Main Site Documentation

Quark SoC size of SD


#1

From CES


#2

Very interesting!


#3

I think the electric imp just got a serious competitor in my toolbox!

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/edison.html


#4

I think I hear the Imp going out of business… It can’t come close to competing with this unless you think their cloud service makes it worthwhile. It seems that part is most people’s complaint.


#5

I’m very excited to see that the big boys are finally getting involved in IoT devices. Hopefully, this means 2014 will finally be the year WiFi gets cheap and it starts happening.


#6

Intel and cheap? Not likely :slight_smile: Smart and cool — yes, but not cheap.


#7

Their cloud part is a strength and a weakness.

Anyway, do you have quote on the going out of business part?


#8

I love the idea of the Electric Imp. I bought one and always planned to take it for a spin. But my biggest problem is the dependency on cloud services for everything. Don’t get me wrong, the cloud is great, but I am not comfortable with devices that depend on the cloud because if anything happens to the company, my device becomes a brick. Or if the company ends support or starts charging fees. I cannot stand devices that depend on the cloud and I think a few high profile failures will be very bad for IoT. The Imp is highly coupled to the cloud and it’s failure would be exactly what I was afraid of.


#9

@ Valkyrie-MT - I have to agree.
I am very wary of cloud services that don’t have an opt-out or private cloud option, and by private cloud, I mean my machine, my secured space, my network.


#10

Btw, if you really interested in trying this, the Intel Galileo board should be very similar, and also run a Linux with Wolfram distribution which is provided on a bootable microSD card. And the the Galileo board is probably MUCH easier to connect to… :wink:


#11

[quote=“Gregg”]I mean my machine, my secured space, my network.
[/quote]
so “things”, not an IoT :slight_smile:

I get the sentiment though - while I don’t ignore security (I spend at least some time every day talking about it to my customers) on my internet connected Fez Menagerie, I do take it with some level of risk acceptance, the “value” of data or getting onto a Fez in my place is pretty pretty PRETTY low :slight_smile:


#12

@ Brett - I suppose not IoT in these cases, but pIoT (personal IoT). I suppose I was too strict. Take a device and upload to a private cloud, whether that be private network or virtual private network.

To me, the best security means having the highest “cost of theft” to “value of stolen stuff” as possible. Even though the best security may be unattainable, my goal is still to raise that ratio. We normally do so by making it harder to steal whatever, but lowering the value of the stuff to be stolen also works. But I digress off topic.


#13

Personally, I’d rather any of my “things” that participate in an “Internet” do so within the confines of my own network.

Talking to the “cloud” where “cloud” is defined as some external service is not something I’d consider a “feature”. There’s too many things that can go wrong, there, like services packing up shop, changing APIs, changing payment models (i.e. going to a for-pay model), etc.

I can easily make my information available to the outside world, if I so choose.

“But,” you say, “what if your internet connection goes down?” In that case, your “things” aren’t talking to the “cloud” anyway, but if you’re storing the data inside your own network, at least you still have the data…

My personal opinion.


#14

Sorry, that was a “virtual” sound. Not something that’s actually happening right now that I know of.

@ godefroi - I agree about keeping things local. Although, having the cloud option is nice option for some scenarios. As long as its not required, I’ll take a look. Make it required and I won’t even bother testing it…