Smith’s Co-efficient

I mentioned this a couple of times in previous posts. I can’t really claim this as mine, but to be honest the seed of an idea was planted so long ago that I forget whoever it was that first gave me the idea. So, unless anybody can show conclusive proof, I’ll claim it…

I’m trying to convey the rate of change or growth. There are some very boring measures, but one that we can relate to is the number of clocks. Let’s be precise, by clocks we mean automated timepieces.

I spoke to dad and we had a rough check of the number of clocks there were in his childhood home, in mine (I’m 49) and then compared to my daughter’s house.

Dad was born in the 1930’s, and I reckon that his house had maybe 6 or 7 clocks. A grandfather clock, a wristwatch, that sort of thing. As kids growing up in the 60’s and 70’s we probably had in the range of 10-12 – watches, hall clocks, washing machine, central heating. So a growth but not a skyrocketing number.

Consider my daughter’s house now. The kids all have ipods or iphones, ipads, computers, xboxes. We’ve a blu-ray player, Sky+, microwaves, fridges with funky settings, and so the list goes on. I stopped counting at 83 clocks.

In its own right this isn’t significant. Lots of things could in theory tell you the time, so what? It’s what this enables that makes it significant. The clocks allow the devices to become automatic – we can record that new series of Help I’m a Celebrity Plumber Get Me out of Something when we’re not in the house. Our washing can get done during the day when we’re out at work, the house is warm when I wake up and so on. The automation has changed the way we look at these devices and the services they provide. The complexity of the function and services has increased and we have just taken it in our stride.

I’m a fan of Arthur C Clarke’s quote:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

So the question is what next? We’ve automated stuff, so now what do we do?

Well, we connect it. Maybe its wifi enabled cameras, smart technology to link monitors and tv’s, Apple’s airplay, bluetooth, etc… Suddenly the sum of the parts is greater than the sum of the individual pieces. Or maybe the potential sum of the parts is greater. Connection is one thing, but building something that enhances these components, that understands us or our context?

At this point we can paint a rosy view of some technological utopia. Everything works together, for the betterment of the household, of the country…of the world?

Or there’s the Terminator view where …well, we know he’ll be back. My intelligent bathroom scales talk to my smart fridge and decides what I’m eating (or not as the case may be). It’d be funny in a Simon Pegg/Nick frost film or a Red Dwarf episode but in real-life?

Just recently there was  great story on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25780908  ) about a fridge that was a part of a botnet.

Maybe I’m missing a trick? Maybe I should go into home security? Not alarms and window locks, but anti-virus toolkits for kitchen appliances? Symantec? Kaspersky Labs? If you want help with that new revenue stream, I’m here.

So that is Smith’s Co-efficient. Maybe there’s a new measure to understand the relative complexity and interconnected-ness of our internet of (household) things?