Jiwan, for what it's worth, what we now call "IoT" has actually existed for many years. Or at least, something very closely related. Communications among sensors, actuators, and digital processors, which for the most part, run autonomously. You will find this in automated factories and in autonomous, or heavily assisted controls, for cars, trains, ships, airplanes.

You are right. The traditional meaning of "user" identifies a human being. With autonomous systems operating over digital networks, I've been using the term "user device" and also "client system," to denote that non-human user of the networked information.

However, I also need to point out that in this type of work, very many people simply say "user," when they DO NOT refer to a human being. I would say, the majority of people I work with have absolutely no compulsion in using "user" to denote a processor, sensor, contoller, indicator, valve, pump, or just about any device, connected to the edge of the network. And these devices, even the majority of the processors, for the most part, have no human interface at all!

Jiwan, for what it's worth, what we now call "IoT" has actually existed for many years. Or at least, something very closely related. Communications among sensors, actuators, and digital processors, which for the most part, run autonomously. You will find this in automated factories and in autonomous, or heavily assisted controls, for cars, trains, ships, airplanes.

You are right. The traditional meaning of "user" identifies a human being. With autonomous systems operating over digital networks, I've been using the term "user device" and also "client system," to denote that non-human user of the networked information.

However, I also need to point out that in this type of work, very many people simply say "user," when they DO NOT refer to a human being. I would say, the majority of people I work with have absolutely no compulsion in using "user" to denote a processor, sensor, contoller, indicator, valve, pump, or just about any device, connected to the edge of the network. And these devices, even the majority of the processors, for the most part, have no human interface at all!

Philosophically speaking, I think a user is a being with memory, reason, and will who avails oneself of a service.

Kirk, I won't disagree with your definition, but I only need to point out that such an entity does not have to be human. When dealing with automation, there are any number of users such as you describe, with no human interface at all. Think, for example, of an engine controller that must take into account temperature, pressure, engine torque demand, engine revs, engine heat, and any evidence of pre-detonation, in order to give an order for fuel flow and spark timing. That controller is using the services of multiple subsystems, to make a precise set of decisions. Yet, no human involved.

There are many networks that operate this way. digital It's understandable that the definition of "user" has to evolve.