# What Is an Open IoT Platform?
## 6 Conclusions  
In this paper, we report the results from our systematic mapping study with the aim to shed some light on what makes an open IoT platform. Overall, we observe the rapid growth of the interest in openness in IoT area.  
The goal of our study was to characterize and understand the concept of openness with respect to IoT platforms. In this paper, we provide insights related to this goal. One of the main outcomes shows that in total 46 IoT platforms are often characterized as open. NodeMCU and ThingSpeak are widely adopted platforms among the IoT community. The most common denominator of openness type identified in our study is open-source, followed by open APIs, open standards, open data and open layer. Open-source is the most widely accepted openness type with most of researchers referring the open IoT platform as open-source, as it is more convenient for third-party developers to have a full access to the source code of the platform. Open standards are crucial in our analysis for device compatibility which is also mostly preferred by various stakeholders as seen above.  
To conclude, our study shows that open IoT platforms are characterized by different openness types such as open-source, open APIs, and open standards, whereas these types are directly influenced by the demands of different IoT stakeholders. For example, an open IoT platform for application providers can be considered open if it provides an open standard or open APIs, whereas for system integrators open standards are more relevant. For platform providers open-source is more relevant to have a more control level into the platform itself. Having in mind that the IoT platforms are important, the openness aspects are becoming more important from different stakeholder perspectives in terms of enabling new business opportunities that can boost productivity, convenience and open innovation. The insights of this study point out that the open IoT platform definition is related to different openness types; however it is of utmost importance to highlight that this is primarily dependent on diverse stakeholders view.  
As a future work, we plan to provide a more formal definition of the open IoT platform rather than a perspective by consulting different stakeholders in detail. The open IoT platform term is frequently used in public and without clear understanding could cause problems like misunderstanding or even wrong strategic decisions. Our future work intends to provide a clearer and deeper understanding of open IoT platforms for the communities. The open issues listed above are also some possible directions of investigation.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, B.V., Y.D., B.E., P.D. and R.S.; Data curation, B.V. and Y.D.; Investigation, B.V., Y.D. and B.E.; Methodology, B.V., Y.D., B.E., P.D., R.S; Project administration, B.V.; Validation, P.D. and R.S.; Visualization, Y.D. and B.E.; Writing--original draft, B.V.; Writing--review & editing, B.V., Y.D., B.E., P.D. and R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research was funded by Stiftelsen for Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling grant number 20140035.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.