

A Future Where All Objects Talk to the Internet - dylangs1030
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/25/twine-foreshadows-a-future-where-all-objects-talk-to-the-internet/

======
willyt
If anyone from Twine is reading this, it would be really interesting if, along
with twitter etc, these things could easily communicate with sites like
<https://pachube.com/>. I know it's possible to read the pachube api and
configure it to do the the rest stuff manually using the http functionality
but I'm sure you could simplify this a lot through the web interface, which
looks great by the way.

~~~
ennovates
or it'll be even more good if they just create way to let any website
configure themselves without any problem. This way they can act as a medium
for material objects and websites and can position themselves for a very gud
product. They can even charge for exclusive support.

~~~
akarambir
would love to see that happen :)

------
ajays
I'll play the same tune I played the last time this was discussed: what is the
cost? If the cost is above $30, I'm not sure I'd be interested. If they can
bring the cost down to $10, that would be ideal.

More generally speaking: how difficult is it to build one of your own? I'd
like to build a sensor which is powered by, say, 2 AA batteries, has wifi and
a, say, accelerometer. What would it run?

~~~
joezydeco
It would be pretty cheap, except for the wifi part. Those modules seem to be
running in the $50-$60 range for onesies, not including antenna (or making
room on your PCB for a screened one)

~~~
ajays
Well, every module doesn't have to have wifi. It could be Zigbee, with a base
station(s) that interface with wifi.

~~~
dkersten
True, though that gets back to your original point, since Zigbee tranceicesr
are also (relatively) expensive.

I am currently working on some wireless hardware myself and while my devices
do not need to be connected to the internet, they certainly could be since
they do need to connect to a computer. Currently I am using ~$15 bluetooth
modules for devices that can cost more and won't have more than a few
instances deployed in one place. I will probably use wifi for high-cost, many-
instance devices and I am currently evaluating solutions for low-cost, many-
instance (though currently I only need low bandwidth one way communication for
these). So far I have had some success with cheap rf-link mopules such as
these[1], but am investigating cheaper/smaller/more-full-featured
alternatives[1]. My target for these devices is sub €10 (~$13), which includes
cost of microcontroller, rf module, passive components, circuit board and
packaging.

My point is basically that sub-$10 may be possible depending on requirements -
base station or standalone; one way or bidirectional transmission; point-to-
point or broadcast; size requirements and so on. I think for some of the
applications mentioned in the article, sub-$10 is very possible. Of course you
lose the _single general purpose device_ appeal, but perhaps a small number of
more-specialised devices could be available and you can then mix and match,
especially if everything works off a single base station.

[1] <http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10532> they are ultra simple, but also
quite bulky

[2] 2.4Ghz RF transceivers from Nordic Semiconductor among others

~~~
joezydeco
I think the way out of this problem is to skip Wifi, Zigbee, RFID, NFC, and
all the other fancy protocols. The chips are expensive, layout and shielding
is a bitch, and you don't need a 54-mbit link to send the current temperature
once a minute.

Maybe the way to go is to create the simplest low power RF-transmitting
circuit possible that can be driven by an Arduino or other simple
microcontroller and make a simple protocol that tries hard to avoid
collisions.

~~~
dkersten
Agreed. I doubt each individual sensor needs to transfer more than a few bytes
each time and probably not more often than a few times a second (and thats the
extreme case - like you said, once a minute is more likely). This can easily
be done with a low cost, low power RF circuit (and low power would have some
additional advantages over the design in the article - eg, smaller batteries =
smaller device) and wifi connectivity can still be achieved through a hub/base
station. You only really need one wifi connection per sensor installation.

If you need special super sensors that have their own connection for some
reason, then special case those, charge appropriately and leave the base
sensors as cheap sub-$10 devices. A simple temperature or vibration sensor or
whatever shouldn't need to cost much more than about $5 or so, nor would I be
willing to pay all that much more than that (certainly no more than $12).

------
joezydeco
For a moment I thought this was a sealed unit with wireless recharging. Then I
could monitor rainfall, watch the temperature of a pool, or make a nice sous-
vide cooking apparatus.

Next rev, perhaps.

