The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters has been adopted by many as a model summary manual of python's philosophy.  Though these statements should be considered more as guideline and not mandatory rules, developers worldwide find the poem to be on a solid guiding ground.

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

Technology has continued to evolve in ways that few would have been able to imagine. This has allowed electronics to become smarter, more connected and far more useful.

With the Internet of Things (IoT), they're allowing more than just computers to become connected to the Internet. This aims to make the life of the average person easier, better and more care-free.

Let's examine why the Internet of Things has become such a powerful idea that an estimated one out of every five developers currently works on an IoT project.


What is the Internet of Things?

The Internet of Things hinges on one seemingly simple concept: electronics can be embedded in machines, clothing, animals and even people to provide a networked world where the whole is more than just the sum of its parts.

For example, consider how the Internet of Things can influence things like refrigerators. They can be networked directly to the manufacturer for readings that can warn if the refrigerator is about to malfunction. They can even be connected to a grocery shopping service to allow someone to restock them automatically or to notify the owner that the refrigerator is almost out of an item.

The most interesting notion about the Internet of Things is that it's not just a situation where one “thing” connects with a party. They typically communicate with other things, which in turn allows for a network of automated processes to occur.

These processes can simplify and expedite tedious tasks to make everyday life for everyone easier, which is why projects involving the Internet of Things are so popular.


How Prevalent is IoT Development?

An estimated one in five developers are currently developing projects for the Internet of Things. Their chosen languages vary widely because of the flexibility that IoT enjoys.

For example, IoT projects that hinge on interacting with mobile phones tend to have apps written in JavaScript or Java. The back-end code that runs the IoT functionality for machines tends to be written in Assembly, C++,Java,Perl,Pythonor another compiled language for efficiency.

To put the growth of IoT work into perspective, Evans Data Corp. performed research to create predictions about IoT projects in 2014. They stated that 17% of companies would be developing IoT projects.

In this year, that figure's risen to a solid 19%. Given the fact that 44% of developers have stated that they will enter into the IoT scene this year or next, this means that development will only grow in the coming future.


The Future Involving the Internet of Things

Development of IoT-related projects will likely explode in the next few years. The advantages it brings, such as more efficient work in manufacturing environments and the projected 15% savings to the restaurant industry over the next five years, will make it one of the most valuable technological changes in the near future.

Without a comprehensive understanding of the Internet of Things and the skills to lead IoT projects, businesses and developers may find themselves falling behind. Don't let the Internet of Things pass you by.

I remember the day like it was yesterday. Pac Man had finally arrived on the Atari 2600.  It was a clear and sunny day, but it was slightly brisk. My dad drove us down to the video store about three miles from our Michigan house. If I remember correctly, the price for the game was $24.99.  It was quite expensive for the day, probably equaling a $70 game in today’s market, but it was mine. There *was* no question about it. If you purchase a game, it’s your game… right?

You couldn’t be more wrong.  With all the licensing agreements in games today, you only purchase the right to play it. You don’t actually “own” the game. 

Today, game designers want total control over the money that comes in for a game. They add in clauses that keep the game from being resold, rented, borrowed, copied, etc. All of the content in the game, including the items you find that are specifically for you, are owned by the software developer. Why, you ask, do they do this? It’s all about the money.

This need for greed started years ago, when people started modifying current games on the market. One of the first games like this was Doom. There were so many third part mods made, but because of licensing agreement, none of these versions were available for resale. The end user, or you, had to purchase Doom before they could even install the mod.  None of these “modders” were allowed to make any money off their creation.

Another blanket article about the pros and cons of Direct to Consumer (D2C) isn’t needed, I know. By now, we all know the rules for how this model enters a market: its disruption fights any given sector’s established sales model, a fuzzy compromise is temporarily met, and the lean innovator always wins out in the end.

That’s exactly how it played out in the music industry when Apple and record companies created a digital storefront in iTunes to usher music sales into the online era. What now appears to have been a stopgap compromise, iTunes was the standard model for 5-6 years until consumers realized there was no point in purchasing and owning digital media when internet speeds increased and they could listen to it for free through a music streaming service.  In 2013, streaming models are the new music consumption standard. Netflix is nearly parallel in the film and TV world, though they’ve done a better job keeping it all under one roof. Apple mastered retail sales so well that the majority of Apple products, when bought in-person, are bought at an Apple store. That’s even more impressive when you consider how few Apple stores there are in the U.S. (253) compared to big box electronics stores that sell Apple products like Best Buy (1,100) Yet while some industries have implemented a D2C approach to great success, others haven’t even dipped a toe in the D2C pool, most notably the auto industry.

What got me thinking about this topic is the recent flurry of attention Tesla Motors has received for its D2C model. It all came to a head at the beginning of July when a petition on whitehouse.gov to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states reached the 100,000 signatures required for administration comment. As you might imagine, many powerful car dealership owners armed with lobbyists have made a big stink about Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and Product Architect, choosing to sidestep the traditional supply chain and instead opting to sell directly to their customers through their website. These dealership owners say that they’re against the idea because they want to protect consumers, but the real motive is that they want to defend their right to exist (and who wouldn’t?). They essentially have a monopoly at their position in the sales process, and they want to keep it that way. More frightening for the dealerships is the possibility that once Tesla starts selling directly to consumers, so will the big three automakers, and they fear that would be the end of the road for their business. Interestingly enough, the big three flirted with the idea of D2C in the early 90’s before they were met with fierce backlash from dealerships. I’m sure the dealership community has no interest in mounting a fight like that again. 

To say that the laws preventing Tesla from selling online are peripherally relevant would be a compliment. By and large, the laws the dealerships point to fall under the umbrella of “Franchise Laws” that were put in place at the dawn of car sales to protect franchisees against manufacturers opening their own stores and undercutting the franchise that had invested so much to sell the manufacturer’s cars.  There’s certainly a need for those laws to exist, because no owner of a dealership selling Jeeps wants Chrysler to open their own dealership next door and sell them for substantially less. However, because Tesla is independently owned and isn’t currently selling their cars through any third party dealership, this law doesn’t really apply to them. Until their cars are sold through independent dealerships, they’re incapable of undercutting anyone by implementing D2C structure.