Journal, back around the turn of the millennium. (See "The Message", "Talking Jabber" and "Jabber Asks the Tough Question" at For whatever reason, XMPP stalled. (Never mind why. Make another standard protocol everyone can adopt.)
  • Too many contacts and too few ways of connecting them to login/password management, to-do lists, calendars or other ways of keeping records.
  • Calendar and contact apps silo'd into the bowels of Apple, Microsoft, Google and others, with too few compatibilities.

To solve all these problems, you need to start with the individual: the individual device, the individual file, the individual human being.

If you start with central authority and central systems, you make people and things subordinate dependents, and see problems only silos can solve. All your things and people will be captive, by design. No way around it.

Why do I pose this challenge here? Two reasons: 1) because Linux answered the same challenge in the first place, and it can again; and 2) because Linux geeks have the best chance of both grokking the challenge and doing something about it.

______________________

Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal