3 ms·

The worst thing about some software developers is their natural tendency to assign the success of the businesses to the purely technical decisions, and not poli

The worst thing about some software developers is their natural tendency to assign the success of the businesses to the purely technical decisions, and not political ones: - streaming music - you pay Spotify for it's browsing and discovery services and the fact that you don't pay for every album you would like to listen to. Not to access "my music collection at home". Quite frankly it doesn't seem to me you can even do that on Spotify, but I may be wrong. - power/solar monitoring - you would need a server which would specifically handle the metric collection and make decisions upon this. Obviously cloud is cheaper than a separate box stationed in your house. - IoT/Dropcams/Nest thermostats - Philips Hue doesn't work through cloud since it doesn't have to. Dropcams are usually a separate device which does not provide server capabilities per se - so require a box. - security services, garage door control, smart home - all of that is controllable directly, but I am not going to start on how much you will be overpaying for every of the devices for them to have a separate fully-functional IP stack that is easily connected to a (W)LAN (wi-fi, ethernet, bluetooth - all of that is either expensive, bulky or power-hungry). So a box/cloud is always a solution. - netflix - same points as Spotify. You don't pay them to manage your collection, you pay them to have access to a constantly curated list of newly available items. - skype, google hangouts, etc. - please do show everyone how to create a chat service that would allow me to chat with anyone I would like to without having to resort to a centralised storage of identities and at the same time solve the issue of spam.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> - power/solar monitoring - you would need a server which would specifically handle the metric collection and make decisions upon this. Obviously cloud is cheaper than a separate box stationed in your house. Except there is already a box stationed in your house, otherwise no data collection. Whether you might want to be able to use cloud-provided storage for reliability reasons would be a separate issue (which (a) could be completely application agnostic and (b) could just as well use your home server if you preferred that). > Dropcams are usually a separate device which does not provide server capabilities per se - so require a box. Or adding "server capabilities", whatever that is. > but I am not going to start on how much you will be overpaying for every of the devices for them to have a separate fully-functional IP stack that is easily connected to a (W)LAN (wi-fi, ethernet, bluetooth - all of that is either expensive, bulky or power-hungry). So a box/cloud is always a solution. How exactly do any of those connect to "the cloud" without a "fully-functional IP stack"?
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  >> Except there is already a box stationed in your house, otherwise no data collection. Whether you might want to be able to use cloud-provided storage for reliability reasons would be a separate issue (which (a) could be completely application agnostic and (b) could just as well use your home server if you preferred that). Exactly the point I am making in my previous message. This tech is available independently from you using ipv4 or ipv6. You can still do all of this with ipv4 and the reason engineers would prefer to have the "cloud" method is because then they keep their clients on the platform and because most of their clients would not be setting their own server up anytime soon. It is a business decision and not a technical one. You're making a point from a perspective of a geeky software engineer. >> Or adding "server capabilities", whatever that is. You can still do that with IPv4. My point stands. >> How exactly do any of those connect to "the cloud" without a "fully-functional IP stack"? For example, Philips Hue uses ZigBee to connect to "the box", which provides the HTTP interface; if they used wi-fi or bluetooth - the price for their lamps would go up by about ~$10 +-$2. So while you don't have to use "the cloud", you'd still need to have a separate piece of hardware that provides the ip connectivity. How does ipv6 solve the problem here?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Well, of course, it's also in part a business decision. But it's also in part a technical decision, because you cannot directly reach the home devices from outside the network, so you need a "cloud service" anyway if you want to allow the user to control their devices remotely (and you don't want to deal with the mess to set up that is port forwardings). With IPv6, your device has a global address, so the user can just use a web browser to control the device from anywhere on the planet without any need for port forwarding, that is what IPv4 with NAT prevents.
sliken 9y ago
Right, but imagine something like a Raspberry Pi with some cheap storage attached. It could collect data from your house (temps, duty cycle of furnace/AC, solar panel power, garage door state, collect your photos/docs, receive email/IM asynchronously, etc). Sure you'd want offsite backups, maybe at a friends house... if his server had a public IPv6 address. With IPv6 it would be much easier to remotely use all those resources/files. You could give friends/family access to your photos, you could receive/send messages even if your phone/laptop was down, off, stolen, or gasp without a network connection. You could share files, and if someone wanted to confiscate it they would have to come knocking. IRC never did async well (you have to be online at the same time) and never became popular with the general public. Skype did p2p well, back when most had an IP address, a physical network cable, and left their machine on (unlimited power). As NAT and mobile devices (that couldn't constantly be available for bouncing around a NAT and participating in a DHT). As a result Microsoft centralized it, so low power clients could connect as needed. IPv4 basically turns a home computer into a consumer of internet services, even for silly things like using your cell phone to open your garage door requires a cloud service to be involved. My main point is many traditional web services could be provided by the individual. You can share docs, communicate, and manage your increasingly complicated home environment easily with IPv6. Sure some would still use centralized services, but many more would do it yourself.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> - power/solar monitoring - you would need a server which would specifically handle the metric collection and make decisions upon this. Obviously cloud is cheaper than a separate box stationed in your house. Except there is already a box stationed in your house, otherwise no data collection. Whether you might want to be able to use cloud-provided storage for reliability reasons would be a separate issue (which (a) could be completely application agnostic and (b) could just as well use your home server if you preferred that). > Dropcams are usually a separate device which does not provide server capabilities per se - so require a box. Or adding "server capabilities", whatever that is. > but I am not going to start on how much you will be overpaying for every of the devices for them to have a separate fully-functional IP stack that is easily connected to a (W)LAN (wi-fi, ethernet, bluetooth - all of that is either expensive, bulky or power-hungry). So a box/cloud is always a solution. How exactly do any of those connect to "the cloud" without a "fully-functional IP stack"?

heavenlyblue 9y ago
>> Except there is already a box stationed in your house, otherwise no data collection. Whether you might want to be able to use cloud-provided storage for reliability reasons would be a separate issue (which (a) could be completely application agnostic and (b) could just as well use your home server if you preferred that). Exactly the point I am making in my previous message. This tech is available independently from you using ipv4 or ipv6. You can still do all of this with ipv4 and the reason engineers would prefer to have the "cloud" method is because then they keep their clients on the platform and because most of their clients would not be setting their own server up anytime soon. It is a business decision and not a technical one. You're making a point from a perspective of a geeky software engineer. >> Or adding "server capabilities", whatever that is. You can still do that with IPv4. My point stands. >> How exactly do any of those connect to "the cloud" without a "fully-functional IP stack"? For example, Philips Hue uses ZigBee to connect to "the box", which provides the HTTP interface; if they used wi-fi or bluetooth - the price for their lamps would go up by about ~$10 +-$2. So while you don't have to use "the cloud", you'd still need to have a separate piece of hardware that provides the ip connectivity. How does ipv6 solve the problem here?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Well, of course, it's also in part a business decision. But it's also in part a technical decision, because you cannot directly reach the home devices from outside the network, so you need a "cloud service" anyway if you want to allow the user to control their devices remotely (and you don't want to deal with the mess to set up that is port forwardings). With IPv6, your device has a global address, so the user can just use a web browser to control the device from anywhere on the planet without any need for port forwarding, that is what IPv4 with NAT prevents.

sliken 9y ago

Right, but imagine something like a Raspberry Pi with some cheap storage attached. It could collect data from your house (temps, duty cycle of furnace/AC, solar panel power, garage door state, collect your photos/docs, receive email/IM asynchronously, etc). Sure you'd want offsite backups, maybe at a friends house... if his server had a public IPv6 address. With IPv6 it would be much easier to remotely use all those resources/files. You could give friends/family access to your photos, you could receive/send messages even if your phone/laptop was down, off, stolen, or gasp without a network connection. You could share files, and if someone wanted to confiscate it they would have to come knocking. IRC never did async well (you have to be online at the same time) and never became popular with the general public. Skype did p2p well, back when most had an IP address, a physical network cable, and left their machine on (unlimited power). As NAT and mobile devices (that couldn't constantly be available for bouncing around a NAT and participating in a DHT). As a result Microsoft centralized it, so low power clients could connect as needed. IPv4 basically turns a home computer into a consumer of internet services, even for silly things like using your cell phone to open your garage door requires a cloud service to be involved. My main point is many traditional web services could be provided by the individual. You can share docs, communicate, and manage your increasingly complicated home environment easily with IPv6. Sure some would still use centralized services, but many more would do it yourself.