Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 8 Jul 2014.
Goes head-to-head with Qualcomm.
I am probably going to sound stupid by saying this
But isn't the communication standard TCP/IP, or is what they propose aimed at a lower level (hardware).
Yes. Also, no. There are two levels to think about here. One is at the application layer: how do we make sure that my Samsung IoT lightbulb is talking the same language as my Google IoT thermostat, and that I can control both with my Microsoft IoT smartphone app? Answer: a universal application-layer communications standard. The other is at the physical layer: sticking a full-fat 802.11ac gigabit-class wireless link into said lightbulb or doorbell is a waste, and in the case of a battery-operated IoT device probably near-impossible. Answer: new low-power interconnections designed specifically for the IoT and its tiny, low-power, not-transferring-gigabytes-of-data devices.
Separate names with a comma.