Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peter Hoddie Talks About His Internet of Things Construction Kit (Video)

Roblimo posted about 2 months ago | from the everything-you-own-must-now-connect-to-the-internet dept.

Programming 53

You remember Peter Hoddie, right? He was one of the original QuickTime developers at Apple. He left in 2002 to help found a startup called Kinoma, which started life developing multimedia players and browsers for mobile devices. Kinoma was acquired in 2011 by Marvell Semiconductor, whose management kept it as a separate entity.

The latest creation from Peter and his crew is the 'Kinoma Create,' AKA the 'JavaScript-Powered Internet of Things Construction Kit.' With it, they say, you can 'quickly and easily create personal projects, consumer electronics, and Internet of Things prototypes.' EE Times mentioned it in March, and they're not the only ones to notice this product. Quite a few developers and companies are jumping on the 'Internet of Things' bandwagon, so there may be a decent -- and growing -- market for something like this. (Alternate Video Link)

cancel ×

53 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

He left in 1002? (2, Funny)

abelenky17 (548645) | about 2 months ago | (#47577249)

Like... before the Battle of Hastings??

Re:He left in 1002? (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 months ago | (#47577253)

That man is OLD.

Re:He left in 1002? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577329)

You ever seen Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade? That's him!

Re:He left in 1002? (2)

neminem (561346) | about 2 months ago | (#47577387)

Peter Hoddie is a time lord [tvtropes.org] !

Re:He left in 1002? (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#47577525)

Back then Apple sold actual apples and Quicktime was a primitive clock.

Re:He left in 1002? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47577603)

Actually, Quicktime was used at the Battle of Hastings; it's why the Harrold's defenders were broken -- the Normans ordered a Quicktime retreat, and after the English broke formation, the Normans regrouped and overwhelmed them.

1002? (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | about 2 months ago | (#47577251)

I know Quicktime is a little long in the tooth, but I didn't know it was THAT old.

Re:1002? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577337)

But it's not half as long as my cock that I stuck up your dad's pooper last night.

Re:1002? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577397)

But if it was just last night, that's actually much shorter. Half a day is significantly shorter than over a millennium.

1002? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577255)

1002? wow, that was a while ago

1002? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577257)

Left in 1002?

I prefer the MASH IoT platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577263)

Of course I did develop it...no bias of course!

https://www.youtube.com/user/MASHPlatform/featured

Shitvertisement (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47577295)

No thanks. The "Internet of Things" isn't happening, your shitty video isn't getting played, and some shitty product isn't getting my attention.
And for future reference, all thigns on the internet are things - the internet is already an internet of things.

In fact, everything is a thing, and no thing is nothing. So please go Fuck Yourselves as a Service on the Cloud you rode in on, you worthless marketing fucks.

Shitvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577355)

Wow... Well devices are in fact going to become internet enabled, your fridge, your watch, your car, etc. That is the internet of things. It is happening. Also a nifty product.

Re:Shitvertisement (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#47577469)

You list devices which have no need to interact with the internet, and also one which is obsolete jewelry for most (watch). "Internet of Things" appeals to shitheads with more money than common sense, internet enabling every glass, lamp and toaster is a goal people with sense do not seek.

Re:Shitvertisement (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47577557)

You idiots also said that about TV's, music devices, homes etc...
I'm sorry you can't realize things continue beyond when you were a teen.

Re:Shitvertisement (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#47577941)

Wrong, did not say such things about such useful devices. The internet, like television content, now is mostly driven by pandering to the stupidity of the masses with occasional exceptions

Smart TV really were a bad idea, in hindsight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47578031)

With TVs it turned out to be useless, though. At first it seemed cool (whoa, my TV is playing files right off the server!), then you realized the TV's software was fucking ancient, pathetic, broken, etc compared to what was running on the machine on the other end of the HDMI cable. (It plays this file, but not this one.) So we had dumb TVs, then smart TVs, and then went back to using smart TVs like dumb TVs. TV is an excellent example of how most of these ideas are stupid, and don't make things work any better.

Most. I'm not saying everything should lack connectivity, but TVs showed that big manufacturers are definitely sometimes putting networking into things where it doesn't make sense.

Re:Shitvertisement (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 months ago | (#47578197)

You idiots also said that about TV's, music devices, homes etc...

No, they didn't.

But I'll say it right now: My house does not need to be on the Internet. My shoes do not need to be on the Internet.

Not this Internet, at least. Because every one of those connected "things" is going to require connecting to a web page to manage, and that web page is going to require you to create a profile, that is connected to your personal information. The Internet of Things is not designed for your benefit. Right now, in 2014, do you really need to be told that? Have you not noticed anything happening around you?

For a group of people who are supposed to be tech-savvy, a lot of techies really don't seem to get what the Internet is about. There is some fantasy from the 1980's that still seems to hang on in the minds of people. Maybe a fairy tale that is told from generation to generation. But it has nothing to do with the truth. That Internet we dreamed about decades ago never happened.

Re:Shitvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47578823)

Your anger and language kills your credibility. You sound like an angry teenage outsider. Get yourself together. Get some counseling. You need it.

Bullshit! (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47578985)

TV, Phones, and Radio are not inherently bad. People originally saw broadcast media as a way of sharing knowledge. A voice with further range.

That said, just like speaking it also has the potential to be misused and harm the public. I'll argue that it has been used for exactly that purpose for decades as well, with the last couple of decades reaching an absurd level of hypnotizing the public and keeping them away from reality.

As we see with other forms of broadcast, the "Internet" has also been abused for the same purposes. You only need to look into why Wikimedia started blocking congressional IPs from anonymous edits to know that it's not just "conspiracy wackos" trying to mislead people. It should also be obvious that this media format has been used for more nefarious purposes than simply misleading or providing false information. Once again, you can point to government agencies as the largest culprits.

Given what we know about people abusing media and technology, why the hell would you want your toaster and fridge connected to the internet? In nearly every case, the risk drastically outweighs any potential benefit of having the device internet accessible in my opinion. Not only do you have to worry about an insurance company looking at your fridge and increasing your rates because you have too many high carb foods (which is on track to be 100% government controlled), but you also have to worry about a hacker turning up the temperature so your food spoils. Even better, automatically ordering food for you when that gets plugged in (already being touted as why you should have a fridge on the internet), because you can probably afford $68,000.00 worth of steak right?

Nobody cares what you do, but at least stop bullshitting people and using fallacy to make yourself look better than someone who has weighed the risks and does not want this type of technology invading their home.

Currently there is nothing from stopping you from rigging up your house and appliances in numerous fashions to have all your "stuff" shared on the internet. Do it up, just don't bitch when your "stuff" gets destroyed or stolen. More importantly, stop trying to imply it's a great idea and everyone should do it.

Re:Shitvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47579701)

It is going to be pushed onto us by electricity companies, cable companies, ISPs etc.
And not for our benefit.

Some (European) countries already mandate electricity meters that report your power consumption to the govt, so they can knock on your door with advice on how to live more "environmentally friendly". Coming soon to your area too!

Re:Shitvertisement (1)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a month ago | (#47581109)

Woah now, lets not get carried away. The Internet of Things is still a very cool concept, it's just gone a bit off the rails.

For an object to be on the internet, it doesn't need an internet connection.

Example: I'm looking at a pen right now. I'd love to be able to dive into this pen and see it's specifications, who made it, maybe even the history of pens of this design. But I don't need the pen to connect to the internet for that, I just need either an RFID(or similar) tag or a slick recognition algorithim. Then I can just point my phone or wearable or whatever at the pen and get all the information that I want.

So yes, lets put the connected toasters back in the closet, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Re:Shitvertisement (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47582393)

I can look up pen on the net and get its specs, slapping an rfid tag on it just makes process more convenient

really, this "internet of things" is 95% marketing BS, just like "the cloud" and "web 2.0"

Re:Shitvertisement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577543)

Nifty in what way? You just sound like some marketing shill.

Re:Shitvertisement (1, Flamebait)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 months ago | (#47577561)

The only people who find it "nifty" are marketing drones and the huge number of people who can't wait to compromise these devices that are guaranteed to have shit security.

Re:Shitvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577369)

Tell me how you really feel.

Re:Shitvertisement (1)

unimacs (597299) | about 2 months ago | (#47577731)

Forget the "Internet of Things" buzzwords for the moment and watch the video. In my line of work being able to interact with remote sensors is a huge time saver. There are proprietary devices which allow that already but they have their limitations. The biggest problem with home made solutions like using a Raspberry Pi and a Cell Modem (which this doesn't seem to solve), is powering them for an extended period on a battery.

Re:Shitvertisement (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 months ago | (#47577987)

I don't understand why this has been modded as a troll. He took the words right out of my mouth.

My "things" don't need to be on the internet. I like the Internet being in a neat compartment where I can go when I want it. I don't want it following me around.

Seriously, what the fuck is so attractive, I mean, given that the Internet has become pretty much a combination of a low-rent shopping mall and the equivalent of having your boss, your government and your phone company looking up your ass every minute of the day, about an internet of things? Have people really gotten that bored with life? Can you really not live one single minute without the illusion that your measly existence matters one bit to the universe?

Can anyone be so dense as to not be able to see what this "internet of things" is really all about? And here's a hint: It's not about making your life better. For fuck's sake.

Either.. (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47579361)

Either a sock puppet account trying to make sure people are getting messages about how "cool" the concept is. Or. Someone nerd raging and believing everything technology is cool. Or Finally. The person chose an offensive vocabulary to express their thoughts.

I'll lean toward the last thing, mixed with the middle.

I will state that the rating of "Troll" is wrong also, and it agrees with my thoughts (though I'd have expressed them differently). If "Fuck the CIA" can get modded insightful (in a thread yesterday), so can this.

Things... (2)

Agares (1890982) | about 2 months ago | (#47577357)

Does anyone else loathe the "Internet of Things" buzz word?

Re:Things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577437)

I do. I always thought that Simple Cool Attached Things would be a better name.

Re:Things... (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47577575)

It's not a buzzword, it has a specific definition.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's a buzzword.

Re:Things... (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about 2 months ago | (#47577651)

Being a buzzword and having a specific definition are not mutually exclusive. "Paradigm shift" has a specific definition, but is one of the best known examples among buzzwords due to it's overuse, misuse, and the tendency to use it to sound trendy and intelligent.

Re:Things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577691)

And that specific definition is what? Please don't forget to specify in your definition exactly how this is anything but just the plain, old Internet. And please prove that everyone is using that same definition that you provide.

You work for one of these "Internet of Thing" companies don't you? Is that the source of your butthurt?

Re:Things... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 months ago | (#47577751)

It's not a buzzword, it has a specific definition.

Excellent non sequitur. Buzzword means a trendy term or popular jargon. It in no way explicitly or implicitly means a lack of a definition.

Re:Things... (1)

Agares (1890982) | about a month ago | (#47580989)

I understand what it means perfectly well. I just don't like it when companies throw a new name on something to try and make it sound new when it is in fact not.

Re:Things... (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | about 2 months ago | (#47577581)

I sort of ignore it. Even IBM is jumping in with their Node-RED [nodered.org] . Maybe I'll toss it on my Raspberry Pi and see what happens.

Re:Things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577935)

Be happy its not worse, like The Internets of Doohickeys, or Teh 1D6 Internets of Synergistic Machines.

What credentials? (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | about 2 months ago | (#47577485)

He was one of the original QuickTime developers

I stopped reading or caring about anything he had to say or had done after that line. I can't be the only person with a deep loathing of quicktime?

Re:What credentials? (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47577583)

What have you done? what great HR thing have you built?
QT was cutting edge when it came out.

Re:What credentials? (1)

unimacs (597299) | about 2 months ago | (#47577601)

QuickTime was pretty impressive when first introduced (if you had a powerful enough Mac). If he was one of the original developers, he's definitely got some talent.

Re:What credentials? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 months ago | (#47578829)

Actually, it wasn't bad if you had a less powerful Mac. I remember watching videos on my black and white Mac Plus--dithered appropriately to create faux greyscale at 320x240 (since the screen was 512x384, it took up better than half the screen!).

Re:What credentials? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47577665)

QuickTime was actually an excellent multimedia container platform that integrated what Apple had learned from HyperCard with a multimedia delivery stack. It was technologically way more advanced than Shockwave and the other competitors of the time.

Unfortunately, the bastard child that was delivered to most Windows web browsers was actually Sorenson codec video in a QuickTime wrapper, pushed through a QuickTime Plugin. This plugin is what everyone has a deep loathing for -- to make QuickTime work on Windows, Apple had to port a major portion of the Mac OS API, as QuickTime integrated deeply into the system calls of the OS. So what Apple did was created a stripped-down Mac OS that ran inside a plugin for your browser. So every time you loaded a page that required the QuickTime plugin, your web browser booted Mac OS, which then loaded the QuickTime component handlers, which then grabbed the container and loaded the data stream. This was run through the codec handler, which then passed the result back to the OS, which used the QuickDraw renderer to blit the result to a virtual screen and audio device. THEN, the virtual screen was passed back to the plugin handler code and from there to DirectX, as was the audio.

So you ended up with a combination of the worst aspects of Windows, the worst aspects of browser plugin architecture, and the worst aspects of the Mac OS (inclduing bad memory management and cooperative multitasking) all being experienced in one place. No single point of failure here; it had so many potential points of failure that you generally hit at least one with each loaded instance of the plugin.

Thanks for another unplayable video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47577565)

yet another unplayable video. I always click the "Alternate video" link in the summary in vague hope, but it is always the same video!

html5, html5, html5 please!

Re:Thanks for another unplayable video (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47577703)

Considering the guy moved from QuickTime to Kinoma Player to JavaScript-enabled Internet Thing authoring, you'd think we could at least expect the video in some JS-powered format available to all. Instead we get... Flash? Really?

Re: Thanks for another unplayable video (1)

Roblimo (357) | about 2 months ago | (#47578657)

A lot of Slashdot back end code is being rewritten, and HTML5 is supposed to be part of the deal. All the people who actually work on the site and read your comments agree that Flash video is [insert bad word here].

Remember who? (2)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47577591)

You remember Peter Hoddie, right? He was one of the original QuickTime developers at Apple.

No. Never heard of him.

Re:Remember who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47578315)

Right. We only remember the QuickTime developers with the general moniker: those fuckers...

Re:Remember who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47579813)

You remember me, right? I'm your grandson! Now give me money!

Re:Remember who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47583711)

What's Quicktime?

(mostly joking...)

Would have already happened (1)

Horshu (2754893) | about 2 months ago | (#47578957)

If Bill Budge had gotten around to finishing Construction Set Construction Set. Oh, well.

sounds like a great product (1)

bigmo (181402) | about a month ago | (#47580951)

If you want to quickly try something out this sounds like a great device. I often have ideas I want to try, but when I sit down & look at all the steps I have to go through to just to see if it's a good idea or not, I almost always put it back on the "when I have time shelf". It would also be an easy way for kids to be able to make something that works within their limited attention span. I plan to get one when they come out.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?