5 ms·

It would be interesting to have a word for devices that is sort of like 'organic' for food. It would indicate that the device is self-contained and has no conn

It would be interesting to have a word for devices that is sort of like 'organic' for food. It would indicate that the device is self-contained and has no connectivity.

npsimons 9y ago
> It would be interesting to have a word for devices that is sort of like 'organic' for food. > It would indicate that the device is self-contained and has no connectivity. "Well-designed"?
- julianwachholz 9y ago
  No "E.T.-Phone-Home".
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >"Well-designed"? Very good one. A good candidate would have been "smart", but unfortunately it is already taken to mean the opposite.
  - fmx 9y ago
    I use "dumb". Sure, it sounds negative, but when used in context it's easy to understand for anyone that knows about "smart devices".
rootlocus 9y ago
DRM free?
lucb1e 9y ago
"Independent"? I see some suggesting "no connectivity" but that would just sound like a negative thing. Typically you list features, not things it doesn't have. Sure, if you pause to think about it, we (on HN) would all figure out the benefit. But many people might not pause nor figure it out. Independent also doesn't sound exactly right, but perhaps it's just that nobody ever used it to describe this before and I'd need to get used to it. Edit: "Dependency-free" is not as common a word and means the same thing. That might be a little better.
ajmurmann 9y ago
I totally agree with the idea. However, the "has no connectivity" bothers me. It's OK for devices to have connectivity as part of their feature set. I'd be very unhappy if my iPad couldn't connect to the Internet at large. However, it requiring even occasional connection to some specific service in order to perform its functions is the red flag.
detaro 9y ago
"no connectivity" sounds fine to express that. "unconnected" maybe. But IMHO such devices aren't the problem. I can't think of many (any?) devices where I'd want an unconnected one and can't get it. The problem are connected devices that come with unexpected extra connections (networked camera that wants to talk to cloud service etc). Maybe "service-less" for that?
Retr0spectrum 9y ago
offline?
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
Fat free.
amiga-workbench 9y ago
Botnet free
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Unfortunately, "organic" today mostly means overpriced crap for eco-freaks that's about as bad or even worse[0] than regular food. Hell, sometimes the same companies makes both regular and "organic" stuff. But I get your point. Now I would like to have some "smart" devices, though, so beyond your label for self-contained devices I kindly ask for a label for devices that stay on local network. -- [0] - industrial pesticides are better than "pesticides" that still let you claim the "organic" label.
Can_Not 9y ago
"Offline Ready"

It would be interesting to have a word for devices that is sort of like 'organic' for food. It would indicate that the device is self-contained and has no connectivity.

npsimons 9y ago

> It would be interesting to have a word for devices that is sort of like 'organic' for food. > It would indicate that the device is self-contained and has no connectivity. "Well-designed"?

julianwachholz 9y ago
No "E.T.-Phone-Home".
jaclaz 9y ago
>"Well-designed"? Very good one. A good candidate would have been "smart", but unfortunately it is already taken to mean the opposite.
- fmx 9y ago
  I use "dumb". Sure, it sounds negative, but when used in context it's easy to understand for anyone that knows about "smart devices".

rootlocus 9y ago

DRM free?

lucb1e 9y ago

"Independent"? I see some suggesting "no connectivity" but that would just sound like a negative thing. Typically you list features, not things it doesn't have. Sure, if you pause to think about it, we (on HN) would all figure out the benefit. But many people might not pause nor figure it out. Independent also doesn't sound exactly right, but perhaps it's just that nobody ever used it to describe this before and I'd need to get used to it. Edit: "Dependency-free" is not as common a word and means the same thing. That might be a little better.

ajmurmann 9y ago

I totally agree with the idea. However, the "has no connectivity" bothers me. It's OK for devices to have connectivity as part of their feature set. I'd be very unhappy if my iPad couldn't connect to the Internet at large. However, it requiring even occasional connection to some specific service in order to perform its functions is the red flag.

detaro 9y ago

"no connectivity" sounds fine to express that. "unconnected" maybe. But IMHO such devices aren't the problem. I can't think of many (any?) devices where I'd want an unconnected one and can't get it. The problem are connected devices that come with unexpected extra connections (networked camera that wants to talk to cloud service etc). Maybe "service-less" for that?

Retr0spectrum 9y ago

offline?

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

Fat free.

amiga-workbench 9y ago

Botnet free

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Unfortunately, "organic" today mostly means overpriced crap for eco-freaks that's about as bad or even worse[0] than regular food. Hell, sometimes the same companies makes both regular and "organic" stuff. But I get your point. Now I would like to have some "smart" devices, though, so beyond your label for self-contained devices I kindly ask for a label for devices that stay on local network. -- [0] - industrial pesticides are better than "pesticides" that still let you claim the "organic" label.

Can_Not 9y ago

"Offline Ready"