Compare the latest tech products

Another day, another Internet of Things consortium


July 8, 2014

The Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC) has been established to standardize Internet of Things communications (Image: Shutterstock)

The Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC) has been established to standardize Internet of Things communications (Image: Shutterstock)

The flood of smart devices aimed at hooking into the Internet of Things (IoT) seems to be turning into a flood of consortia of industry heavyweights looking to standardize the IoT. First we had the AllSeen Alliance, which was followed by the Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC) and now we have the Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC), which boasts Atmel, Dell, Broadcom, Intel, Samsung and Wind River as members.

The current IoT landscape is a hodgepodge of various different protocols shuttling data and enhancing the intelligence of everything from cars and washing machines to light bulbs and doormats. But with many of the protocols not compatible with each other, the OIC was founded with the goal of defining the wireless connectivity requirements of IoT devices to ensure interoperability between devices, regardless of form factor, operating system or provider.

Like the AllSeen Alliance and IIC, the OIC effort will have an open source aspect, allowing application developers and device manufacturers to deliver interoperable products across a variety of platforms, including Android, iOS, Windows, Linux and Tizen. The consortium will also define certification requirements, with devices successfully completing compliance testing allowed to make use of branding intended to give consumers peace of mind when purchasing devices.

The goals of the OIC may sound similar to the AllSeen Alliance and the IIC (of which Intel is also a member), but the group claims that none of the other efforts address all the necessary requirements to overcome the challenge of IoT connectivity and interoperability.

With the goal of connecting "the next 25 billion devices for the Internet of Things," the group says security and reliable device discovery and connectivity will be the foundations of the OIC standard, which will embrace a number of existing wireless standards, including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Direct, Zigbee, Zwave and Ant+.

The Oregon-based, non-profit OIC has thrown the doors open for companies to join up, with the cost of membership based on the company's level of participation. The group says it will announce additional member companies in the coming months, including appliance and device manufacturers, service and solution providers, chipset manufacturers and others.

Source: OIC

About the Author
Darren Quick Darren's love of technology started in primary school with a Nintendo Game & Watch Donkey Kong (still functioning) and a Commodore VIC 20 computer (not still functioning). In high school he upgraded to a 286 PC, and he's been following Moore's law ever since. This love of technology continued through a number of university courses and crappy jobs until 2008, when his interests found a home at Gizmag. All articles by Darren Quick

Can inanimate objects have intelligence, as in "enhancing the intelligence of everything"? How did this terminology start and why? It reminds me of the first time I saw the word "feel" used in place of "think". I know exactly why that happened. It was an attempt to confuse by conflating two mental processes, emotion and thought. Emotion is not thought. It is a physiological response to values which may have been obtained by critical analysis, or assimilated subconsciously, e.g., indoctrination. As such feelings are not evidence or proof of objective reality, but only tell us what values we hold, not if they are correct. Just because a concept is "felt deeply" does not verify its validity. Always check your premises on important issues.

So what is the purpose of calling programing "intelligence"? Does it have anything to do with calling a person who memorized a lot of data smart? Does "smart" equate with "intelligent"? Do we grant authority or undue respect to people who memorize/remember copious data? I ask because I see the word "smart" applied to inanimate objects. The implication is "smart" is better or an improvement. Maybe it is. But is a smart person more intelligent, more deserving of respect, than one who does not have an encyclopedic mind? Is the smart person more likely to be correct on fundamental issues of ethics or politics? Or do the issues need to be considered separate from the person, on their own merits?

Is there a subtle change in language happening that effects the way we conceive and behave? Is it directed for a purpose? Is it psyops?

Don Duncan

Don Duncan you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The use of the word smart when talking about phones or other electronic equipment is not meant to mean that the inanimate object has intelligence or can think but is meant to differentiate it from electronic equipment that is not connected to the web and would not have access to the library of knowledge and processing power to use it.


Don Duncan I think people just use feel to highlight that something is an opinion. "I feel that Peter Dinklage was a good casting decision in Game of Thrones" for instance.

If I say "I think 97 is a prime number" or "I think it's supposed to rain tomorrow" it has a different meaning.

Something doesn't have to be sentient or posses conciseness to be considered smart. A well designed feature could be considered smart. I think my phone is smart in a lot of ways. It surpasses people at some things.

Post a Comment

Login with your Gizmag account:

Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our articles