The Economist gets it right for once

An editorial with multiple reports gives a status quo of the implementation of wireless technologies into products and of machine to machine (m2m) communication. These articles cast a light on 2 parts of my design that have not yet been researched, either because they are outside of the scope of my project, or because the focus has been elsewhere until now.
A: Business model.
This is not something that is up to me to research, but questions about it are viable. Who will pay for this project, and how will he/she earn the investment back?
The article describes a project by Samsung, the 'Ubiguitous City'. This Project, just outside Seoul, South Korea, is a city which resembles Chriet Titulaer's 'House of the Future'. It was built entirely on the basis of (and on the purpose of selling) Samsungs technologies.
The project resembles my project in the way that digital technologies, and the virtual world are linked to the city and the dwelling for the purpose of enriching life. It differs however in it's aims.
Where the Ubiquitous City is a monopoly, built for 1 thing (commerce), functions 1 way only (market push) my project is the exact opposite.
The site is open to each industry that wants to cooperate. The participants open up their technology to different uses (art, recreation, development) it is two way interactive, and it is built up in a bottom up grassroot way.
Samsung is a big enterprise, with great influence in South Korea. The companies I think would be interested in cooperation are the kind of small firms that do not have the means to aggressively place their technologies into the market. They need a killer application to market their product. But as the big players push them out of the market their products won't be noticed. This project can be a platform for their projects where new uses can be explored, and good applications can grow out of user demand, making the project a viable investment.

B: New Technologies.
My project is about allowing new technologies to be put to work, without restraining the selection of technologies, and being open to future developments. However, to be open to these also means understanding what is going on now, and looking ahead.
The main innovations in the Information Revolution are based on 2 inventions. on the one hand we have Marconi's radio, which celebrates it's 100th birthday this year. On the other hand we have the invention of the microchip, now 50 years ago. If we'd follow this trend one might say we are at the verge of a new breakthrough technology. So what's going on?
Mostly, things are getting faster, cheaper and smaller. But some things are also getting smarter.
Gps Chips are no bigger then 1 by 1 mm, and they only cost 1 dollar, and are still shrinking. RFID right now are one tenth of these dimensions, and only cost 4 cents.
Smarter technologies like for examples ad-hoc mesh networks are still looking for major commercial implementation, but are slowly becoming reality. Based on this technology smart sensors are emerging, which can communicate among themselves, form redundant networks and function in flock-like groups. But are these the real shifts in science. Or will we have to wait for nano computers, or wireless energy before the next step in the information revolution has been taken?