If, like me, you ever rashly checked a “management” or “IT” box on a reply mailer card, you probably now receive several unsolicited publications aimed at middle and upper management and designed to flagellate that group into buying into specific (advertiser-sponsored) technology buzzwords. If you ever leaf through these publications before using them to line your ferret's cage, you will have seen much mention of “pervasive computing,” which is a buzzword in some favor at the present. The term is used to describe systems for interconnecting miscellaneous small embedded systems, mostly consumer appliances (air conditioners, TV sets, refrigerators and so on), especially where such interconnection is over or accessible via the Internet.
The interesting thing about this particular buzzword is that in all probability its coffin will eventually be nailed shut by precisely the same people who are currently promoting it; i.e., the bean counters. At the moment, the bean counters are happy to ride the free publicity that goes with being able to say, “We are a member of the XYZ Protocol Forum, showcased at [major trade show].” Someday there will be a need to pay the piper by implementing real products based on these protocols.
The purpose of this essay is to illustrate in a small way how this need will pass down from sales and management to engineering, be implemented, and then bounce back up to sales and management, who will then reject it on profitability or other grounds.
“Pervasive computing” actually arrived in our lives a long time ago. Almost every appliance already contains a microcontroller of some caliber. So the drive towards pervasive computing would be better described as a drive towards standardized control networking. Although I have intimate experience with Microsoft's Universal Plug'N'Play protocol (UPnP), being a forum member, this essay is applicable to UPnP's competitors also (Jini most certainly; possibly also HAVNET and others), so I'll refer to all such protocols as “SCNs.”
The sophism most frequently employed by the proponents of SCNs is that the price of networkable microcontrollers is decreasing so rapidly that the costs of adding network connectivity can be absorbed and made invisible to the consumer. The biggest problem with this reasoning is that most consumer electronics are highly commoditized with ever-shrinking profit margins, and furthermore, new models have a very short product life cycle. Products such as VCRs and television sets are often superseded before they even reach their destination port. Any reduction in parts cost must therefore seized by the manufacturer to provide a modicum of protection against bloodthirsty price competition in the consumer electronics market.
For SCNs to be successful, it must be demonstrated to the average consumer that the SCN functionality adds value that justifies a higher cost. Although it's a clich, it really does help to remember how many VCRs there are in America that blink “–:–” because the owner doesn't know how or doesn't care to set the time. Certain appliances such as the TV, VCR, refrigerator, oven, CD player and so on have a basic use that has been assimilated completely into the daily lifestyle. The consumer needs the device to provide essentially one function – displaying a TV picture, playing videotapes, keeping food cool, and so on. Products that fulfill a basic need like this are differentiated by price and by how well they perform that single basic function (e.g., the size of a TV screen, the capacity of a refrigerator, or the heat-exchange capability of an air conditioner).
Peripherally related features are much harder to sell. As anyone who has worked a trade show floor will know, if you need to explain to someone why he needs something, he probably isn't going to walk away feeling compelled to buy it. To put it another way: consumers are simple creatures with simple needs, and the ebb and flow of consumer-on-the-street interest in specific functionality is a massive phenomenon that is hard to divert.
Though home automation technologies have been available for quite awhile, their penetration is infinitesimal. I don't think most consumers want to control their lawnmower from a touch screen on the front of their refrigerator. Some people disagree with this position.
From the technical perspective, SCN design and implementation is made much harder by the fact that the particular software corporation in charge of each major protocol is trying to arrange matters so that by implementing their particular SCN flavor appliance manufacturers are inclined to embrace other technologies promoted by the same software company. For instance, Sun is pushing embedded Java. Microsoft is pushing .NET and licenses for Windows CE, and is making vigorous efforts to ensure that UPnP promotes the use of the PC as the central component of the household SCN. (In a piece of traditional doublethink, this goal is simultaneously acknowledged and repudiated by Microsoft. All the design documents you'll ever get to read talk about gloriously OS-agnostic protocols).
Worse, the SCN is steered so that it does not compete with other products from the controlling software corporation. This sometimes results in bizarre hoop-jumping in the SCN design, to avoid the possibility that (for instance) a cheap device intended to serve MP3 content and graphics files to stereo systems and digital picture frames around your house might replace the functionality of an expensive server operating system.
A related issue that I have never seen addressed adequately is the apparent contradiction between the stated goal of SCNs (to allow universal interconnectivity without the need for an intermediary PC) and the fact that many of the appliances in question are physically incapable of connecting to any but a limited range of other devices. Unless a physical interface standard is developed, it's a simple fact that universal appliance interconnectivity will require a universal gateway device of some kind, capable of joining RS-232C, USB, IEEE-1394, Ethernet, 802.11b, Bluetooth, IrDA, HomePNA, HomeRF, and dozens of other technologies.
The one device that already has many of these technologies is the home PC. So the idea that SCNs will remove the PC as a data conduit doesn't seem very rational (not that it was ever really anyone's goal, of course – especially not Microsoft's. It just sounds good to say, “We're eliminating the need for a PC and allowing any device to talk to any other device directly” without getting down into the details of how that does – or doesn't – work).
Of course, individual appliance manufacturers are also trying to push their own agendas and are muddying the simplest usage scenarios with manufacturer-specific issues. Manufacturers are anxious to ensure that the money they're spending on this technology will enable them to showcase entire systems built of their own appliances, without referring to products from other companies. Unfortunately, in the process, the baseline standard is further complicated by these manufacturers' need to support specific types of communications between specific combinations of appliances.
The already unsteady apple cart is completely upset by the last major remaining group of players in the SCN design forums, who are best characterized as the intellectual zealots. These players fall mostly into two categories: small productless companies that see a market for ready-rolled SCN IP and consultancy services, and theoreticians from mega-corporations such as Intel and IBM, with titles that mean something like “Designer In Charge Of Ideas That Sound Really Good In Press Releases But Which Can't Be Made Into Economical Products.”
The first group stands to profit from making SCN implementation so complicated that specialists are needed for the job, though it is doubtful that they are consciously pursuing that aim. These people can be recognized at SCN forum meetings by the way they vigorously encourage every weird scenario proposal, while never actually delivering anything concrete in the way of code or products.
The second group consists of people who would probably see intrinsic value in paying $50 extra for a TV set that can talk over TCP/IP to a security camera in Sri Lanka (even if the security camera isn't designed yet) using a video compression format that hasn't been finalized yet and might not even be released due to patent issues?
If you think that sounds silly, you've probably never sat through an SCN forum conference. It's agitation from this sector that is mostly responsible for decisions such as basing an embedded communications protocol around XML. (By the way, don't get me wrong. XML is great in the applications for which it was designed – exchanging transactional data among heterogeneous business systems. However, it's terribly byte-inefficient and adds nothing except implementation complexity to what should be a simple protocol for communication amongst embedded systems). People in this group are responsible for prolific generation of documents describing exceedingly complex standards that solve nonexistent problems.
In their quest for the holy grail of a standard that can cover all current and future possible ideas, they neglect two points: first, and most importantly, these protocols will have to be cut down into tiny appliances if they have any chance of being implemented. Making the standard too open-ended results in enormous cost issues – both development and production costs. Appliance firmware engineers should have been consulted before the various design groups (composed, it seems, of theoretical software engineers with no background in embedded programming) became religiously committed to particular buzzword technologies.
It is implicitly recognized that SCN standards will be versioned and that future iterations will implement new functionality that, by definition, cannot be represented in the confines of earlier versions. So there is no need to keep raising the design complexity bar by cramming option upon option into V1.0 of the specification.
An extremely unpleasant phenomenon has emerged as a combination of the zealots' efforts and the software corporations' market protection efforts (with possibly a dash of marketing's “lets be buzzword-compliant” influence thrown in). This is the trend to reinvent proprietary wheels where perfectly adequate, well-understood protocols exist already. The Transport service in UPnP is a perfect example of this. UPnP – and other such protocols – have been advertised as discovery protocols.
A discovery protocol should allow a networked device to enumerate the other appliances within the scope of the network, and it should provide a standardized way to query the capabilities of those appliances – and at that point, the discovery protocol should bow out and let the two devices talk using whatever system they find convenient. The aim of the discovery protocol should be to perform the bare minimum required to allow two appliances to find each other and agree on a communications method. This design criterion has a number of desirable effects, two of which are allowing the appliances to use existing protocols that are well-understood, largely debugged and for which free open-source intellectual property is readily available; and allowing the appliances to provide services to non-SCN-aware devices without needing to implement a separate set of services for this purpose.
A perfect example is a file server type of appliance that serves up MP3 content to a networked hi-fi system. If the MP3 server uses a common protocol like ftp to provide content, then any ftp client can make use of that service, even if that client doesn't have any SCN functionality. In this context, the only function of the SCN is to provide a way for the stereo system to find the FTP server. The stereo system then establishes a connection and retrieves a directory listing, then downloads the desired music file.
In an attempt to provide an intellectually satisfying solution to various problems, such as content searching that could have been solved with simple extensions to standard protocols, (e.g., an index file on the abovementioned FTP server), UPnP has reinvented a lot of wheels and lost any hope that UPnP appliances could retain simple compatibility with non-UPnP systems. (I am currently writing a white paper describing some of the attributes of an ideal SCN. This issue features prominently in my paper).
IBM has a large technology demonstration room in their Austin, TX Executive Briefing Center, which I was lucky enough to visit early this year, and which illustrates nicely the results of zealots let loose with a large budget. The room showcases some of the pervasive computing technologies that IBM has developed primarily for their “wow” value. As a confirmed geek, and avid consumer of electronic gadgets, I found some of the devices in that demo most interesting. As an engineer for a company that expects to make a profit on its products, I found myself repeatedly shaking my head in disbelief.
In order to sit in my living room and send MP3s from the Internet to my car using an Internet-enabled TV set and a Coke vending machine that acts as a wireless Internet relay point, I don't just need $100,000 worth of custom-built hardware – I also need to make a radical change in the way I perceive the underlying technology. The average consumer is not sophisticated enough to work with networks this complex, let alone troubleshoot them. The average consumer is more than happy to put a CD (or a flash card loaded with MP3s) into his briefcase so he can listen to specific music as he drives to work. And let us not forget that it is the average consumer who is mostly buying our products and ultimately writing our paychecks.
Your mileage may vary, but in my experience most people are incapable of analyzing the causal relationships in a system containing more than two or at most three components. It is futile to try explaining to such a person that he must use device A (an SCN remote control device) to tell device B (an SCN DVD player) to fetch content from device C (an SCN storage device) and play it on device D (an SCN TV set). Furthermore, if one component malfunctions, the user probably won't be able to locate the culprit.
From an end-user standpoint, SCNs also have serious security implications. Let's look at some of the goals of a typical SCN design:
- To interconnect multiple network technologies to each other and to a household Internet gateway.
- To allow any appliance connected to the LAN (or possibly the WAN) to discover and communicate with all other connected devices.
- To allow control devices with no specific knowledge of particular appliances to provide a remote user interface for those appliances using generic techniques.
- To tunnel/route control messages over the Internet so that users can remote-control appliances.
A simple security rule is that if you don't allow information traffic, you don't have any complicated interaction models to scrutinize for holes. The more traffic you generate, the more holes you open and the more information you risk exposing to outsiders, and SCNs generate a huge amount of traffic. The privacy issues alone here are enormous. There is a huge amount of information in your daily life which has a cash value to marketers, but which they currently have no easy means to capture.
For instance, the settings on which you run your air conditioner might be of interest to companies that want to sell you insulation. The CDs and DVD titles you play are of interest to companies like Amazon, who can try to infer from your listening and viewing tastes what other media you might care to buy. And of course, the cable channels you watch and the amount of channel surfing you do are of great interest to the cable company. (They'd also be interested to know which shows you watch live, and which shows you tape, since only live viewing counts for ratings and hence advertising rates. And they'd also like to know if you have a DSS dish, and what channels you watch on DSS). All this information could easily be captured and transmitted using UPnP, and presumably the other SCN technologies also.
That's not even counting the possibility of malicious attacks on the household network. When cable Internet access was first introduced in the corner of Australia from which I hail, it was the source of a huge debacle: everyone who signed up could see the shared hard drives of every other user in their local cable segment, and could steal and/or modify the data contents of other users' home PCs.
Connecting entire households full of equipment to the Internet is a much more dangerous accident-poised-to-happen, especially if SCN technology is introduced silently in devices such as Internet access gateway devices. As broadband uptake increases, more people will be buying simple routers that might well include such functionality. The more remote-controllable appliances they add, the more things an attacker can do to that household over the Internet, with complete anonymity. At the very least, SCN functionality should ship disabled on such appliances, so that consumers are not obliged to work out how to change default passwords and so on, and so that they can simply plug in the appliance and work with it at maximum safety.
Most people reading this essay probably already had conclusions before the end of the second paragraph, but for the sake of neatness, I will summarize mine for you:
Currently proposed SCN technologies all seem to be excessively complex, due to a variety of factors including attempts to cross-sell other products and sheer intellectual zealotry. Poor architectural decisions in SCN design also make it extremely complex and/or expensive to make an SCN-capable appliance backward compatible with non-SCN installations.
The ability of low-end products to implement SCNs is premised on the ability of manufacturers to be able to produce SCN-capable appliances at a similar cost to current non-SCN-capable models. The arguments presented to justify this assumption are far from convincing.
SCNs face a chicken-and-egg situation whereby there is no compelling reason for a user to purchase a more expensive SCN-capable product until other SCN-capable products are ubiquitious.
SCNs may introduce a host of as yet unaddressed security and privacy issues. If, against the odds, there is a significant uptake of SCN technology, it may be halted devastatingly once these issues become apparent.
Most SCN usage scenarios that are not already addressed by existing standards require a level of user sophistication that the average consumer has yet to reach. Considerable expensive consumer education will be necessary to overcome this.
From observation, at least two of the major standards have lost considerable momentum and vendor support, as various appliance categories fracture off to pursue their own proprietary, application-optimized protocols.
I'm of the opinion that for the foreseeable future, SCNs are interesting only as a technology demonstration. Large corporations might be interested in designing a flagship model (for promotional purposes) that is SCN-capable, but it is unlikely that there will be significant consumer penetration until a compelling application appears. So the best posture, especially for a small company that doesn't want to waste engineering resources on vaporware technologies, is to wait-and-see, smile sweetly at all the SCN controlling bodies, and promise them much while delivering little. It is unlikely that a winner will emerge before at least a couple of years have passed, and by that time there may well be free, open-source, easily adaptable IP for the popular protocol(s).
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards
The author is standing on his own, personal soapbox, which has no relation to the soapboxes upon which he is called to stand during business hours. He welcomes comments, and is well equipped with asbestos undergarments.