If you follow the blogs, tweets and news in this industry, you may have noticed a recent thread of discussions about the nomenclature we use to describe what we do. For most of the past 10 years, this market has been called “Machine-to-Machine” or M2M for short. Lately the phrase ‘Internet of Things’ has emerged as a trendy and appropriate twist on that theme. It plays on the idea that at some point, likely during our lifetimes, there will be 50 billion connected things.
One of the leading providers of technology in our space is Telit. I love their tagline, “We Make Machines Talk” – so simple and so clear. There are many companies that similarly provide a voice to the voiceless machine. Beyond module, modem and device vendors, the wireless operators – MNOs and MVNOs – have also jumped on the bandwagon to provide the essential transport mechanism for the machine’s voice. Numbers vary, but there is little doubt that there are more 500 million devices connected and communicating on wireless networks globally today.
The reason that executives and pundits are scratching their heads about what to call this market is because the terms we’re using only define a part of the opportunity we’re addressing and only a subset of the challenges that our customers face. In other words it’s an important part of the story, but only the first part, or Act 1.
Talking machines and global networks are only meaningful if there are applications to hear and see what machines are saying and doing. That’s where SensorLogic enters the picture. Our platform puts the ‘sensor logic’ in applications. In other words, while our friends in the industry connect machines to machines, we’re connecting machines to applications – and creating business intelligence that is ultimately useful to people. We are the eyes, ears and even some of the logic of our customers’ applications.
Enabling development and deployment of these connected applications presents a set of challenges as unique as those that customers face when connecting machines. These applications are heterogeneous, global and dynamic. They also must be abstracted from underlying networks and machines. Otherwise they become inflexible silos of functionality that cannot adapt to the changing needs of their own users.
That said, for all their differences, these connected applications also have many things in common with each other. Connected applications all want to see, hear and know what’s going on with things or assets. These capabilities aren’t usually the customer-facing, differentiated intellectual property that sets applications apart. Instead, they can be embodied in a common application-enablement platform that provides the common capabilities that developers of connected applications need to get to market fast. Just as voices, eyes and ears are merely parts of the whole, so too, devices and networks are only part of the applications that rely on them.
That brings me back to the present identity question in our industry segment. M2M, it now seems clear, is better thought of as a means to an end. That ‘end’ – the much bigger payoff we can all envision – centers on a world full of connected applications and the incredibly powerful business services they can deliver to customers.
Please feel free to share your thoughts on how Act II of the M2M story will play out. We look forward to the dialogue.
Michael J. Campbell, CEO




