Diving into a more practical Internet of Things

Let’s skip the Gartner hype cycle discussion about the ever-evolving Internet of Things, shall we? It’s a given: IoT is huge, everyone’s hair is on fire — some will be disillusioned, some will win big, time will sort it out. But, if you’re waiting for the “one thing to rule them all,” you’ll surely be a bystander to a new wave of innovation and opportunities. You have to dive in before all the winners and losers are culled.

Because IoT is such a massive domain, this series is an attempt to boil it down into something practical, even desktop scope.

Roadmap

To start, we’ll introduce and discuss a relatively simple model and way to think about the IoT in order to help keep your technical bearings in a rapidly changing landscape.

In subsequent parts of this series, I’ll explore some of the leading IoT protocols, and in keeping with a “practical IoT” theme, we’ll do some desktop IoT with some easy-to-use development boards from Atmel along with a selection of open-source tools or libraries.

I’ll put heavy emphasis on IoT security as it is an often overlooked, yet critical, element of implementing a successful IoT stack. The goal is to create a basic IoT stack that works well together, but more importantly, provides a hands-on lab to try out various aspects of the connected world as it evolves.

Use Case

As a system architect, you need to get a sensor solution up and running which won’t fall on its face at the first inkling of success. You need to worry about such things as embedded size constraints, scaling strategies, third party integration, connectivity, economics, implementation skill sets, power, and even future-proofing.

You’ll want your system to grow and evolve while the IoT is trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up.

It sounds a lot like you are doing M2M, so how is IoT going to help?

What’s the difference between IoT and M2M?

“Always design a thing by considering it in the next larger context – a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.” – Eliel Saarinen

If you developed a sensor network before the IoT acronym came along, you’d be forgiven for thinking IoT is just lipstick on M2M. M2M is often associated with point solutions or a fleet of the same kind of thing — a system of Wi-Fi thermostats, a flow sensor network in an oil-refinery, a vehicle location system, home automation, all the heart monitoring telemetry in a hospital. For some in the industry, M2M means anything with a cellular modem on a particular carrier’s network.

Long story short, the key takeaway is that M2M is almost synonymous with isolated systems of sensors and islands of telemetry data. In contrast, the IoT is trying to marry disparate systems into an expansive system view to enable new applications — that’s not only the big idea, it’s the one key difference between M2M and IoT.

“If you consider M2M in the next larger context, you get the IoT.” – Landon Cox

I guess we can say that IoT really stands for “I want it all.” In order to achieve that, major new facets such as first class security, big data, cloud scale, ubiquitous presence, human interactions — all wrapped up in business objective parlance — come to bear.

IoT is a catch-all technology bucket and it’s probably always going to be that way, so let’s make the best of it and make headway amidst all the ambiguity and hype. Here’s how…

One practical way to think about it is: The Internet of Things is the arch connecting M2M vertical pillars (technology stacks). This view allows the IoT to leverage all of the good work that has gone into M2M, incorporate existing legacy M2M systems, yet leave it loosely coupled and abstract enough to describe various business problems (not one size fits all).

In the example above, IoT is marrying health sensor data from three very different sources and contexts, all of which are using different company’s products within siloed M2M ecosystems. Bringing this together provides a better overall picture of a client’s health than individual silos can. IoT technologies, such as cloud scale and security, gain tremendous importance in an application like this, beyond the significance within the silo’s scale.

This view also helps keep IoT from being tied to a specific M2M technology stack. The implication? For IoT to add value not already in M2M, it must provide a fabric that either bridges M2M systems, through analytics or data networking, or fulfill a business mission not addressed by an individual M2M stack.

IoT Caveats

IoT is dangerously close to the SOA vortex (Service Oriented Architecture) and is something we need to be mindful of avoiding. As SOA expert Anne Thomas Manes pointed out in SOA is Dead; Long Live Services, “Perhaps that’s the challenge: The acronym got in the way. People forgot what SOA stands for. They were too wrapped up in silly technology debates (e.g., “what’s the best ESB?” or “WS-* vs. REST”), and they missed the important stuff: architecture and services.”

My summary? Despite some good technology and ideas that came out of SOA, technology that the IoT builds upon, SOA died of its own weight.  We should keep the cause of death of SOA in mind when working on IoT so it doesn’t become a likewise casualty.

I would like to see IoT architecture evolve along the lines of the OSI network reference model and not SOA (except for the important stuff). That means that IoT should be a simple, common concept used by system architects to design, map, and compare different implementations.

Ethernet and Token Ring, for example, are two very different network technologies, but both map to the OSI reference model. OSI gives us a common way to talk about nearly any network technology. We need the same idea for IoT to make it practical.

From that perspective, we could talk about many different Internet of Things stacks in the same manner we talk about Ethernet, Wi-Fi, TCP/IP, or UDP. Various technologies fit into a common network model (OSI) and are combined in various ways to achieve something useful (i.e. the web).  Same with the IoT: Think of it as a model, like OSI. Specific IoT implementations map to various parts of an IoT reference model like specific networks technologies map to OSI.

So, this is the basic philosophy behind what I would call “practical IoT:”

1. Don’t let the acronym get in the way.

2. Use the right tool for the right job (IoT stack flexibility, not one-size-fits-all, no IoT wars).

3) Ensure IoT is more technology-oriented, like the OSI reference model; less marketing oriented and less like SOA.

4) It has to be more than, and distinctly different from, M2M.

Now where?

I realize this was a really high level view of Practical IoT. Stay tuned for upcoming Desktop IoT tutorials and hands-on demonstrations as we’ll delve deep and get practical with the Internet of Things. In the meantime, imagine, expand and evolve your connected ideas with Atmel’s latest (free) white paper.

 

1:1 Interview with Michael Koster

---

Three-part Interview Series (Part 2)

---

Series 2 – IoT Toolkit and Roadmap

Tom Vu (TV):  What is in the roadmap for IoT Toolkit?

Michael Koster (MK):

The IoT Toolkit is an Open Source project to develop a set of tools for building multi-protocol Internet of Things Gateways and Service gateways that enable horizontal co-operation between multiple different protocols and cloud services. The project consists of the Smart Object API, gateway service, and related tools.

IoT Smart Object Structure

The foundation of the platform is purely bottom up, based on applying best practices and standards in modern web architecture to the problem of interoperability of IoT data models. I believe that the practice of rough consensus and running code results in better solutions than a top-down standard, once you know the basic architecture of the system you’re building.

To that end, I created a public github and started building the framework of the data model encapsulations and service layer, and mapped out some resourceful access methods via a REST interface. The idea was to make a small server that could run in a gateway or cloud instance so I could start playing with the code and build some demos.

The next step is to start building a community consensus around, and participation in, the data models and the platform. The IoT Toolkit is a platform to connect applications and a mixture of devices using various connected protocols.  It’s real power lies in its broader use, where it can span across all of our connected resources in industry, ranging from commerce, education, transportation, environment, and us. It’s a horizontal platform intended to drive Internet of Things more widely as an eventual de facto standard, built for the people who are interested in building out Internet of Things products and services based on broad interoperability.

IoT Applications Run on Cloud or On Gateway

We intend to create a Request For Comment (RFC), initiate a formal process for the wider Internet of Things platform and standards.  An community agreed upon process similar to the world wide web that we use today, based on rough consensus and running code, with RFCs serving as working documents and de facto standards that people can obtain reference code, run in their system to test against their needs, and improve and modify if necessary, feeding back into the RFC for community review and possible incorporation of the modifications.

The Internet of Things interoperability platform stands as an ideal candidate, leveraging the power of the open source community’s development process.  In turn, community involvement is taken to a new level, across many fields of discipline, and in many directions. Here is where we can get the most benefit of an agile community.  Crowdsource the development process based on principles of open communication and free of the need for participants to protect interests toward proprietary intellectual property.

We need to build the platform together meshed around the community of Makers, DIY, Designers, Entrepreneurs, Futurist, Hackers, and Architects to enable prototyping in an open ecosystem.  Proliferation then occurs; a diverse background of developers, designers, architects, and entrepreneurs have many avenues of participation. They can create a new landscape of IoT systems and products.

This broad participation extends to industry, academia and the public sector.  We are aiming for broad participation from these folks, build a global platform based on common needs. As a member of the steering committee, when I participated in the IoT World Forum, I heard from the technical leaders of enterprise companies (Cisco and others), research departments, and IoT service providers. They believe an open horizontal platform would be needed to enable applications that span across their existing vertical markets and M2M platforms.

Instead of a top-down approach, where people from corporations and institutions get together in a big meeting and put all their wish lists together to make a standard, we’re taking an overall bottom-up approach, bringing together a diverse community ranging from makers to open source developers, and entrepreneurs. Together with corporations, academia, and public sector, we all will participate in a very broad open source project to develop a platform that can be ubiquitous that everyone can use.

In many ways, this is modeled after the Internet and World Wide Web itself.  As we need to create a more formal standard, it will likely engage with the IETF and W3C. A good example is the semantic sensor network incubator project, which is an SSN ontology that describes everything about sensors and sensing. This enables broad interoperability between different sensor systems and platforms, based on common data models and descriptions. What we want to do is something similar to that, only on a more comprehensive scale and intended for the Internet of Things.

Tom Vu (TV):  Can you take us through a tour of the Data Object model importance and how it yields significance for simple and sophisticated connected devices?

Michael Koster (MK):

The Internet of Things today consists of many different sensor networks and protocols, connected to dedicated cloud services, providing access through smartphone and browser apps. It is rare for these separate “silos” to cooperate or interact with each other.

We abstract the complexity of sensor nets connecting devices and hardware by adding a layer of semantic discovery and linkage. This enables the sensors and actuators on disparate sensor nets to be easily combined to build integrated applications.

The way this works is using a few techniques. First, the different sensor nets are integrated through a common abstraction layer. This works a lot like device drivers in an operating system, adapting different devices and protocols to a common system interface. Only in this case, they are adapted to a common data model.

The common data model for sensor nets is based on the new IETF CoRE application protocol and sensor descriptions. This provides standard ways for common types of sensors to be discovered by their attributes, and standard ways for the data to be linked into applications, by providing descriptions of the JSON or BSON data structure the sensor provides as it’s output.

We use the W3C Linked Data standard to provide web representations of data models for sensor data and other IoT data streams. Linked data representations of IETF CoRE sensor descriptions are web-facing equivalents of CoRE sensor net resources. Linked data provides capabilities beyond what CoRE provides, so we can add functions like graph-based access control, database-like queries, and big data analysis.

Internet Smart Object

Internet of Things Applications are essentially graph-structured applications. By using Linked data descriptions of JSON structures and the meaning of the data behind the representation, we can create applications that link together data from different disparate sources into single application graphs.

Then we enable the platform with an event-action programming model and distributed software components. The common semantic language enables the data sources and software components to easily be assembled and make data flow connections. The result is an event-driven architecture of self-describing granular scale software objects. The objects represent sensors, actuators, software components, and user interaction endpoints.

Interent of Things with FOAT Control Graph

Tom Vu (TV):  Who and what companies should be involved?

Michael Koster (MK):

Whoever wants to participate in the building out of the Internet of Things. The people that use the infrastructure should build it out; the people who want to provide products and services based on interoperability, along with those who provide the backplane of thinking low power microcontrollers / microprocessors, connected sensors, and importantly the network infrastructure.

We want to enable all avenues of participation to allow corporations, academia, policy and standards makers, entrepreneurs and platform developers, makers, and DIY hackers all to be involved in building the platform as a community.

For corporations, we will provide an important role, to build a vendor-neutral platform for data sharing and exchange, an open horizontal platform that will allow the integration of what were traditionally vertical markets into new horizontal markets.

Anyone participating or expecting to participate in the emerging Internet of Things, Internet of Everything, Industrial Internet, Connected World, or similar IoT ecosystems initiatives, could benefit by participating in creating this platform. Companies that provide network infrastructure and want to build in value add can adopt this standard platform and provide it as infrastructure. Companies that want to provide new services and new connected devices that can use the IoT Toolkit to easily deploy and connect with existing resources could benefit.

All companies, organizations, and people that can benefit from an open Internet of Things are welcome to participate in the creation of a platform that everyone can use.

Tom Vu (TV):  How important is Open Source to Internet of Things evolution?

Michael Koster (MK):

I don’t see how the Internet of Things can evolve into what everyone expects it to without a large open source component. We need to go back to Conway’s law and look at it from both the system we’re trying to create and the organization that creates it. Interoperability and sharing are key in the system we want to create. It’s only natural that we create an open development organization where we all participate in both the decisions and the work.

Removing the attachment of intellectual property, changes the dynamics of the development team, keeps things engaged and moving forward solving problems. It’s important for software infrastructure projects like this to remove the barrier to cooperation that arises from the self-protection instinct around proprietary Intellectual Property, or even egoism associated with soft intellectual property, “my” code.

Instead, we turn the whole project into a merit-based system as opposed to being ego driven.  Rather than worry about guarding our property, we are motivated to solve the problems and contribute more to the deliverable. The limits to participation are removed and there is a more rapid exposure of intentions and goals. Engagement and innovation can rule in this environment of deep collaboration.

Tim Berners-Lee said that he was able to achieve the creation of the World Wide Web system because he didn’t have to ask permission or worry about violating someone’s copyright. We are creating the same environment for people who want to build our platform, and even for those who want to build their services and applications on top of the platform.

We are going to create the service enabled layer as open source as well so that any one of the companies can help proliferate the idea and everyone has influence and access to the development of the underlying IoT platform.  If it’s open source infrastructure and platform software, you can make a service on top of that software that can contain proprietary code. With our license, you can even customize and extend the platform for your own needs as a separate project.

Tom Vu (TV):  Describe your work with the EU IoT organization and how you are involved as a voice for the Internet of Things?

Michael Koster (MK):

I work with the IoT Architecture group within the overall EU Internet of Things project. The IoT-A group is closely related to the Future Internet project. They have an Architecture Reference Model describing different features one might build in an IoT platform, a sort of Architecture for Architectures. Since their process mirrors my own design process to a large extent, I found their reference model to be compatible with my own architecture modeling process.

They are conducting a Top-Down activity, stewarding the participation in the architecture and standardization model.  One of the ways I work with IoT-A is to use the Smart Object API as a validation case for the Architecture Reference Model. They are building the reference model top down, and we’re building the architecture bottom-up, based on a common expression of architecture relationships and descriptions.

I am also involved in advocating open source of IoT and building of local IoT demonstrator projects, educating around IoT, open data, etc. as well as user controlled resource access and privacy.  I am providing a voice for open source and open standards, into the standards movement going forward.

Here in the USA, there is not anything like what they have in Europe. Here the process will be to engage corporations and institutions and create a participatory structure that enables fair and open opportunity for influence and access to both the development process and the final products.

Tom Vu (TV):  How important is an open standard – building of an RFC in which all industries can agree upon ultimately serving to a wider scale factors of adoption and proliferation?

Michael Koster (MK):

To simply put it, the construction of a formal RFC is something that describes part of system.  A Request for Comments (RFC) is a memorandum published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems.  It is a process or evolution in achieving a more widely adopted standard.  The founders of the Internet created this process, and http, etc are all built using original RFC process from many years ago.

Through the Internet Engineering Task Force, engineers and computer scientists may publish discourse in the form of an RFC, either for peer review or simply to convey new concepts, information, or (occasionally) engineering humor. The IETF adopts some of the proposals published as RFCs as Internet standards.

If the IoT Toolkit platform becomes adopted, it may eventually be as many as 10-12 different RFCs, but it’s important to get people to agree on common first set.  This is the initial phase into a more pervasively used universal standard.  In fact, it’s sort of like a strawman platform.  It’s intent is to describe and collaborate, but also invoke and seek out broader participation…  We are at the stage of putting proposals together over the next few weeks and setting up meetings to talk to many people around collaboration and participation in building an Internet of Things platform.

We believe that an open standard platform for horizontal interoperability is key to achieving the promise of the Internet of Things. Everyone needs to be able to present and process machine information in machine understandable formats on the IoT, just as we humans enjoy commonly understandable web data formats and standardized browsers on today’s WWW. It’s important that developers be able to focus on solving problems for their clients and not waste resources on communication and translation.

Read Part Three to Learn More about Why IoT (Internet of Things) Matters?

Here are Part 1 and Part 2 of the Interview Series.

Open Sauce

By Steve Castellotti

CTO, Puzzlebox

North Beach, San Francisco’s Italian neighborhood, is famous for the quality and wide variety of its many restaurants. From colorful marquees scattered up and down Columbus to the hushed, more dimly lit grottos hidden down side streets and back alleys, there is no lack of choice for the curious patron.

Imagine then, having chosen from all these options, you sit down and order your favorite dish. When the plate arrives the waiter places next to it a finely embossed card printed on thick stock. A closer examination reveals the complete recipe for your meal, including hand-written notations made by the chef. Tips for preparation and the rationale for selecting certain ingredients over others are cheerfully included.

Flipping the card over reveals a simple message:

“Thank you for dining with us this evening. Please accept this recipe with our regards. You may use it when cooking for friends and family, or just to practice your own culinary skills. You may even open your own restaurant and offer this very same dish. We only ask that you  include this card with each meal served, and include any changes or improvements you make.”

Sharing the “Secret” Sauce

Having been raised in an Italian family myself, I can assure you that there is no more closely guarded secret than the recipe for our pasta gravy (the sauce). But I can’t help but wonder how such an open sharing might affect the landscape of a place such as North Beach. If every chef was obliged to share their techniques and methods, surely each would learn from the other? Customers would benefit from this atmosphere of collaboration in terms of the taste and quality of their dinners.

These many restaurants, packed so tightly together as they are, would still be forced to compete on terms of the dining experience. The service of their wait-staff, the ambience, and cost would count for everything.

For the majority of customers, knowledge of the recipe would simply be a novelty. In most cases they would still seek a professional chef to prepare it for them. But to the aspiring amateur, this information would contribute to their education. A new dish could be added to their repertoire.

An experienced restaurateur could no doubt correct me on any number of points as to why such a scenario would be a poor business model and never could or should be attempted. But just across town, throughout Silicon Valley and indeed across the globe, in the realm of technology, this exact model has been thriving for decades.

Open Source in the Software World

In the software world, developers have been sharing their source code (the recipe for the programs they write) under licenses similar to the one outlined above on a grand scale and to great success. The Internet itself was largely constructed using open platforms and tools. Mobile phones running Google’s Android operating system are now the most popular in the world, with complete source material available online. And in 2012 Red Hat became the first open source company to achieve a billion dollars in revenue, with customers from IBM to Disney and Pixar among their roster.

The benefits are many. Developers can leverage each others’ work for knowledge and time saving. If you want to build a new web site, there’s no need to write the web server or common routines such as user management from scratch. You can take open versions and start from there. Even better, if you have questions or run into trouble, more likely than not someone else has, too, and the answer is only a search away. Most importantly, if the problem you found indicates a flaw in the software (a bug), then a capable coder is empowered to examine the source and fix it himself or herself. And the result can be shared with the entire community.

There are parallels here to several fields. Similar principles form the basis of the scientific method. Without the sharing of procedures and data, independent verification of results would be impossible. And many discoveries result from iterating on proven techniques. A burgeoning do-it-yourself community, a veritable Maker Movement, has grown around magazines like Make and websites such as Instructables.com. New inventions and modifications to popular products are often documented in meticulous detail, permitting even casual hardware hackers to follow along. Electronics kits and prototyping boards from companies like Arduino are based on Atmel microcontrollers  plus open circuit designs, and are often used to power such projects.

Brain-Controlled Helicopter

Recently, our company, Puzzlebox, released the Orbit, a brain-controlled helicopter. The user begins by setting a display panel to the desired level of concentration and/or mental relaxation they wish to achieve.  A mobile device or our custom Pyramid peripheral processes data collected by a NeuroSky EEG headset. When that target is detected in the user’s brainwaves, flight commands are issued to the Orbit using infrared light. One can practice maintaining focus or a clarity of thought using visual and physical feedback.

Puzzlebox Brain-Controlled Helicopter with Atmel AVR

Beyond novelty, however, lies the true purpose of the Puzzlebox Orbit. All source code, hardware designs, schematics, and 3D models are published freely online. Step-by-step guides for hacking the software and electronics are included. Methods for decoding infrared signals and extending mechanisms to operate additional toys and devices are shared. Creative modification is encouraged.  The goal is to promote the product as a teaching aid for middle and high school sciences classes and in university-level programming and electrical engineering courses.

This business model is itself a bit of an experiment, much like the restaurant described above. There is little preventing a competitor from producing a knock-off and leveraging our own recipes to do it. They might even open their doors just across the street from ours. We’ll need to work hard to keep our customers coming back for seconds. But so long as everyone abides by the rules, openly publishing any modifications of improvements made on our recipe, we’re not afraid to share the secrets of our sauce. We only ask that they include the original material with each dish they serve, and include any changes or improvements made along the way. We’re willing to compete on cost and dining experience. In this way we hope to improve the quality and flavor for everyone.

Puzzlebox with Arduino and Atmel AVR

Openness and The Internet of Things

Today, communities such as Kickstarter and others tapping into the power of openness and crowd-sourcing are fueling a lot of technological innovation.  The next era for enterprise is revolving around The Internet of Things (#IoT), machine-to-machine (#M2M) communications and even the Industrial Internet (#IndustrialInternet).

One strong proponent of innovation and thought, Chris Anderson, is renowned for having his fingerprints and vision on trends as they bloom into movements.  Anderson is committed and energized in this Make-infused world. His latest book, “Makers: The New Industrial Revolution”, eloquently outlines the “right now” moment with makers. “Hardware is the new software”, opening up the brink of the next age of the Internet, where devices and machines become connected. Cloud, agile apps, and embedded design hardware (systems on chips, microcontrollers, or smart devices) are converging and  paving the next generation of integrated products across the fabric of devices.

“The real revolution here is not in the creation of the technology, but the democratization of the technology. It’s when you basically give it to a huge expanded group of people who come up with new applications, and you harness the ideas and the creativity and the energy of everybody. That’s what really makes a revolution.

…What we’re seeing here with the third industrial revolution is the combination of the two [technology and manufacturing]. It’s the computer meets manufacturing, and it’s at everybody’s desktop.”

Excerpt credited from Chris’s Anderson’s “Maker: The New Industrial Revolution”

With that said, we enter the next age, where hardware is the new software.

Smartphones Powering the Internet of Things

Good piece today from Peter Yared, CTO of CBS Interactive, in Venture Beat. Yared’s key point is that smartphones are controlling a greater amount of devices inside–and outside–of the home. He writes, “It is likely that every room of a home will have a 4” or 7” smart device mounted as a control panel for lights, music, and more. Soon, “flipping a light switch” will sound as archaic as “dialing a telephone”.”

Part of what’s making this possible, says Yared, is the underlying technology. From embedded controllers–and we’d count Atmel maXTouch touchscreen controllers in this mix–to easy-to-use, low-cost platforms like Arduino, based on Atmel megaAVR microcontrollers, and Raspberry Pi, these technologies are making it easier and faster to create feature-rich smartphones as well as other touch-based and web-enabled devices. With these robust technologies and a lot of engineering ingenuity, consumers can now bring into their homes unique, smartphone-controlled products, from door locks to home theater systems. The same transformation is happening with today’s vehicles, where manufacturers now have the technology to bring the smartphone experience to drivers.

And this is why so many are calling this the era of The Internet of Things. Before long, according to The Internet of Things proponents, web-enabled devices and products will outnumber people on our planet. More and more of these “machines” will be able to take in data, apply smart analytics and algorithms, and take action, without our intervention.

Have you brought the smartphone experience into your car or home? What types of web-enabled products are most prominent in your life today?

Internet of Things — How Do You Feel About the Role of Machines in Our World?

The “machines” are, indeed, taking over. How do you feel about this?

We’re getting deeper into the era of The Internet of Things (IoT). What we’re seeing–and using–is no longer sci-fi fantasy. In healthcare, the combination of IoT and genomic research is moving us toward more personalized medicine.  On production lines, machine-to-machine (M2M) communications is getting product out the door, quickly and efficiently. In our homes, we can remotely activate a variety of systems–lighting, security and entertainment, just to name a few. And Google, as you’ve probably heard, is testing its self-driving car.

According to Forbes, there are about two Internet-enabled devices for every person in the world today. Analysts expect that by 2025, there will be nearly 50 billion Internet-enabled devices.

Just yesterday, Atmel announced that it is acquiring Ozmo, Inc., a leading developer of ultra-low power Wi-Fi solutions. With this move, Atmel strengthens its product line up to enable the design of smart, connected devices, including those targeted to IoT.

As a design engineer, how do you feel about the opportunities available to use your engineering ingenuity to create Internet-enabled products that are changing the world? And as a consumer, how do you feel about the power that these products now have?