We do not have ‘one’ group. There is no “we”. I can only talk for myself. People that I meet align than go elsewhere. We share a sensibility, that is all. When that converges you get a certain idea of where the keys to change are. None of what I have written was ‘engineered’, it all happened, like it is happening now.
So I speak for me.
As we are part of a project that works with public money, you, me, must believe in this public space, otherwise we would not be in it. I believe in it to the extent that I can be a real agent in trying to change it. That is what I am trying to achieve with the invite only expert workshops in the Taskforces, to build a common understanding that there is no escape from this transition and that leadership means taking control of the drivers. I get very good input and feedback, a lot of gov and biz are beginning to see the world will consist of a few large ecosystems and we can shape ours. Every situation is historical and full of opportunity of change. Thinking the course is set is not for people in a strategy group, but for people who are afraid and want to escape.
On the parallel systems: here ‹we see the LEDGER space opening up and with DECODE and Jaromil led zenroom (see decodeproject.eu) ideas about data, privacy, security are no longer niche but getting traction, alongside the awareness that is build with dowse.eu. I am talking with hardcore thinkers like Stephan Engberg who too thinks we need to rebuild bottom-up - literally aiming to replace/upgrade almost all standards. And I fully agree. But I do not want to do that for one village, or one group of people and that means that without agency on the system as such we can not change its drivers or slow it down. And besides, this is the Borg we are engulfed in, there is not one location on the planet of the grid that will remain ‘free’ (which is why Moneyland aims to go to the Moon/Mars).And we need to slow it down as the world is now clocking in on a crazy Silicon Valley individualist start start start up mode. We need to take back our own pace.
On Arduino: I wads around when that started from IVREA Design School, as a great educational project of building a micro processor as a design challenge that turned out to be a great prototyping platform on the PROCESSINg of Casey Reas.
Arduino brilliantly steered this design object into a fully open source environment tuned to makers first https://www.fastcompany.com/3025320/how-arduino-is-becoming-the-worlds-social-network-for-hackers-and-makers and then, now to partnering with Intel and ARM.
In a way they have become a quite normal IoT company. Being close to them I can contact them quickly when Council members in Lagos want training, for example.
I am very happy to hear more from Banzi but I think connected devices is just another name for the kind of connectivity that is IoT.
“Some argue that the maker movement may have passed its peak and is now moving away from microelectronics, but Banzi is not convinced. “Here in Europe, the maker scene is different from California where it is closely related to artists, hackers, and the local fringe culture. In Europe, there is a lot of overlap between makers and small and medium enterprises. A lot of these small companies run using maker methodologies. For instance, if they don’t have the money for expensive machinery, they build their own do‑it‑yourself solutions using maker tools.””
So yes I am very interested in new network topologies, in breaking tcp-ip, in investigating networks that connect only to each other at the edge, no central node, no server architecture ‘systems’ like https://smarimccarthy.is/articles/2012-08-24-centralization-vs-decentralization-two-centuries-of-authority-in-design/
And we have money in NGI to fund these ideas, so if you know of hackers and ciders who want to investigate these types of new connectivities please send three to me so we can help them broker proposals.
I have known Adam for over 15 years. He first reached out to me when I was working as Flow editor with John Thackara on Doors of Perception:
Incidentally that is where I laid the foundation for a large part of my understanding of what is now #IOT meeting for example my good friend Usman Haque from Pachube (as no EU VC was found -typically- forced to sell to US VC Logmein, Xively and now oh irony: Google).
Since then we met in Taiwan where I went with him on one of his very good and productive city walks, set next to him in meetings where he was astonished how I could sit all day through these awful ppt presentations indeed of IoT architectures (I told him I daydream) and had him invited (with Alex Bassi) to speak to the entire IERC and IOT Forum community in 2012 in Venice https://iotweek.org/speaker/adam-greenfield/
He then presented a set of slides which consisted purely of the marketing ppt of all major companies. Her thought that would wake up the crowd, the IoT community, all they saw was someone playing back the same hype that the marketeers in their own HQS were building that none of them believed as well. Adam thought he was ‘critical’ in the lions den. It had no effect at all. I was in the audience with the engineers, in the projects, working hard as one of the team and I saw this firsthand.
It had no effect as I predicted that in the 2007 text. You can not fight an ontological change with toolsets from the old paradigm. The only way, simple Bucky, is to build a new one alongside it. All else, flight, escape, protest, hacks, simply strengthens the funders and vested interests, in fact by opposing them you give them fuel to hold out a bit longer. But OK! I still respect that position, a lot. A kind of similar attempt is done by Aral Balkan and Schrecko Horvath and DIEM who also think I have gone over to the dark side when I try to expose my ideas to them that include working with current gov and current big tech and SME and hackers and…in order to build a smart society - if it has to be smart - then preferably a smart society for all and not just for the rich or the hipsters.
IoT is a basic operation of automation started from the Industrial Revolution with a logic that seems to be of its own and whoever denies that it is real, but that it is marketing at this moment is totally irresponsible towards the younger generations the Igens and Millennials on their devices all the time, rapidly growing up in a fully engineered AR and VR fed Matrix. Anyone doing that for really good personal reasons and from an old worn through position like Adam I respect. Anyone voicing that position now makes him or herself fully irrelevant, niche and in my opinion romantically escapist.
Interested in a pragmatic approach: