One problem with the IoT for consumers is that in many cases we're replacing devices that we're used to lasting many years, but vendors want them to have the lifetime of a smartphone.
We're still in an early adopter phase on a lot of it though, so it's hard to judge how it will play out.
Agreed. Even beyond the monetary aspect, it'd be an absolute headache to have to replace this stuff with any frequency.
The biggest reason I'm a skeptic though is the incredibly carefree and reckless approach I've seen used by many IoT devices.
The Nest is a great example - I was shocked to discover there's no division between the part that directly controls the furnace/AC/etc and the rest of the device. That should've been a no-brainer, because first and foremost the device shouldn't cause harm, and when the "smart" portion inevitably has a problem (even if temporary), a user shouldn't wake up to a frozen or overheating home.
This stuff needs a higher level of safety and guarantee, and treating them like smartphone apps is going to end very poorly.
Very strong point. so called dumb devices were designed to install and forget. A smart device will at least require soft/firmware updates. I fathom these will end with a lot of passive smart devices and a handful of active ones.
That's an excellent point. I have no problem purchasing a new phone every year, because I'm well-off and consider it a new toy (don't worry, I give to charity too!).
I recently replaced my old $15 thermostat with a $200 smart one. The old one lasted for a decade and a half (for $1/year), and is still completely functional; I really hope the new one lasts as long, but I really don't know that it will.
What I absolutely want to avoid is having to buy another smart thermostat in a year, or five years, or even a decade. Will I be able to avoid that? Probably not, but … we'll see.
I'm working on building all of my own IoT (outlets, lights, sensors) using ESP8266's, Amazon Alexa, and a Raspberry Pi as the "hub". If Alexa gets deprecated, or I want to use some other voice control, I can (hopefully) easily swap her out with whatever is cool then.
Of course, this is cheaper in $$ but way more expensive in my own time. Fortunately I think of it as a hobby and not work.
I started down this route forever ago. Had a garage door opener with status and geofence, outlets, my own iOS app. It was fun but it was taking too long. I bought a bunch of z-wave outlets, switches, power strips, a thermostat, and a garage door opener. If my hub dies or the company goes the way of the dodo I can switch to another hub that supports z-wave.
Also, my hub has Echo integration for most things. I can't turn the heat up but I can turn off any light or light grouping.
In the end, everything works much better and I switched to building robots for the kids.
Can you share more details on your work? I've wanted to build my own connected outlet for a while and if you have any pointers to resources on this, I'd love to see them.
...On the other hand, what happens when a company stops supporting a product but allows it to keep functioning afterwards...and at some point, the maintenance-mode device fails and hurts the user? One of the purported benefits of connected hardware is that a company can push out updates and fixes and users don't have to worry about paying attention (as much) to warnings and recalls when it comes to software.
When a product is initially released, users come to expect that support. If a company needs to shut down a product line and continued support...sure, ideally, users will pay attention and slowly migrate to new hardware when they can, just like people are still getting by with cars that have deadly airbags because they haven't had the time to leave their car at the shop...but as devices continue to have a feature set more dependent on the cloud and instant-push-updates...is there potential harm in letting a life-critical device function in zombie mode in such a way that it's good enough for months or even a year after the shutdown, but may be deadly sometimes afterward? The additional problem that connected devices add to the mix is that consumers have a hard time distinguishing between what features require the cloud and which features can work independently.
Obviously, there should never be the situation in which a critical device just dies as soon as the company shuts down its servers. Life-critical time-sensitive things, such as a heart pump, should thus be designed to operate independently, with connectedness being an optional feature.
But for other things, such as a smoke alarm...if a company designed it in such a way that connectedness is essential to its functionality, and that its usefulness in zombie mode can't be predicted a year down the road...can't it be argued that it's more responsible for the company to give the user a hard cutoff, rather than allowing the user the false comfort of zombie mode?
> The key in doing so is communicating your decision to users in a clear manner... For example, [J Random Company] explained that customers’ devices would still work but would start losing functionality as partners, such as Pandora and Spotify, changed their code...
Which is it? "Communicating in a clear manner," or "keeping the servers running and not breaking people's stuff?" I would guess it's the latter, since Nest seems to have communicated pretty clearly that it's bricking people's Revolv devices. The lesson for "Internet of Shit" companies is completely clear: if you want happy buyers of physical devices, keep the servers running until the devices physically break. Yes, this will cost you a bit more money.
I really don't like all these IoT things. Modern software (except for Apple mobile devices) is full or bugs and vulnerabilities. So yesterday a hacker could break into your PC and see your files and tomorrow NSA or some bored teenager will be able to turn off the light and open the doors in your home.
And I don't like the idea of having critical parts of a device or infrastructure somewhere in a foreign country. Today "smart" phones, TVs or even cars send encrypted data over Internet to their manuacturers. How do you check they don't spy on you?
"Cloud" services have much in common with proprietary software: user cannot have full control over them.
It seems the IoT community should push for manufacturers to provide up front guarantees that if they discontinue a device / platform they will open source the entire system for the community of users to continue as they wish.
That way first adopters will feel safe in their purchases no matter what the outcome.
[+] [-] xirdstl|10 years ago|reply
We're still in an early adopter phase on a lot of it though, so it's hard to judge how it will play out.
Caveat: staunchly an IoT skeptic.
[+] [-] stormbeta|10 years ago|reply
The biggest reason I'm a skeptic though is the incredibly carefree and reckless approach I've seen used by many IoT devices.
The Nest is a great example - I was shocked to discover there's no division between the part that directly controls the furnace/AC/etc and the rest of the device. That should've been a no-brainer, because first and foremost the device shouldn't cause harm, and when the "smart" portion inevitably has a problem (even if temporary), a user shouldn't wake up to a frozen or overheating home.
This stuff needs a higher level of safety and guarantee, and treating them like smartphone apps is going to end very poorly.
[+] [-] asimuvPR|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wtbob|10 years ago|reply
I recently replaced my old $15 thermostat with a $200 smart one. The old one lasted for a decade and a half (for $1/year), and is still completely functional; I really hope the new one lasts as long, but I really don't know that it will.
What I absolutely want to avoid is having to buy another smart thermostat in a year, or five years, or even a decade. Will I be able to avoid that? Probably not, but … we'll see.
[+] [-] deegles|10 years ago|reply
Of course, this is cheaper in $$ but way more expensive in my own time. Fortunately I think of it as a hobby and not work.
[+] [-] manyxcxi|10 years ago|reply
Also, my hub has Echo integration for most things. I can't turn the heat up but I can turn off any light or light grouping.
In the end, everything works much better and I switched to building robots for the kids.
[+] [-] digitalinfinity|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|10 years ago|reply
At the edges maybe a company disables a refrigerator -- or worse smoke alarms. At the core is bricking a medical device such as an insulin pump.
[+] [-] danso|10 years ago|reply
When a product is initially released, users come to expect that support. If a company needs to shut down a product line and continued support...sure, ideally, users will pay attention and slowly migrate to new hardware when they can, just like people are still getting by with cars that have deadly airbags because they haven't had the time to leave their car at the shop...but as devices continue to have a feature set more dependent on the cloud and instant-push-updates...is there potential harm in letting a life-critical device function in zombie mode in such a way that it's good enough for months or even a year after the shutdown, but may be deadly sometimes afterward? The additional problem that connected devices add to the mix is that consumers have a hard time distinguishing between what features require the cloud and which features can work independently.
Obviously, there should never be the situation in which a critical device just dies as soon as the company shuts down its servers. Life-critical time-sensitive things, such as a heart pump, should thus be designed to operate independently, with connectedness being an optional feature.
But for other things, such as a smoke alarm...if a company designed it in such a way that connectedness is essential to its functionality, and that its usefulness in zombie mode can't be predicted a year down the road...can't it be argued that it's more responsible for the company to give the user a hard cutoff, rather than allowing the user the false comfort of zombie mode?
[+] [-] mjard|10 years ago|reply
It's still not fixed.
[+] [-] WalterBright|10 years ago|reply
But I did run cat5 everywhere, and that has paid off nicely.
[+] [-] Terr_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username223|10 years ago|reply
Which is it? "Communicating in a clear manner," or "keeping the servers running and not breaking people's stuff?" I would guess it's the latter, since Nest seems to have communicated pretty clearly that it's bricking people's Revolv devices. The lesson for "Internet of Shit" companies is completely clear: if you want happy buyers of physical devices, keep the servers running until the devices physically break. Yes, this will cost you a bit more money.
[+] [-] codedokode|10 years ago|reply
And I don't like the idea of having critical parts of a device or infrastructure somewhere in a foreign country. Today "smart" phones, TVs or even cars send encrypted data over Internet to their manuacturers. How do you check they don't spy on you?
"Cloud" services have much in common with proprietary software: user cannot have full control over them.
[+] [-] Silhouette|10 years ago|reply
A search for "ios brick" suggests that your exception isn't much of an exception, unfortunately.
[+] [-] datashovel|10 years ago|reply
That way first adopters will feel safe in their purchases no matter what the outcome.
[+] [-] joezydeco|10 years ago|reply
I know people have revived part of the network, I'm just too lazy to do all the work to revive it.