4 ms·

I'm more amazed by how everyone on HN is so shocked by a computer on a fridge. We live in an age where powerful computers with touchscreens can be had for tens

by watty 11y ago

I'm more amazed by how everyone on HN is so shocked by a computer on a fridge. We live in an age where powerful computers with touchscreens can be had for tens of dollars... what's so shocking about an underpowered computer on a fridge? What's so shocking about wanting it to function as advertised?

fixermark 11y ago
Mostly the expectation that it would function as advertised, I assume. I imagine that flies in the face of the experience of a lot of people on HN. ;) It's also a little funny that the report ends up on the Google product forums, given that Google doesn't make refrigerators. Such is life in the Internet of Things world though; when the network breaks, everyone and no-one is to blame.
VLM 11y ago
If you're of just the right age you'll remember coming home from a night out to flip on the TV (remember those?) and watch infomercials about $50 pieces of junk that somehow combine a folding fishing pole with a fly swatter and a flashlight and the miracle is its possible, although the result is it does nothing well at all. Not one thing. Total across the board laugh out loud fail. AKA the IoT.
shpx 11y ago
Nobody is shocked, quite the opposite. People that work in software have at some point felt that proprietary software almost always makes their life hard (but makes more money). Because of that there are low expectations for the internet of things, because you can bet all the things will be running proprietary software. This is confirmation of that, and people love confirmation.
snowwrestler 11y ago
From 2000-2003 I worked for a product strategy consultant; we helped computer companies (what today we would call tech companies) decide what hardware products to build ~5 years out. The Internet-connected refrigerator was predicted and/or introduced, in some form, at least once a year even back then. It became our punchline when talking about poorly conceived converged devices. Reality continues to bear out that opinion. The problem was never the cost of the computer part--people will pay ridiculous amounts of money for "high end" appliances. The problem was always: how will the manufacturer meet consumer expectations, and then keep meeting them over the typical lifespan of a refrigerator? People even today have a hard enough time managing the computer they know they have--how will they manage a computer buried in a fridge? Answer: they can't, as illustrated by that Google support thread. And worse, appliance manufacturers are no better at managing computers than consumers, again as illustrated in that thread. Samsung did not plan to support their fridge computer, and now that they are being asked to do so, they can't find their ass with both hands. Every appliance company is this bad or worse with software and networking. So, an underpowered embedded computer that doesn't function as advertised is not shocking at all. That doesn't mean it's not amusing how stupid/terrible it is.

by watty 11y ago

fixermark 11y ago

Mostly the expectation that it would function as advertised, I assume. I imagine that flies in the face of the experience of a lot of people on HN. ;) It's also a little funny that the report ends up on the Google product forums, given that Google doesn't make refrigerators. Such is life in the Internet of Things world though; when the network breaks, everyone and no-one is to blame.

VLM 11y ago

If you're of just the right age you'll remember coming home from a night out to flip on the TV (remember those?) and watch infomercials about $50 pieces of junk that somehow combine a folding fishing pole with a fly swatter and a flashlight and the miracle is its possible, although the result is it does nothing well at all. Not one thing. Total across the board laugh out loud fail. AKA the IoT.

shpx 11y ago

Nobody is shocked, quite the opposite. People that work in software have at some point felt that proprietary software almost always makes their life hard (but makes more money). Because of that there are low expectations for the internet of things, because you can bet all the things will be running proprietary software. This is confirmation of that, and people love confirmation.

snowwrestler 11y ago

From 2000-2003 I worked for a product strategy consultant; we helped computer companies (what today we would call tech companies) decide what hardware products to build ~5 years out. The Internet-connected refrigerator was predicted and/or introduced, in some form, at least once a year even back then. It became our punchline when talking about poorly conceived converged devices. Reality continues to bear out that opinion. The problem was never the cost of the computer part--people will pay ridiculous amounts of money for "high end" appliances. The problem was always: how will the manufacturer meet consumer expectations, and then keep meeting them over the typical lifespan of a refrigerator? People even today have a hard enough time managing the computer they know they have--how will they manage a computer buried in a fridge? Answer: they can't, as illustrated by that Google support thread. And worse, appliance manufacturers are no better at managing computers than consumers, again as illustrated in that thread. Samsung did not plan to support their fridge computer, and now that they are being asked to do so, they can't find their ass with both hands. Every appliance company is this bad or worse with software and networking. So, an underpowered embedded computer that doesn't function as advertised is not shocking at all. That doesn't mean it's not amusing how stupid/terrible it is.