The same must be true with the new IoT. Those companies that believe they can control the entire value chain, from things to services, middleware, administration, operation, apps, and so on, will fail, as the companies in the first Internet bubble failed. Companies that built devices with proprietary protocols, middleware, and mobile phone applications, where you can control your things, will fail. Why? Imagine a future where you have a thousand different things in your apartment from a hundred manufacturers. Would you want to download a hundred smart phone apps to control them? Would you like five different applications just to control your lights at home, just because you have light bulbs from five different manufacturers? An alternative would be to have one app to rule them all. There might be a hundred different such apps available (or more), but you can choose which one to use based on your taste and user feedback. And you can change if you want to. But for this to be possible, things need to be interoperable, meaning they should communicate using a commonly understood language.

Interoperability does not only affect simplicity of installation and management, but also the price of solutions. Consider a factory that uses thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of devices to control and automate all processes within. Would you like to be able to buy things cheaply or expensively? Companies that promote proprietary solutions, where you're forced to use their system to control your devices, can force their clients to pay a high price for future devices and maintenance, or the large investment made originally might be lost.

Will such a solution be able to survive against competitors who sell interoperable solutions where you can buy devices from multiple manufacturers? Interoperability provides competition, and competition drives down cost and increases functionality and quality. This might be a reason for a company to work against interoperability, as it threatens its current business model. But the alternative might be worse. A competitor, possibly a new one, might provide such a solution, and when that happens, the business model with proprietary solutions is dead anyway. The companies that are quickest in adapting a new paradigm are the ones who would most probably survive a paradigm shift, as the shift from M2M to IoT undoubtedly is.

There are many things you cannot do unless you have an interoperable communication model from the start. Consider a future smart city. Here, new applications and services will be built that will reuse existing devices, which were installed perhaps as part of other systems and services. These applications will deliver new value to the inhabitants of the city without the need of installing new duplicate devices for each service being built. But such multiple use of devices is only possible if the devices communicate in an open and interoperable way. However, care has to be taken at the same time since installing devices in an open environment requires the communication infrastructure to be secure as well. To achieve the goal of building smart cities, it is vitally important to use technologies that allow you to have both a secure communication infrastructure and an interoperable one.

As we have seen, there are times where security is contradictory to interoperability. If security is meant to be taken as exclusivity, it opposes the idea of interoperability, which is by its very nature inclusive. Depending on the choice of communication infrastructure, you might have to use security measures that directly oppose the idea of an interoperable infrastructure, prohibiting third parties from accessing existing devices in a secure fashion.

It is important during the architecture design phase, before implementation, to thoroughly investigate what communication technologies are available, and what they provide and what they do not provide. You might think that this is a minor issue, thinking that you can easily build what is missing on top of the chosen infrastructure. This is not true. All such implementation is by its very nature proprietary, and therefore not interoperable. This might drastically limit your options in the future, which in turn might drastically reduce anyone else's willingness to use your solution.

The more a technology includes, in the form of global identity, authentication, authorization, different communication patterns, common language for interchange of sensor data, control operations and access privileges, provisioning, and so on, the more interoperable the solution becomes. If the technology at the same time provides a secure infrastructure, you have the possibility to create a solution that is both secure and interoperable without the need to build proprietary or exclusive solutions on top of it.