March 30, 2015 at 10:50The Future of the Internet of Things: A Talk with the Pratt Institute
A couple of publications ago, in an article on how iRidium mobile technologies are used in education , among other educational institutions I mentioned in passing the New York Pratt Institute. Then I still did not know that after some time I could see with my own eyes how the Iridium software works in Pratt and communicate with people who exploit it. As a result, communication with pundits turned out to be even more interesting: starting with a conversation about applied things, we ended up discussing the problems and the future of the Internet of things, the role of corporations and the state in technological progress, and other interesting subjects.
The institute is located in the center of Brooklyn, among unremarkable residential skyscrapers:
Surrounded by a small park, he reminded me of the Polytechnic University in St. Petersburg, with the only difference being that its architecture is not so pompous, and there are living squirrels in the park (more precisely, they are found in NY).
I had to meet Ossama Elroos , deputy director of computer technology, responsible for all the computer facilities of the institute, including equipment for classrooms and computer laboratories. The company was made up of programmer Dan Hetteix and technical specialist Moises Gonzalez .
We searched for wireless controllers for DDX technology, and found Touch Panel Control online. Starting to study its alternatives, we went to iRidium. We downloaded the trial version, purchased licenses, and then went into the programming itself, which we have already completed.
Honestly, we chose iRidium because of the price. In addition, the licensing principle was more appropriate for us. Installing an iRidium license is much faster and the system is easier to configure than it would be on TPCloud. Yes, and with the same basic software features. All we had to do was send AMX commands to the equipment via the RS-232 port and wireless network. Having the opportunity to do this, thanks to our knowledge in development, we can make anything work. Therefore, the choice of iRidium is obvious.
Creating a project in the iRidium GUI Editor
So far, everything is working absolutely fine. We did not have any real glitches. At an early stage, we noticed that there are slight problems with the dynamics of iPads - some sounds are a little strange. As a rule, this is solved by rebooting the device. But otherwise everything works quickly: our programming and design experience allows us to support files very, very light, so everything usually flies with us. So, as long as you understand what you are doing, it will be a good base for you. We had a sudden communication failure, but only because of Apple.
Now we use iRidium quite standardly: to automate rooms like conference rooms, mainly to control audio-video equipment. We also test it to display training information, schedules, video surveillance of the corridors behind the doors of classrooms, control who is in the room and, if necessary, lock the doors.
We mainly use iRidium to control AMX equipment as well as Extron projection equipment.
An example of a typical cabinet with AMX equipment
We use it as a kind of wireless setting installed on iPads, which serve as our control panels. iRidium interacts with AMX equipment to automate most daily indoor operations. Let's say a professor enters the audience to give a lecture. He will have an iPad running iRidium with our own interface. And he will be able to control the projector, sound, microphones and everything else that is installed in this audience.
If iRidium learns to work with the integrated video, then we can further expand the scope. Let's say we could expand the software by introducing capabilities for planning systems, for external monitoring. We could expand it, for example, to stalls where a person could receive instructional videos on the use of our computer classes. It would be possible to use iRidium software to play training videos, maybe to connect headphones or something else to an iPad, Android, etc.
We have a lot of content: video, HTML-pages, server code that can be integrated into our interfaces via iRidium, if the appropriate modules appear that allow this.
Ossama Elroos
There is such a concept: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) - our students and employees bring their devices and want them to support what we have installed in the classroom.
They do not just work with information on devices, they also want to use the equipment we have - for example, display information through projects. Ultimately, even switches, audio controls, a touchpad can be on every phone. To ensure this is a difficult task - we think the next 5 years will take the coordination of universal teams that will work on the device of any user: so that iRidium can freely communicate with AMX, which, in turn, freely exchanged information with other devices, each of which is programmed for own language. This will allow users to use their gadgets.
In fact, we would like to see a certificate installed on the user's device, which the user can accept to control all the equipment in the room, for example. Ideally, this should be a protocol agreed by various manufacturers, and all the equipment could work in proprietary programming languages, but when it comes to data exchange, the language would be universal.
It is an Internet of things that does not need applications. You may have app X on your phone, which you use to control the projector. But another person can use the application U, and the third - Z. But you come to the same room, send the same start command. It doesn’t matter how your application starts, you give a command, the projector understands that you want something from it, but the Start command does not interpret in your language.
Software can do this already. Now it’s the turn of computer hardware manufacturers together with software manufacturers to jointly decide that they come to a certain unified language, and in the production of their projectors they must make sure that the frequencies and codes of the Start command on the projectors and all software variations match. We need standardization of commands, like Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi's 0.88 GHz is standard. Any manufacturer will send and receive data with the same protocol.
This is a gap in the teams. We now have well-established HDMI or VGA standards that people still use. But even HDMI has streaming content, and streaming content is still not standardized. You cannot transfer Apple content except through Apple devices.
But still, 90% of cases you can connect any source with HDMI to any display with HDMI, and get a signal. Because the cable is standard and the port is standard. But when it comes to wireless transmission, we see that video transmission is still not standardized.
Moises Gonzalez
In the environment of controllers, although they use the same RS-232 or RS-248 cables, etc., the commands themselves that are transmitted through this cable are not standardized. Manufacturers must embed in chips or anything that interprets these commands something that any type of Start command can interpret and decode. Now even the same manufacturer, adding new features, can change the Start command. For example, I have a projector from one manufacturer, and then three years later I buy a new one. I will have to update the software, even if the new projector will be of the same manufacturer, just because they changed all the commands in the firmware. The same situation with the infrared port. In the 80s, they tried to create universal remote controls in which you could just press one button, and no matter where you sent it, the device turns on. But you must program universal remotes to do this. This is not universal. This allows people to move around with their devices and do something. The only problem is that no one will make money from universalizing it. Many companies make a profit because you have to use their software, then their projector, and then their remote. Apple is one of the largest corporations that does this.
Thus, it is difficult to convince everyone to lose additional profit in order for more people to buy audio-video products in general. Maybe less people will buy your product, but more people will use AV products. Someone must create a protocol and share it.
There are certain physical limitations in wireless video transmission, no matter how confident the signal is, in some situations this will not help. The wireless stream of the amount of video that you want to receive will be with dropped frames.
If there is any electromagnetic or radio interference near you, this will certainly affect the signal. You cannot use a better quality shield and copper cable to improve transmission. Problems in physics.
You can develop different types of frequency bands specifically for streaming video, much more can be done. It will be gradual and slow. But at the moment, the wired system remains the most reliable for me. But for certain scenarios, wireless video streaming is ideal.
Dan hatteix
The question is, can this keep up with other technologies for video, such as 4K, etc. I feel that at some point the video stops, maybe around 8K-12K in terms of resolution and bandwidth, because, to be honest, we are still incredibly limited due to the fact that in the 50s we allocated only about 6 kHz for video frequencies. And we are still trying to compress just TV shows and HDTV, resorting to the use of many codecs, which leads to a variety of problems. Wireless video will have the same problem, only at the private level, this will face every single person, and not just large broadcasting companies. I think that universal use is still a long way off, and plus problems with native codecs: Apple has an Apple TV, Amazon has something similar. It will be so for a long time
This opens up opportunities for startups - they are best suited for breaking the standards generated by large companies. But large companies can just get together and say: “We have enough money. And we don’t have to make a million dollars on this. Let's do this universalization. We are even ready to lose some money. ” But they are unlikely to do so. Most likely, they will jump into the last car when they are afraid of smaller companies and innovations from other market players. Small companies must come up with something that would make large companies follow suit. Because standards are for the most part set by large companies. They affect the situation. In order to tell the world that this is the new standard for XYZ, something must happen and make them do it.
Small companies can succeed in this market if they develop something that will work with the hardware of any manufacturer, and will be independent of the iron in the case of protocols for video streaming. And large companies (by "large companies" we mean specifically content providers, the main sources from where you actually get the video and other information - talking about Google, etc.) will have to implement this in their products. Even one separate small firm is capable of doing this, but a bunch of small companies, united together and agreeing to adopt a universal standard, would change the situation as a whole.
The Federal Communications Commission recently reaffirmed the principle of network neutrality. I think that most Internet users understand that this is necessary, and everyone who says: “No, that won’t work,” will finally just crush those who don’t understand this, and the problem will be solved. Thus, I am not worried about any interference with progress.
In matters of developing communications, the state is useless, but I do not think that someone will allow them to harm. The government will respond to pressure from the public or big business, and the public is not aware of the importance of universalizing the governance structure for wireless video streams. Thus, in fact, nothing happens there. I think that, at best, they simply remain neutral to all this, and let specific companies understand this.
In fact, it is small business, as is usually the case in US history, that relies on moving forward. And sometimes incredibly large companies that have absolutely nothing to lose, such as Bell Labs in the 1940s, or perhaps even Google today, which have so much money that they can keep some solutions open-source and still be quite viable. But these are frontier solutions for business, and we, as clients, can only hope that sooner or later this will happen.
A breakthrough can happen even now. Or tomorrow. You only need to agree, even technology is not necessary - they already exist.
On Kickstarter, we saw a product made by analogy with a Fire Stick or Google Chromecast. It is open source and with affordable SDK developers. You can take it and do whatever you want with it. Theoretically, this happens: if you can program the equipment, then you can make the equipment of any manufacturer work. And I think this is a start in this direction. The product can work, theoretically, with Amazon, with Chromecast, and with any other device - and this is exactly what we need. A device that does not care where and where the media files are transferred and where they went. Just transmitting, receiving and transmitting.
We are from Nizhny Tagil:
The Pratt Institute, founded in 1887, is an art school, one of the leading educational institutions in the field of art, design and architecture in the United States with offices in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Utica, New York.
The institute is located in the center of Brooklyn, among unremarkable residential skyscrapers:
Surrounded by a small park, he reminded me of the Polytechnic University in St. Petersburg, with the only difference being that its architecture is not so pompous, and there are living squirrels in the park (more precisely, they are found in NY).
I had to meet Ossama Elroos , deputy director of computer technology, responsible for all the computer facilities of the institute, including equipment for classrooms and computer laboratories. The company was made up of programmer Dan Hetteix and technical specialist Moises Gonzalez .
How iRidium ended up at the Pratt Institute
We searched for wireless controllers for DDX technology, and found Touch Panel Control online. Starting to study its alternatives, we went to iRidium. We downloaded the trial version, purchased licenses, and then went into the programming itself, which we have already completed.
At the Pratt Institute, one of the leading educational institutions in the field of art, design and architecture in the United States, iRidium is used to create a dynamic learning environment for students. Currently, iRidium operates various AMX devices on the student campus.
Honestly, we chose iRidium because of the price. In addition, the licensing principle was more appropriate for us. Installing an iRidium license is much faster and the system is easier to configure than it would be on TPCloud. Yes, and with the same basic software features. All we had to do was send AMX commands to the equipment via the RS-232 port and wireless network. Having the opportunity to do this, thanks to our knowledge in development, we can make anything work. Therefore, the choice of iRidium is obvious.
Creating a project in the iRidium GUI Editor
So far, everything is working absolutely fine. We did not have any real glitches. At an early stage, we noticed that there are slight problems with the dynamics of iPads - some sounds are a little strange. As a rule, this is solved by rebooting the device. But otherwise everything works quickly: our programming and design experience allows us to support files very, very light, so everything usually flies with us. So, as long as you understand what you are doing, it will be a good base for you. We had a sudden communication failure, but only because of Apple.
Now we use iRidium quite standardly: to automate rooms like conference rooms, mainly to control audio-video equipment. We also test it to display training information, schedules, video surveillance of the corridors behind the doors of classrooms, control who is in the room and, if necessary, lock the doors.
We mainly use iRidium to control AMX equipment as well as Extron projection equipment.
An example of a typical cabinet with AMX equipment
We use it as a kind of wireless setting installed on iPads, which serve as our control panels. iRidium interacts with AMX equipment to automate most daily indoor operations. Let's say a professor enters the audience to give a lecture. He will have an iPad running iRidium with our own interface. And he will be able to control the projector, sound, microphones and everything else that is installed in this audience.
If iRidium learns to work with the integrated video, then we can further expand the scope. Let's say we could expand the software by introducing capabilities for planning systems, for external monitoring. We could expand it, for example, to stalls where a person could receive instructional videos on the use of our computer classes. It would be possible to use iRidium software to play training videos, maybe to connect headphones or something else to an iPad, Android, etc.
We have a lot of content: video, HTML-pages, server code that can be integrated into our interfaces via iRidium, if the appropriate modules appear that allow this.
Ossama Elroos
About the future of the Internet of things and wireless protocols
There is such a concept: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) - our students and employees bring their devices and want them to support what we have installed in the classroom.
They do not just work with information on devices, they also want to use the equipment we have - for example, display information through projects. Ultimately, even switches, audio controls, a touchpad can be on every phone. To ensure this is a difficult task - we think the next 5 years will take the coordination of universal teams that will work on the device of any user: so that iRidium can freely communicate with AMX, which, in turn, freely exchanged information with other devices, each of which is programmed for own language. This will allow users to use their gadgets.
In fact, we would like to see a certificate installed on the user's device, which the user can accept to control all the equipment in the room, for example. Ideally, this should be a protocol agreed by various manufacturers, and all the equipment could work in proprietary programming languages, but when it comes to data exchange, the language would be universal.
It is an Internet of things that does not need applications. You may have app X on your phone, which you use to control the projector. But another person can use the application U, and the third - Z. But you come to the same room, send the same start command. It doesn’t matter how your application starts, you give a command, the projector understands that you want something from it, but the Start command does not interpret in your language.
Software can do this already. Now it’s the turn of computer hardware manufacturers together with software manufacturers to jointly decide that they come to a certain unified language, and in the production of their projectors they must make sure that the frequencies and codes of the Start command on the projectors and all software variations match. We need standardization of commands, like Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi's 0.88 GHz is standard. Any manufacturer will send and receive data with the same protocol.
This is a gap in the teams. We now have well-established HDMI or VGA standards that people still use. But even HDMI has streaming content, and streaming content is still not standardized. You cannot transfer Apple content except through Apple devices.
But still, 90% of cases you can connect any source with HDMI to any display with HDMI, and get a signal. Because the cable is standard and the port is standard. But when it comes to wireless transmission, we see that video transmission is still not standardized.
Moises Gonzalez
In the environment of controllers, although they use the same RS-232 or RS-248 cables, etc., the commands themselves that are transmitted through this cable are not standardized. Manufacturers must embed in chips or anything that interprets these commands something that any type of Start command can interpret and decode. Now even the same manufacturer, adding new features, can change the Start command. For example, I have a projector from one manufacturer, and then three years later I buy a new one. I will have to update the software, even if the new projector will be of the same manufacturer, just because they changed all the commands in the firmware. The same situation with the infrared port. In the 80s, they tried to create universal remote controls in which you could just press one button, and no matter where you sent it, the device turns on. But you must program universal remotes to do this. This is not universal. This allows people to move around with their devices and do something. The only problem is that no one will make money from universalizing it. Many companies make a profit because you have to use their software, then their projector, and then their remote. Apple is one of the largest corporations that does this.
Thus, it is difficult to convince everyone to lose additional profit in order for more people to buy audio-video products in general. Maybe less people will buy your product, but more people will use AV products. Someone must create a protocol and share it.
There are certain physical limitations in wireless video transmission, no matter how confident the signal is, in some situations this will not help. The wireless stream of the amount of video that you want to receive will be with dropped frames.
If there is any electromagnetic or radio interference near you, this will certainly affect the signal. You cannot use a better quality shield and copper cable to improve transmission. Problems in physics.
You can develop different types of frequency bands specifically for streaming video, much more can be done. It will be gradual and slow. But at the moment, the wired system remains the most reliable for me. But for certain scenarios, wireless video streaming is ideal.
Dan hatteix
The question is, can this keep up with other technologies for video, such as 4K, etc. I feel that at some point the video stops, maybe around 8K-12K in terms of resolution and bandwidth, because, to be honest, we are still incredibly limited due to the fact that in the 50s we allocated only about 6 kHz for video frequencies. And we are still trying to compress just TV shows and HDTV, resorting to the use of many codecs, which leads to a variety of problems. Wireless video will have the same problem, only at the private level, this will face every single person, and not just large broadcasting companies. I think that universal use is still a long way off, and plus problems with native codecs: Apple has an Apple TV, Amazon has something similar. It will be so for a long time
This opens up opportunities for startups - they are best suited for breaking the standards generated by large companies. But large companies can just get together and say: “We have enough money. And we don’t have to make a million dollars on this. Let's do this universalization. We are even ready to lose some money. ” But they are unlikely to do so. Most likely, they will jump into the last car when they are afraid of smaller companies and innovations from other market players. Small companies must come up with something that would make large companies follow suit. Because standards are for the most part set by large companies. They affect the situation. In order to tell the world that this is the new standard for XYZ, something must happen and make them do it.
Small companies can succeed in this market if they develop something that will work with the hardware of any manufacturer, and will be independent of the iron in the case of protocols for video streaming. And large companies (by "large companies" we mean specifically content providers, the main sources from where you actually get the video and other information - talking about Google, etc.) will have to implement this in their products. Even one separate small firm is capable of doing this, but a bunch of small companies, united together and agreeing to adopt a universal standard, would change the situation as a whole.
About government intervention
The Federal Communications Commission recently reaffirmed the principle of network neutrality. I think that most Internet users understand that this is necessary, and everyone who says: “No, that won’t work,” will finally just crush those who don’t understand this, and the problem will be solved. Thus, I am not worried about any interference with progress.
In matters of developing communications, the state is useless, but I do not think that someone will allow them to harm. The government will respond to pressure from the public or big business, and the public is not aware of the importance of universalizing the governance structure for wireless video streams. Thus, in fact, nothing happens there. I think that, at best, they simply remain neutral to all this, and let specific companies understand this.
In fact, it is small business, as is usually the case in US history, that relies on moving forward. And sometimes incredibly large companies that have absolutely nothing to lose, such as Bell Labs in the 1940s, or perhaps even Google today, which have so much money that they can keep some solutions open-source and still be quite viable. But these are frontier solutions for business, and we, as clients, can only hope that sooner or later this will happen.
A breakthrough can happen even now. Or tomorrow. You only need to agree, even technology is not necessary - they already exist.
On Kickstarter, we saw a product made by analogy with a Fire Stick or Google Chromecast. It is open source and with affordable SDK developers. You can take it and do whatever you want with it. Theoretically, this happens: if you can program the equipment, then you can make the equipment of any manufacturer work. And I think this is a start in this direction. The product can work, theoretically, with Amazon, with Chromecast, and with any other device - and this is exactly what we need. A device that does not care where and where the media files are transferred and where they went. Just transmitting, receiving and transmitting.
We are from Nizhny Tagil: