back to article Google open sources Thread in bid to win IoT standards war

Google has open-sourced the Thread networking protocol used in its Nest smart thermostat in an effort to win the ongoing internet of things standards war. OpenThread was posted on GitHub Wednesday under a BSD license and is free to anyone who wants to build the low-power mesh networking standard into smart-home products. …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

    So many smelly bits in this article.

    But claiming Google is not a closed eco-system kinda company (therefore meaning it is open and transparent) is high bullshit.

    And:

    Bluetooth is a more modern standard and one that is in a huge number of mobile devices already - but it is power-hungry and so people are working furiously on a low-energy version of it.

    Er, how about BLE?

    I could go on, but experience tells me that will only result in more downvotes :-)

    1. kierenmccarthy

      The smell is emanating from your fingers...

      You created an argument that didn't exist and then angrily pointed at it (wrt open and transparent).

      And yes, BLE, Bluetooth Low Energy is what the article was actually talking about. It was also referenced earlier on.

      I'm ready to assume life is endlessly confusing for you.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

      Google does open source peripheral technologies which can be used as Trojan horses to sustain its real core business. IoT is for Google just another Trojan horse to slurp more data from users.

      It's no surprise Thread works over IPv6, what better way to have an unique address to communicate with the mothership?

      1. Bob Vistakin
        Facepalm

        Re: "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

        All the big name IoT players are in that article - it covers things well and the upcoming battles will be very interesting.

        Just to reinforce the state of the industry, when viewing it press Ctrl-F and type "microsoft".

        1. gerritv

          Re: "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

          You will find MSFT very active as part of Alljoyn. They supplied source for several parts and you will find Alljoyn modules in Windows 10 desktop and Windows IoT for amongst other boards the Raspi.

          Sometimes you have to actually read or know something outside of the immediate article.

      2. Captain DaFt

        Re: "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

        "IoT is for Google just another Trojan horse to slurp more data from users."

        It's a lot easier to understand the situation if we'd ditch the marketeer "IoT", and called it by its real name: "Home Monitoring and Control".

        Then ask yourself whether it's wiser to let a stranger monitor and control your home, or do it yourself.

      3. smartypants

        Re: "peripheral technologies" => trojan horse

        This isn't the whole picture.

        Take the language "Go" for example. Google open-sourced this language that they developed to make it easier and quicker to write high performance software with fewer flaws.Their decision to open-source it is selfish - they want potential employees to be able to use that language, but that benefits people who just want a simple, high performance language which does a lot of "internety" things out of the box.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "peripheral technologies" => trojan horse

          It's exactly the same picture. Go is a peripheral technology (open sourcing it doesn't give away any valuable Google core IP), in turns it lure more people towards a Google controlled technology and possibly within its ecosystem, and take also advantage of their efforts in using it (and expanding the available code...).

          After all, that's not different from what Microsoft did with .NET and C#. And nobody would say MS is "open source friendly".

          Sure, some may benefit from them, but it's just a side effect, that's not the main reason of that "open sourceness"

          When Google will open source its search engine, it will be different...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "peripheral technologies" => trojan horse

            True altruism doesn't exist, certainly not in business. Mutual benefit is the best that can be expected. To hope for anything else is to be disappointed - but even if you do find an example of "true" altruism, how is that actually any better in practice than something done for mutual benefit?.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "peripheral technologies" => trojan horse

          "Google open-sourced this language that they developed to make it easier and quicker to write high performance software with fewer flaws"

          When I looked at it it just seemed like C with some different keywords and slightly different syntax. Also it didn't have proper OO. They're going to need something a damn site more impressive than that to persuade most system devs to migrate away from C/C++ especially given another flavour of the month sysdev language called Rust is also doing the rounds.

          1. smartypants

            Re: "peripheral technologies" => trojan horse

            Neither Rust nor Go are 'sysdev' languages. They're languages.

            Go doesn't resemble C at all. It has a garbage collector for a start, lightweight concurrency baked into the language (goroutines and channels), and out-of-the-box has a huge number of the components needed to build modern applications. Not having 'proper OO' isn't a big deal. What it does promote is composition instead, and it does that well. It crosscompiles out of the box and the tooling is great.

            It is just one of a number of interesting languages, but certainly not "flavour of the month". It's been out since 2009 and interest continues to develop.

            So that makes me wonder how you came to conclude "it just seemed like C with some different keywords and slightly different syntax"

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "peripheral technologies" => trojan horse

              "It has a garbage collector for a start"

              *gasp*

              ", lightweight concurrency baked into the language (goroutines and channels),"

              "Baked in"? Its that valley kool-speak for built in?

              FWIW - threads ARE lightweight concurrency. Heavyweight is multi process. HTH.

              "and out-of-the-box has a huge number of the components needed to build modern applications"

              So do most languages.

              "Not having 'proper OO' isn't a big deal"

              Depends on what you're building.

              "What it does promote is composition instead, and it does that well."

              So does C++ and has done since its inception, except it also has proper inheritance too so I'm not sure why you think NOT having a major OO feature is a good thing. Seems to me a half assed effort on Googles part.

              "It's been out since 2009"

              Gosh, that long.

              "So that makes me wonder how you came to conclude"

              Because to me thats pretty much what it is. Or if you prefer - a cut down version of C++/java with a slightly different syntax.

      4. Anonymous Blowhard

        Re: "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

        "It's no surprise Thread works over IPv6"

        Because there's not enough IPv4 addresses for existing devices and IoT could multiply the number of devices by at least two?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

          No, the reason is NAT is not welcome in IPv6...

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: "Google is not a closed eco-system kind of company"

          "It's no surprise Thread works over IPv6"

          Actually, it is a little surprising to see an IoT vendor showing such forward thinking. The question is whether they have ignored IPv4 or whether the use of v4 or v6 is left to the developer/user.

  2. Graham Cobb Silver badge

    None of these sound like what consumers want

    What we need is an open standard for local (in the home) connectivity, with many competing implementations of the home hub with different features and capabilities. Some might be really simple to use but restrictive, for example provided by Apple and fully integrated with their ecosystem for people who use that. At the other extreme, some might be really geeky: running on OpenWRT and configured by editing text files with vi. In between, there would be some which integrate well with other ecosystems (Samsung, Xbox, etc) and have various levels of controllability, security and privacy.

    Within the home, it must be possible to have devices (IoT devices and controllers like phones) talk to each other, without any information passing outside (like using DLNA to control your home media today).

    In some cases (for example for remote access when travelling) it may be useful to have internet servers to co-ordinate and secure access -- but those must be able to be chosen independent of the hub manufacturer and selected by the user just as they choose email services today. In the same way as for email, these must also be able to be self- or community- hosted, not just owned by big internet companies.

    None of that will stop Apple, Google, Samsung, etc being big players in IoT -- many people will choose their products, just as they choose their phones, TVs, and email services today. But the discerning or privacy-conscious consumer should be free to choose alternatives which match their requirements, lifestyle, language, community norms, etc.

    Who is representing consumers (and geeks) in these discussions?

    1. MrXavia

      Re: None of these sound like what consumers want

      We need standards that work, and where we can choose a hub/provider rather than be locked into an ecosystem as all the big players will want....

      Openness, published API's for all devices is what we need so anyone can provide a hub/cloud service for home users.. Myself, I want to write my own, and run it on my own servers, sitting behind my own firewall, and if I want to do something outside the home, I will VPN in.

    2. Anonymous Blowhard

      Re: None of these sound like what consumers want

      "Who is representing consumers (and geeks) in these discussions?"

      Geeks should represent themselves; if the technology doesn't exist in a way that's acceptable to you (e.g. a license free x86 Unix) then make it yourself; apparently there are previous examples of this.

      Consumers have shown in many previous situations that they are happy to trade their data for services (free email, free social networking, free internet search) so don't expect them to be prepared to pay more for private IoT; the corporations know this and Google has the best track record of providing services in exchange for private data, so I expect this is a strategic move to secure the next big data slurp.

  3. Mr Flibble

    More standards!

    (Also, “two complementary and inter-dependent parts”, unless they're saying nice things about each other…)

  4. Unicornpiss
    Meh

    Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

    I work in IT, I love technology, and I have been tinkering with electronics and hooking up stuff to other stuff since my age was in the single digits. A smart thermostat makes sense. A home security system and cameras make sense. Maybe smart door locks and possibly even lighting too. (if anyone can agree on a standard, make it cheap, and reliable) A smart waffle iron, toaster, blender, etc. does not.

    Do we really need everything in our homes to talk to everything else? In addition to the obvious security risks of all this cheap, unregulated, unstandardized stuff, isn't just flipping a switch on or off, turning a dial much easier than spending our ever dwindling free time and sanity trying to troubleshoot why the damn probes in the vegetable crisper aren't communicating with the fridge, which is incommunicado with the shopping app on your phone, which hasn't been the same since the last update? Do we really need every damn thing in our homes to be automated? I really think it will take more than a decade to even begin to sort out this mess. And most of it will likely be proven to be as much of a fad as CB radio. We can barely get all the crap we've already been using for years to keep sync'd reliably and patched, and 802.xxx and Bluetooth are considered mature technologies.

    To quote Douglas Adams: "It is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of [their products] by the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all."

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

      Here's the plot...

      http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

      Having fiddled around with a bunch of IoT stuff I can report that a lot of it is definitely suffering from a so-what problem.

      I've tried a Nest, and it's most useful feature is Auto Away, because that turns off the heating automatically when we're out. Whilst that is supposedly enhanced by linking it to your mobile's location I've never noticed that having a positive effect. It gets ignored. So as far as I'm concerned the Nest would be as good as it is without an Internet connection altogether.

      There's the Belkin WeMo stuff that doesn't work well and it's hard to get excited about it even when it operates correctly.

      White goods? Forget it. Zero value there! An Internet connected kettle really is a waste of time.

      Security systems? The Yale Smart Phone Alarm system has super crude mobile apps. It's an OK alarm, but the software really sucks. And who really is ever going to trust software with the task of keeping their front door locked? It has some nice ideas, like PIRs taking photos when triggered, but the camera and flash is so, so shit you get nothing but a dim blurred picture which will never help you identify the burglar. That's what you get when you power something off 2 AAs instead of a mains connection.

      My overwhelming view is that the real problem is that stuff needs mains power to be truly useful, and we're trying to do too much stuff with battery powered devices.

      Radiator smart valves are a good idea but are severely crippled by having to run on batteries. Given mains power you could do a really good heating control system with them where you could continuously adjust them, actually properly control them. Without it you end up with something that either runs out of battery power really quickly, or else lasts a few month's but is a bit shit.

      A camera PIR is a good idea, but it needs mains power for the camera and flash to be worth it. No one wants to run round the house replacing or recharging PIRs throughout the house every day.

      If you want it a smart door lock is a cool idea, but it could be so much better if it had the mains power. Built in video camera and voip would be a plus, but isn't possible on something designed to run on AAs and last a year.

      The Nest works quite well, but then it has mains power available.

      IoT lights work well, but they also have mains power.

      In short, saving power with lower energy radios like Thread is a good idea (and a necessity at this time), but it's not going to revolutionise the IoT line up and make it all fantastic. I don't think useful IoT stuff will arrive until we either have much better batteries or they start building houses with mains power available in useful places, like next to radiators, doors, corners of coving.

      And if everything was mains powered we wouldn't then need things like Thread. You'd use WiFi instead, and actually have bandwidth available too. For example a video PIR would be a lot better than a camera PIR. Device software could be unconstrained. A lot of software for these things is awful because the firmware has to run on a crummy microcontroller. With mains you could have a proper CPU and OS, maybe run a Web server, have a proper update mechanism, have access to a bunch of libraries that do useful stuff, no need for a house hub, etc.

      Until then it'll still be a bit like a damp squib.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

        Oh, and by distributing mains I really mean 48V DC derived from the mains. That would save having to have wall warts everywhere, as everything could have small low powered DC-DC converters inside.

      2. Hans 1

        Re: Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

        Mains power is all good etc, but what happens when a fuse goes in your home while you are away ? Cannot get back in.

        Why do alarm systems not use mains ? Burglars know how to cut-off the mains ... d'ohh.

        Actually, what you need is hybrid -> mains + accu's that last a week or two.

        As for open-ness, I am pretty sure one will bring the killer appliance with open protocols, easy to use, that enthusiasts will carry. I have not yet seen anything like that.

        1. Mage Silver badge

          Re: Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

          No proper security / alarm system relies on wireless either, those are the consumer junk for people not wanting to run 4 core. Denial of service is trivial on a wireless alarm/lock/security. If it has an "RF interference / blocking alarm, then the criminal will set that off frequently ($50 handheld gadget) till it's disabled (Cry Wolf attack) then do DOS to break in.

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

          Why do alarm systems not use mains ?

          They do! just that (good systems) contain batteries...

          but what happens when a fuse goes in your home while you are away ?

          and that is the real problem with IoT and the OTT use of technology that assumes electricity is on 24x7x365.

          But then you don't need particularly intelligent devices to have daft dependencies: many gas appliances (eg. cookers) use an electric valve to open the gas supply.

      3. Mario Becroft

        Re: Do we all need to feel like we're in a sci-fi movie?

        An obvious solution is to run structured cabling everywhere in every new house build, and use PoE. No need for fat mains wiring and expensive, large, inefficient power supplies on every little device. Plus it is safe, and the wattage provided is perfect for just about any kind of smart monitoring and control device.

  5. Number6

    Can the code be adapted and modified so I can run my own server inside my firewall and talk to all these IoT things? That's what would be really useful for me, so I don't have to trust my private information to unknown servers in the cloud which might be leaking or selling that information. So far the closest I've come to an IoT think is a couple of D-Link cameras which are expressly blocked from the internet by the firewall.

    1. frank ly

      "However, any products will still need to be certified by the Thread Group and manufacturers will need to sign up as members."

      Fork it and rename it as Stitch. Share it with us and set up a user group called the Sewing Circle.

  6. Gene Cash Silver badge

    f'n retarded names

    Why the hell do people give projects these common over-used names?

    Ironically, you know how difficult that's going to make Googling for it? Finding anything on StackOverflow et al and differentiating it from the mass of posts about multitasking libraries will be an exercise in frustration.

    It's like the idiots that named the open-source Visio knockoff "Dia" - it's a decent tool... shame about finding any info on it in the noise from "diagram"

    You'd think Google, of all people, would be more brand-conscious.

    1. Mage Silver badge

      Re: f'n retarded names: Thread

      Or maybe they don't want you to search for 3rd party info?

      made up & unique names are also FAR easier to trademark. It's got to be deliberate.

  7. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Google's Thread Networking protocol

    It's just like the 7-Layer OSI Model, but with a few additions...

    7. Application and Advertising layer

    6. Presentation of Advertising layer

    5. Session and Spying layer

    4. Transport of Advertising layer

    3. Advertising Network layer

    2. Data About the User Linked to our Database layer

    1. Physical Sales Leads layer

  8. Ropewash
    Pirate

    Ooooo...

    I can see one really useful application for data sales here.

    - No-one is home between 6:00am and 4:00pm

    - The whole system uses xxx protocol to communicate and here's the link to aircrack-for-iot and a free copy of the control software.

    - Lastly if these folks are rich enough to have networked lightbulbs, chances are they've a nice TV and stereo too.

    Only $0.99 per address or $9.99 for 20. (address not guaranteed to be in your area and all listings subject to the terms of our Extranious-Unreadable-Larceny-Agreement.)

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Ooooo...

      Yep - CAB.

      Computer Aided Burglary.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not sure I get the point...

    So, Nest has a smart device that turns down the heating when you are out. I have one of those - it's called a timer.... Nest thermostat is £249. Ouch.

    A smoke alarm/CO sensor that allows you to silence it from your app..... So when the toast is burning... beep..beep...beep "anyone seen my phone?" beep..beep..beep..." Mine has a similar "app", its called my finger and a button and I bet anyone I can silence it quicker than using an app.... £89.

    And finally the smart security webcam - actually a reasonable piece of kit, however you have to pay a subscription to share the video on the net. £159 (for a webcam!) and £80 - £240 for the subscription.

    Strikes me that these are expensive devices trying to solve a non-existent problem; mainly to appeal to either geeks or those who want the bragging rights of saying they have a smart home....

    1. frank ly

      Re: Not sure I get the point...

      Many years ago, when using Win XP, I found a simple program that would take a picture from a webcam at regular intervals and overwite a .jpg file with it. It was a simple matter to set up an Apache webserver to deliver that picture. Since I knew my IP address (or could use DynDNS or NoIP) I could proudly show my colleagues a realtime picture of my living room that updated every time I pressed a browser reload button. They shrugged and said 'meh'.

      Hasn't anyone developed a similar arrangement (with better options) and put it on GitHub or similar places?

      1. NinjasFTW

        Re: Not sure I get the point...

        yes, its called motion and its bean around for a long while.

        I use it for home monitoring/security and doorbell type system.

        If there is movement in the house during the day when i'm at work it records any movement, sends it to an offsite location and send a push notification to my phone.

        If i'm home and someone approaches my door it sends a push notification to my phone with a link to the live stream of the door cam. That way I don't have to go downstairs to answer the door for another window salesman etc.

        Cost a hundred pounds and a good few hours to setup but all using common components and open source software

        1. Mage Silver badge

          Re: Not sure I get the point...

          Free versions been around since about 1997, that's when I tried automatic image grab & upload to Internet (I was using ISDN at home).

  10. jms222

    and after decades we STILL don't have the individual units of our entertainment systems talk to each other so we all have a pile of remote controls and typically need to operate two of them to watch something.

    1. DropBear

      Fixed that a decade ago with a Harmony universal remote - it's far from perfect, but I never needed the other remotes since...

  11. James 51

    It will be open source the way that android is open source. There'll be an equivalent of the play binary blob sooner or later and most people will have to bow down to what is essentially a closed system.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Exactly. You can inspect the contents, but you are not free to easily change them or opt out, because you lose your membership privileges. Look at the open source "Android" OS. Android and Google Play Service is basically a Google reporting tool, and vendors are required to have Google deeply integrated in their devices. I suspect something similar will happen with IoT. Google will provide "free" standards etc, and cute apps and devices, but only on the basis that they rape your home for data. Hardware manufactures will be happy to manufacture and sell the items, and the regulating bodies will hear one squeak from the geeks, happy grunts from the masses (initially) and the government will appoint Google bods to sit on the standardization and regulatory boards.

      Coming soon: some shitty buzz named website / service from Google which allows you to "monitor" and "talk to" your home devices. Expect to see toasters and fridges badged with "works with Google" at your local white goods store.

      The only loser is the customer. And this shit may set in stone standards we may never be able to shift later (VHS etc).

  12. Mage Silver badge

    IP addressing is increasingly accepted as the best way to build out an IoT global infrastructure

    Only if you don't care about security or privacy. It's also a huge overhead in memory and CPU

    I'd rather they all used zigbee or simpler (even an encrypted ASK/OOK 433MHz/385MHz or whatever depending on country) and then a single secure dongle connected at your router via ethernet. Hardly any of these companies have shown any competence in WiFi security, allowing miscreants to use the coffee maker to filch your WiFi password/security settings!

    Also they should be 100% functional without

    a) Providers' so called "cloud"

    b) Optionally any internet at all.

    1. napalmDaz
      Thumb Up

      Re: IP addressing is increasingly accepted as the best way to build out an IoT global infrastructure

      Like these ;)

      Simplicity is the key!

      http://wirelesstag.net/specs.html

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Qualcomm

    Google thread AND alljoyn partner.

    The Qualcomm Allplay platform is built on alljoyn

  14. Automator

    Why the negativity?

    Open Source is good, but I cannot understand the negativity toward closed systems and why they are not given more credit for what they accomplish. Look at how much further ahead Z-Wave is in all of this; it stems from having control over the specification - while taking input from manufacturers - without letting it become a total mess like so many open or nearly open protocols. If it gets you what you want, which is a wide selection of products, why write it off just because it is not open source? Other than paying for the SoCs, the only requirement is that manufacturer's certify their products to guarantee that they will work with other products - that is a good thing. Hub manufacturers like Samsung SmartThings are already creating hubs with multiple protocols, so its not like we're going to see a "closet full of hubs" happen. The bad thing here are the protocols that bring nothing to the party - Z-Wave has low power and mesh. Zigbee has bandwidth and mesh. WiFi/Ethernet has bandwidth. Thread is just a variant of existing technologies and should not exist to begin with, but it would be quite beyond Google to play in somebody else's sandbox, so naturally they figure they will use their 600lb gorilla-ness to force a new one upon the world. Z-Wave has also had Z-Wave over IP (Z/IP) for years, so pointing out that it was not designed with IP from the beginning is just an attempt to besmirch it; what protocols that are 15 years old were designed with IP from the beginning?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like