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!

Gartner: Internet of Things Has Reached Hype Peak

samzenpus posted about a month ago | from the aligning-our-out-of-the-box-synergy-to-better-monetize-the-low-hanging-fruit dept.

Technology 98

Brandon Butler writes In the annual battle of the buzzwords, the Internet of Things has won. Each year the research firm Gartner puts out a Hype Cycle of emerging technologies, a sort of report card for various trends and buzzwords. This year, IoT tops the list. On another note, somewhat surprising is that Gartner says the "cloud computing" is not just hype anymore, but becoming a mainstream technology.

cancel ×

98 comments

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

Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (5, Funny)

Cozminsky (452030) | about a month ago | (#47668989)

The internet of things sounds so stupid. In the spirit of stupid marketing phrases that mean nothing like "the cloud" wouldn't it be cooler to call it "the swarm"?

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

Lord Maud'Dib (611577) | about a month ago | (#47669017)

How about the Flood (of internet connected devices)?

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a month ago | (#47669185)

The Many sings to us... ...even technically true with SmartTVs.

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (2)

pslytely psycho (1699190) | about a month ago | (#47669271)

Beautiful. It sounds like how the Elves would describe broadband coming to Rivendell!

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month ago | (#47671887)

Glory to the flesh, glory to the mass...

I can't help but think The Many are into fat chicks...

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

TwistedPants (847858) | about a month ago | (#47669027)

1) http://www.rfidjournal.com/art... [rfidjournal.com] 2) It literally is exactly what it is: *Things*. On the Internet. Mechanical things. Sensors. Fridges. Not internet only concepts like web pages on the web.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669131)

Servers, routers etc. are things as well. Things have been on the Internet since before it wasn't even called the Internet. It's a silly buzzword but I'll survive... maybe.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669161)

My shoes are things. So is my belt, and my wallet. The canvas that makes up my wallet? That's a thing, too.

The tyres on my cars?

Things.

The spider I just found on the wall in my bathroom? That's a thing.

Toothbrushes are things. Shoelaces, glasses, batteries, guitar picks, and highlighters. Those are all things, too.

The buckle on my watch strap, the standard sized potentiometers, and that male 3.5mm stereo headphone jack to male 3.5mm stereo headphone jack, those are all things, too.

Governments? Those are a thing.

It could as easily (and more accurately) be called "Internet of Appliances" or "Internet of a Marketer's Wet Dream." Hell, "Internet of the NSA's greatest opportunity yet."

So don't go getting all preachy and so anal you could make a diamond with every butt clench, because you just make a dick of yourself.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669349)

Which is why we need IP6. I pray every night to Tim Berners-Lee for the ability to ping your shoe laces, but your smell old IP4 router and the fact you fight the IoT means I can not. :(

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a month ago | (#47669957)

You need to be careful with what you do with "things" . . . I have a patent titled:

"A Method and Process for Doing Stuff with Things"

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670059)

yeah well my patent is...

"A method and process for doing stuff with Things on the internet"

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670369)

Mine is "A method and process for doing stuff with Things on the internet, on a mobile device".

Your move.

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670803)

...with rounded corners and a single click.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a month ago | (#47669085)

I don't mind "internet of things" so much; it's devices using the internet without human interaction. I think the hype maxed out on that back when we were all expecting internet-connected fridges. Nowadays we actually have a few of those and are a bit more sane about what they can and cannot do.

As for "cloud"; it's just an empty marketing phrase. It cannot have a regular hypecycle, because at the end of every hypecycle is a phase of normal, sane use of the technology. There simply isn't any technology to use (other than plain internet).

I'd combine them and call it the "cloud of things" for ultimate buzzwordiness; it can mean anything.

why buzzwords are bad (3, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about a month ago | (#47669149)

"internet of things" is a redundant concept...same as "the cloud"

it's all just "the internet"

the fact that you hook up your bike tire to a sensor so you get an email when your air is low isn't a new "thing" that should be given a "name"

it's just a further application of an existing technology...

big brother and his capitalist cousin want "the internet of things" to control our behavior..."the cloud" is a way to get you to put all your data with one "carrier" be it google, apple, or another...they want to have as much of your behavior on their system as possible

so there's a component of dishonesty..."the cloud" and "the internet of things" were phrases chosen to obscure and confuse meaning not communicate it

Re:why buzzwords are bad (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a month ago | (#47669205)

An email? That's far too practical to be cool. This is the buzz age now. It'd have to tweet the message, or at least post it on facebook.

Re:why buzzwords are bad (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about a month ago | (#47671131)

lol totally showed my age there

Re:why buzzwords are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47682795)

That's so 5 years ago, now its about the the SizzleBeeps... totally blowing Burn Note and Sup out the water...

Re:why buzzwords are bad (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669871)

"internet of things" is a redundant concept...same as "the cloud"

it's all just "the internet"

Just because you don't like the name, doesn't mean it's not useful. Or just because it's not useful to you, doesn't mean that it's not useful for others.
Concepts like the "internet of things" and the "cloud" may be somewhat vague and therefore sometimes misused, but they still have enough meaning in them that they can be useful in speech.

For example, "cloud storage", or "cloud server" are terms which are quite useful for me and most people here.
Sure, you could replace them by "internet-accessible storage", or "distributed virtual servers in internet-accessible shared hardware" but why would you do that when there are perfectly good accepted terms to describe those?

it's just a further application of an existing technology...

That's irrelevant. You can argue that a smartphone is just a standard mobile phone + PDA functionality, and you'd be right. Doesn't mean the word "smartphone" is useless though, does it?

big brother and his capitalist cousin want "the internet of things" to control our behavior

Oh shit, you're one of those!

so there's a component of dishonesty..."the cloud" and "the internet of things" were phrases chosen to obscure and confuse meaning not communicate it

There's no dishonesty. The "internet of things" term was born in academia and is meant to represent the notion of connecting devices which traditionally aren't, e.g. light switches, water taps or even more complex devices like washing machines.
Yeah it's a stupid term, but that's what you get when you have computer science PhDs naming stuff. If the concept were named nowadays, it'd probably be called "smart devices" or something similar.

Re:why buzzwords are bad (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a month ago | (#47670549)

Just because you don't like the name, doesn't mean it's not useful.

GP did not claim it was "not useful", he claimed it was dishonest. And it is dishonest.

"Cloud" implies a soft puffy safe thing where raindrops fall. It's precursor, "Grid", was a more accurate description, but it didn't have that soft puffy tone.

Looking at the amount of compromises of "Cloud" services anyone looking impartially should realize that it's not soft and puffy. Considering that some mega company now holds all of your applications and data, you can be at best observed and at worst ripped off by those mega companies.

Oh I know. Those companies told you that that would not happen and your data is perfectly safe, and you believe them. Ignore what whistle blowers have shown you, those companies can't lie.

Oh shit, you're one of those!

That statement only implies that you are either delusional or a shill posting anonymously. You don't bother trying to dispute the leaks that demonstrate companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft work directly with 3 letter Government agencies and law enforcement. They are prying into your private data, blocking content they don't like, and selectively handing your data over to those same people.

There's no dishonesty. The "internet of things" term was born in academia and is meant to represent the notion of connecting devices which traditionally aren't, e.g. light switches, water taps or even more complex devices like washing machines.

Wrong on the first part, and the rest is a big ole Straw Man. The "Internet" was funded largely by the Government (DARPA) and designed/built largely by Universities. That has nothing to do with who is using the "Internet" and what their potential motives are. You may as well try and falsely claim that since the Internet was born in Academia and Government there is no possible way that people use it maliciously. You would of course have to ignore about half of the actual use of the Internet including how the US Government has used the technology.

Yeah it's a stupid term, but that's what you get when you have computer science PhDs naming stuff.

A computer sciences PHD did not name the internet of things, any more than a person of the same qualifications named the "Internet". Usually those "names" come from sociologists/psychologists that try to mold society. But of course anyone that studies people like Edward Bernays and those that followed in his footsteps must also be "one of those" right?

Re:why buzzwords are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670635)

"For example, "cloud storage", or "cloud server" are terms which are quite useful for me and most people here."

No, that is you assuming other people are as stupid as you are. The cloud to most of us here is a server grid and nothing more. If you are so uneducated about IT maybe buzzwords "help" you, but for the rest of us they get in the way of getting the damn job done because people like you assume they know what's going on because they have heard the damn buzzword.

Re:why buzzwords are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47674815)

You're attributing malice, where in fact there is only the quest for profit.

It's not about controlling our behaviour, it's all - all - about improving profits. "Control of behaviour", in so far as it happens, is a by-product.

Like smart electricity meters. Power companies get more powerful tools and options to incentivise off-peak consumption, and even control peak consumption directly in some cases. That's control of behaviour, but that's not why the companies are doing it - they're doing it because it improves their bottom line. (Also, incidentally, it's good for society/the environment: reduced investment in expensive, polluting power plant. Whether you accept that as a valid plus is up to you.)

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a month ago | (#47669191)

The smart fridge is a product we could totally do and make useful if it wasn't stupid. A grid of load cells under all the storage racks, look down cameras, laser barcode scanner. Face and height recognition to identify users.

You could build a fridge which automatically tracked contents, calorie removal, maybe some electronic noses keyed to food spoilage emissions? UV lamps to self-sterilize when closed....its a space where a lot could be accomplished.

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

kencurry (471519) | about a month ago | (#47670755)

Then you would have a 12,000 dollar fridge (I'm assuming this is commercially done, not a DIY), which would require service updates. Some people would buy that, but large majority would stick with the current "pretty nice" fridge for 2000 or less, and spend the money elsewhere.

If you are speaking of a DIY project, that's a different analysis, and could be fun. Good luck if that is what you meant.

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670793)

You know they already have that. Its an amazing machine that is capable of so so so much. Yet we limit every day. you know what it is? Ill give you a hint, it sits right between your ears, behind your eyes and nose... Think you got it now. yeah it is the Human Brain!

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

aix tom (902140) | about a month ago | (#47674077)

Dunno about you. But mine must have skipped a bug fix or something. Because ever so often I go into the kitchen at night, open the fridge, look into it, wonder "what the hell am I doing here? I'm neither hungry nor thirsty at the moment, why did I have the urge to look into the fridge? Is it the old hunter-gatherer gene that prompts me to look at my food source location, to see if any interesting prey has shone up? This is madness!!!!", then I close it again and go back to bed.

if my mother-in-law had a smart fridge... (1)

Dareth (47614) | about a month ago | (#47671107)

If my mother-in-law had a smart fridge...it would look at the expiration date on some of the containers and call for the paramedics instead of ordering replacement food.

Re:if my mother-in-law had a smart fridge... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a month ago | (#47672533)

Are you my sister-in-law?

I've been trying for decades to get my mother to understand the difference between a kitchen freezer, and a cryostasis chamber...

Re: Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

rainmaestro (996549) | about a month ago | (#47671603)

Wouldn't the simpler option be to educate people to not buy so much crap that they can't consume it in time? I'm always amazed to look in people's fridges and see how much stuff is just sitting there that hasn't been opened in a year. Making the fridge smarter is just masking the real issue.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669589)

The Internet of your Crap.

Some people don't register their devices so they don't have the intimate relationship with the manufacturing company that provides weekly reminders via email of other crap that they sell. So what if the crap that you already bought talked to you? "Your Samsung Fridge needs milk". "Your LG TV wants you to sign up for Comcast, and we have a deal!".

From studies with smartphones and notifications, marketing people have found that this brings in more revenue and makes consumers more likely to spend time with that device/app.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669127)

You say so. I always thought Internet of Things is perfectly apt. Also, I feel like the idea behind "the cloud" is that the resources are nebulous...it's an analogy, not because it "sounds cool"....

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669339)

You should feel more like the 70s called and wanted their billable system resource idea back.

(Which is exactly how Bill Gates' got his father to write a nice big cheque to the university, so they wouldn't prosecute him and put him in jail. Worked hard to get where he is my ass - he had every advantage, and literally got away with a crime because his father was rich.)

comparing hypes (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about a month ago | (#47669139)

Why did they pick such a bad buzzword?

it's about whether you think "buzzword" is a good or bad thing

see, i'm with you completely on this:

The internet of things sounds so stupid. In the spirit of stupid marketing phrases that mean nothing like "the cloud"

TFA comes from a different angle...and more importantly the Gartner report it references, take a critical approach, but not the same one as you and I

the Gartner report examines the words on a function of **expectations**

we are judging it on accuracy & functionality

the problem is, the Gartner people are limiting their analysis to a factor that is not consistent..."expectations" are too variable to use as an experimental variable

it's all soft science, but Gartner is analyzing hype with more hype which made for the confusion...interesting though

Re:comparing hypes (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about a month ago | (#47671535)

Interesting indeed! It's almost like a puff piece for them, with an underlying message:

See how well Gartner pushed the "Internet of Things" meme! We took it from nothing to peak hype in only three years! Very efficient for your PR dollar, isn't it? You want to know the "new thing", don't you? Heck! You want to invent the "new thing"! In fact, you have a new thing you're inventing right now, don't you? Well, if we write enough reports for you, your category of new thing will be in the buzz and hype forefront! You'll have investors crawling down your shorts looking for jewels! And they're so inexpensive! Remember - nothing to "hype leader" in three years!

'Cause that's what they do - write reports reinforcing what the industry wants to hear about itself to be used as PR. They do it at all levels, too. I've read many of these things at the product level, too. Basically, discount any sales estimates by about 4/5 and lengthen the time frame of any graph by about 150% and it might be accurate*. Hell, I'd love to be in that business, but even I don't have brass ones big enough to "invent the future" like that.

*Which is a interesting measure in and of itself - how much do you have to distort a graph of any prediction to make it match what actually happened.

graph hacking (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about a month ago | (#47671671)

*Which is a interesting measure in and of itself - how much do you have to distort a graph of any prediction to make it match what actually happened.

nice...sort of like 'P-hacking'

it would be great to be able to find the pattern then retroactively examine research data to see which (many probably) show evidence of graph hacking

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

rioki (1328185) | about a month ago | (#47669203)

Actually the "Internet of Things" is a term coined in the 90s, by engineers. You know in the 90s the Internet was Kool! What begs the question, why is such an old term suddenly a buzzword.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

some old guy (674482) | about a month ago | (#47669265)

It's suddenly a buzzword because the start-up marketing shitheels needed a "next big thing" to peddle to the VC's.

As in, "Snowden and unreliability are killing my Cloud investments and...oh look! IoT squirrel!"

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669457)

The internet of things sounds so stupid. In the spirit of stupid marketing phrases that mean nothing like "the cloud" wouldn't it be cooler to call it "the swarm"?

During the first internet bubble in 1999, the domain "business.com" sold for $7.5 million. Not quite sure what the hell that domain is supposed to define...for your business.

As if that wasn't generic enough, "internet.com" sold for $18 million. Not quite sure what the hell you're supposed to do with that name to market it...on the internet.

There have been far stranger marketing decisions.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669599)

The internet of things sounds so stupid. In the spirit of stupid marketing phrases that mean nothing like "the cloud" wouldn't it be cooler to call it "the swarm"?

Because you can't spell "idiot" without "IoT".

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a month ago | (#47670395)

The Chain is more appropriate.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47671009)

I take exception, too, to OP's final sentence.

On another note, somewhat surprising is that Gartner says the "cloud computing" is not just hype anymore, but becoming a mainstream technology.

Wrong. It may be mainstream technology, but it's still mostly hype.

Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47671837)

That's Gartner for you.

Re:Why did they pick such a bad buzzword? (1)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | about a month ago | (#47679065)

"Why is any object we don't understand always called a thing?"

Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (5, Interesting)

bradley13 (1118935) | about a month ago | (#47668991)

Do Gartner reports actually have any use? I mean, they put a nice graphic to their "hype cycle", but this is surely stuff that any technical type over the age of 25 understands?

You can purchase their report on the Internet of Things [gartner.com] for the low, low price of $1995. If it's like most Gartner reports that I have seen, it will contain nice references to certain companies - my suspicion is that these companies have recently given Gartner fat consulting contracts. If you watch the same report evolve year-to-year, recommended companies change randomly - from a technical perspective - so one presumes that the deciding factors are politics and/or money.

Anyone want to argue against my cynicism? Are Gartner reports actually useful to some people?

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (4, Informative)

sirlark (1676276) | about a month ago | (#47669073)

PHB's love them, they feel like they've learned something important because PRETTY PICTURES.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47672973)

The REAL news would be that Gartner is actually right about something.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a month ago | (#47669111)

Well, I guess it could be a nice checklist for the PR-people and marketing departments on what buzzwords people are most likely to have heard and which ones to use in advertisements and stuff? I may be totally off the base, but that's at least something I could see the lazier people and departments riding on.

Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (4, Informative)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month ago | (#47669137)

Gartner is useless. However you can pay them money and they'll increase your company's rating and this will fool people who trust Gartner's opinions.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a month ago | (#47671481)

Gartner is useless. However you can pay them money and they'll increase your company's rating and this will fool people who trust Gartner's opinions.

Agreed, they make their money evaluating how well people are doing in the overhyped buzzword sector, and making predictions which are of dubious value.

So if they have a section on overhyped buzzwords, it's pressy astounding.

To me, if Gartner is saying this, it's kind of like Bernie Madoff saying an investment is a little sketchy.

I look at 90% of what comes out of Gartner and think "what overhyped drivel", so them saying the same thing boggles the mind.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about a month ago | (#47669153)

your cynicism is justified however their raw data can be useful...esp the free raw data...it's worth a look if you think Gartner is at all influential (i couldn't say myself re: Gartner)

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a month ago | (#47669333)

I'm a cynic as well, though I do read their reports from time to time (our company has access to them).

The value of these reports is not insighful conclusions, but in the research that "proofs" those conclusions. Let's face it, everybody knows that cloud-based computing has gone mainstream: it's been around for a while now, there are various stable, standardized and cheap services available for it, and many large companies already have good experience in using cloud resources, even though they have some issues from time to time. What Gartner does is put some numbers to those common insights: how many services, how have cost and competition evolved, what standards have emerged, how many companies actually use it and for what % of their business, anyone using it for business critical stuff, what kind of issues have they experienced, etc.

You're not going to learn anything amazing from Gartner reports, but there is a reason that even smart managers look at these reports to judge market readiness or trends: they provide evidence to support what you probably already knew, and it's a lot better evidence than what Google punters can come up with.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about a month ago | (#47669517)

They can potentially be useful if you want some kind of independent survey of a boring topic that isn't of primary interest to you, but which you have to deal with.

Every company has its areas of expertise. If you're learning anything from Gartner in these areas you're probably doing something wrong.

On the other hand, maybe your company wants to deploy proximity ID badges in 14 offices in 10 countries, and you want to know who makes systems that are compatible/compliant/etc across all of them. Unless you make/sell badge readers as your primary business, you probably don't know much about them. If you were securing one office with one door, maybe you wouldn't care and would just pick a random vendor with a cheap price. However, even a high-level overview of the field could save you a lot of money, and trying to figure out what info online is good/bad would probably be tough.

Just a random example. Just look at any of the 4700 things a company has to do to stay in business which aren't cool enough to get coverage in newspapers or other free semi-unbiased sources of info, but which can cost a company money if they don't pick at least a reasonable solution for.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (1)

Abstract (12510) | about a month ago | (#47675917)

On the other hand, maybe your company wants to deploy proximity ID badges in 14 offices in 10 countries, and you want to know who makes systems that are compatible/compliant/etc across all of them. Unless you make/sell badge readers as your primary business, you probably don't know much about them. If you were securing one office with one door, maybe you wouldn't care and would just pick a random vendor with a cheap price. However, even a high-level overview of the field could save you a lot of money, and trying to figure out what info online is good/bad would probably be tough.

This is exactly the value add of Gartner. Besides their vendor ratings, hype cycles, magic quadrants, they provide a large knowledge base of best practices, studies. methodologies et cetera. Sure, Google and friends can provide tons of links, but using Gartner for specific types of queries can be more efficient.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669709)

No. Cloud computing has not gone mainstream. Cloud computing was always hype. Hosted services have been around since the beginnings of the internet. Taking the brute force approach of using VMs to make the entire "machine" highly available, as opposed to elegantly building such capability directly into ones applications, was an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. Calling it "the cloud" was nothing more than a way to make it sound more amazing and awesome than the same thing that was already being offered.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669913)

So what?
Same with "smartphones", they're just an evolutionary change from normal (no "dumb") phones and PDAs.
Doesn't mean the term isn't useful.

What's with the Slashdot cynicism on every article? Can't you just accept that sometimes stuff others do also has merit?

logical inference? (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about a month ago | (#47670097)

No. Cloud computing has not gone mainstream. Cloud computing was always hype. Hosted services have been around since the beginnings of the internet. Taking the brute force approach of using VMs to make the entire "machine" highly available, as opposed to elegantly building such capability directly into ones applications, was an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. Calling it "the cloud" was nothing more than a way to make it sound more amazing and awesome than the same thing that was already being offered.

Hmmmmmm. So,

A. Hosted services have been around since forever. Ergo they are mainstream.

B. "The Cloud" is just another name for said services.

Ergo: "The Cloud" is mainstream.

Taking the brute force approach of using VMs to make the entire "machine" highly available, as opposed to elegantly building such capability directly into ones applications, was an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one.

This is true, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether "The Cloud" or whatever we want to call it is mainstream or not. That is, this statement, while true, it deals solely with the process by which hosted services (or more broadly speaking, hosted capabilities) came into being. By itself, this statement does not deal with the issue of adoption rates and commonality (or rarity) of adoption (vertical and/or horizontal.)

Re:logical inference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47671505)

Hosted services are indeed mainstream, but most people (particularly managers) use the term "cloud computing" not as a synonym of "hosted services", but as some kind of magical thing which is completely new and revolutionize everything. The term "cloud computing" as it is used by most managers is nothing but a buzzword and hype.

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (1)

Jahta (1141213) | about a month ago | (#47669419)

Anyone want to argue against my cynicism? Are Gartner reports actually useful to some people?

Cynicism yes. But healthy skepticism is always good!

In my experience Gartner have some good people - recognised subject matter experts - and if they are working in topic areas important to you then the reports are worth it. As mentioned by others, the reports carry weight with PHBs and if you can show that Gartner agrees with what you are proposing it can be a huge help. Of course, not everybody is at that level. YMMV.

For the same reason, the Hype Cycle is useful for positioning new technologies. It's interesting that TFA's title is actually very misleading. The Gartner graphic shows cloud computing entering the "Trough of Disillusionment" (where reality bites the folks who drank the kool-aid) and not "going mainstream".

Re:Gartner cynic here - enlighten me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669609)

Do Gartner reports actually have any use??

Lining puppy pens. Baby dogs shit a lot,

Cloud Computing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669003)

Of course its mainstream

its just the new name for a cluster, which have been around longer than the internet

Re:Cloud Computing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669033)

Imagine a Beowulf of Clouds!

Re: Cloud Computing! (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a month ago | (#47669097)

No, it's really not. It's the name for a cluster running a virtualisation environment that lets you spin up virtual server instances quickly and easily.

It's an abstraction layer that sits between your clustered hardware, and your virtual machines.

Re: Cloud Computing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669197)

It can be. But marketing and PHB's can just as well mean online storage services when they talk about cloud computing.

Re: Cloud Computing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669429)

Everything is Cloud, Even a single Synology NAS is cloud. I started calling my usb stick "Personal Portable Cloud" after that.

Re: Cloud Computing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669633)

Wow, that's brilliant! I think I will adopt that.
I will even call it PPC to ensure that it will be confused with PowerPC.
Or perhaps I should encrypt it and call it "Private Personal Portable Cloud" or PPPC for short.

Re: Cloud Computing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669471)

It can be. But marketing and PHB's can just as well mean online storage services when they talk about cloud computing.

Exactly. Cloud computing can refer to anything from a free Dropbox account all the way up to spinning up VM server farms in AWS.

You know, kind of like the "Internet of Things" can refer to your new internet smart fridge, or it can refer to your new Bluetooth controlled vibrator.

Re: Cloud Computing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669321)

Right, so in some respects it's a name for virtual clusters, being run on physical clusters.

So it's a cluster.

Re: Cloud Computing! (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a month ago | (#47669737)

It's still nothing more than a cluster. The only difference is your high availability and dynamic allocation is now performed at the (virtual) machine level, rather than the application level.

Re:Cloud Computing! (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a month ago | (#47669143)

Does your cloud support push technology?

Re:Cloud Computing! (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a month ago | (#47669245)

No, it's just the name for client/server architecture, usually for bad one implemented hastily.

I am in the cloudz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669081)

In. the. cloudz. I. am.

two-fifty-two

Good, can it disappear now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669141)

Does this mean that mentions will now drop and we don't have to keep being battered with this stupidity?
I don't want web-enabled cheese.

The internet of things is clearly a machine conspiracy to make us think we are getting something useful but once it is sufficiently widespread it will take over and it will be too late to turn back.
The warning signs are already here - we obey the machine on a daily basis, having to stand trying to swipe a card while it tells us to do it again just to see how many times it can get away with it, and with those self-service tills "unexpected item in bagging area" is another test. We are the playthings of the machine but nobody seems to understand that! The secret is to destroy their fuses and they will be powerless once more.

Now is the time to go and live in a cave! :p

Gartner ain't seen nothing yet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669181)

It's not peak hype until it has caused a world-wide stock market crash.

"cloud computing" is not just hype anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669231)

I assume that means it is now generally accepted that "cloud computing" has been redefined as "hosting". ?

Re:"cloud computing" is not just hype anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669385)

Cloud != Hosting
Cloud == Price increase on your existing thingie.
Private cloud == you will host it and be charged more.

No one asked the most important question! (3, Insightful)

pslytely psycho (1699190) | about a month ago | (#47669279)

Is it immersive?

(another word that desperately needs to die.)

Re:No one asked the most important question! (2)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a month ago | (#47669423)

Probably.

But does it blend?

Re:No one asked the most important question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669555)

It's a unique, immersive solution with designed by an award-winning strategic partnership of leading experts with innovative cutting-edge experience in integration of robust, dynamic cloud technlogy into the typically under-utilized offline market segment.

Re:No one asked the most important question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669757)

Jabberwocky!

Re:No one asked the most important question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669629)

It depends whether you are talking about an internet connected electric immersion heater or not.

Re:No one asked the most important question! (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month ago | (#47670111)

Is it immersive?

Not only immersive, but collaborative, synergistic and inherently interoperative by design, including cross platform enabling fluidity.

A truly paradigm shifting, maximal earned value, ubiquitous niche expanding concept that will allow management to independently conceptualize, initialize, and then bring to fruition - action items.

Re:No one asked the most important question! (1)

kencurry (471519) | about a month ago | (#47670799)

Ideation..., you forgot Ideation.

But otherwise, very well done sir.

Re:No one asked the most important question! (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a month ago | (#47674311)

Is it immersive? (another word that desperately needs to die.)

Try immersing it in water.

Whe already had words for all that (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669451)

Cloud = thin air
IoT = thin air
Social networks = thin air
Smartphone = thin air
Tablets = thin air
Apple = thin air
Applications = thin air

At the end of the day i still use a PC behind a series of tubes and all that thin air stuff is trying to inoculate me with cancer+aids.

Re:Whe already had words for all that (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47669713)

So how do you extend your "series of tubes" across the space between open Wi-Fi hotspots, such as using a laptop while riding the city bus? And with no applications, what do you run on your PC?

Peak Hype (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47669647)

If anyone can be said to be experts on Peak Hype, Gartner certainly would be the ones.

Blackberry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670023)

People can laugh, but this is the direction that Blackbery's CEO is taking the company. Especially in the medical arena where you need secure solutions. You can't b e trusting Android with linking medical devices together. Especially because of HIPA issues.

Long BBRY stock and so should you. Beyond the consumer, Android and iOS are dead ends.

Just like smartwatches (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a month ago | (#47670107)

A solution looking for a problem being sold to people who don't have extra money to spend.

It hasn't even started (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670401)

Gartner is two years premature.

Wait for IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47670501)

The Internet of Things will not take off until most consumers have IPv6 and the things have IPv6 capable chips in them. Until then, it is just hype.

In other news... (1)

mamono (706685) | about a month ago | (#47670735)

Saying things have reach X Peak (or Peak X) has reached it's peak.

Needs more "Magic Quadrant", or "heat map" (1)

netsavior (627338) | about a month ago | (#47670905)

If Gartner is talking about it, you know it is only hype.

It is on a graph so it must be true!

Could you make a heat map or a spider graph to show me more??

As envisioned by Capcom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47671795)

Isn't this pretty much what defined the setting of the Mega Man Battle Network franchise? (Setting aside the patent madness of "virus busting", and such...)

Damn near everything in that series was networked: kitchen appliances, the TV, the main character's doghouse...
"Help, someone hacked the oven and now it's vomiting fireballs!"

Good, now let it die (2)

penguinoid (724646) | about a month ago | (#47671849)

Internet of Things Has Reached Hype Peak

If it reached peak hype, then it can finally start dying. Good riddance.

Where does it keep its brain? (1)

xeno (2667) | about a month ago | (#47671995)

The Cloud = software as a service (SaaS) = hosted services = "the network is the computer" = blah blah blah..
..it's all more or less the same decades-old idea:
  "you just click buttons and pay us all the money, nevermind what's behind the curtain."
...where you trade huge amounts of control for incremental savings
"we're not sure where your data lives, so you'll just have to trust our vague compliance statement"
...with the same bad security implications:
  "software vulns and compromise stats are a trade secret, so don't ask"

So with a nod to JKR...
I offer the only truly wise decision principle regarding adoption of "cloud"/hosted services:
"Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain."

Re:Where does it keep its brain? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a month ago | (#47674341)

"Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain."

IOW, only trust people after witnessing them under brain surgery.

(Or vasectomy / cardiac surgery etc. depending on the person.)

Security (1)

rtkluttz (244325) | about a month ago | (#47672719)

I *** LOVE *** connected devices. Connected to MY network and under MY control. I love to tinker and connect in and do things just to be doing things. But stuff like the NEST thermostat that cannot be controlled directly, but require me to ask PERMISSION from a central authority at Nest to control my device can stuff it. I'd love the technology but if it is in my house, no one else will have access to it.

Internet of bad ideas (1)

LessThanObvious (3671949) | about a month ago | (#47674119)

When millions of minimally engineered consumer devices meet big data you get the internet of things. This is all just a marketing wet dream. When your fridge knows your out of milk and your thermostat knows when you are coming home and your TV knows what you like to watch then something really important happens, which is that those devices can tell the marketing people. Never mind that these devices have no business communicating on the internet or leaking data to third parties. There is a strong and valid case for many devices to be IP enabled in a secure way with controlled access, but the haphazard insecure marketing driven approach to the internet of things is garbage. It's internet pollution.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>