4 ms·
> But then again, isn't it reasonable to expect some sort of deprecation or end of life for most products? In a cell phone? Sure, because the replacement proce
by FussyZeus 10y ago
> But then again, isn't it reasonable to expect some sort of deprecation or end of life for most products?
In a cell phone? Sure, because the replacement process is a somewhat annoying sales appointment at $carrier. In a thermostat? No, because it should last years. Maybe decades if it's a good one. IoT falls apart in this arena because the hardware is designed to be replaced often, and that's exactly what house hardware should not be.
And if the software is too complex, then don't do it. Do it right or don't bother.
- caf 10y agoI wonder if the solution for IoT things like the network-connected door lock mentioned in the article is the emergence of third-party companies that are contracted by the initial manufacturer to provide ongoing updates for the expected product life (eg 15 years). The idea being that these patching companies would become recognised brands, and the manufacturer would get to put a "Supported by FooCorp until 2031" badge on their packaging, and consumers would start to expect to see this.
- FussyZeus 10y agoMy other thought relating to what you said would be why on Earth does a door lock need Linux? This is not exactly a massively complicated device, it controls a 2-state mechanism and needs to work at about a five foot radius. The fact that something like that, in an IoT mindset, needs an entire webserver is ridiculous. This is much more suited to a micro-controller with custom firmware and a tiny attack surface. No, maybe you won't be able to set it up with a smartphone and 2 minutes, but it also might WORK BETTER if it wasn't able to do that.