Created in FIWARE Q/A platform on 07-07-2015 at 12:07
Answer this issue at https://ask.fiware.org/question/48/why-fiware-iot-exists-when-we-already-have-solutions-such-as-iotsys-domotic-osgi-gateway-openhab-and-others/

Question:
<p>First of all I have to admit that I find the FIWARE project very interesting and it really targets the current technological needs the world is facing at the moment.</p>

<p>However, I believe that some FIWARE components could use already existing solutions instead of reinventing what already exists for some time. If you look closely you will see that, aside from the names given to <em>equivalent concepts</em>, <a href="http://forge.fiware.org/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Internet_of_Things_%28IoT%29_Services_Enablement_Architecture">FIWARE Architecture</a> is very similar to the ones I mention in the title. Not that FIWARE is ripping off ideas, it is just that these things already exist and the final solutions are very similar.</p>

<p>Moreover, the <strong>main problem</strong> is that there are as many solutions to solve the IoT hardware heterogeneity problem as devices they try to integrate. In the end, creating more integration frameworks and standards will solve no problem at all, it will aggravate it even further by spreading manufacturers and developers attention to several means of integration, mitigating the purpose of integration frameworks and standards!</p>

<p>First we had BACnet/WS, OPC DA, oBIX etc. Then we had UPnP, CoAP and 6LoWPAN. After there were DOG, openHAB and IoTSYS. Now we have FIWARE and AllJoyn! Please we have to find another way to solve this severe issue.</p>

<p>OR is there a reason that I am unaware justifying the creation of another integration framework?</p>