2 ms·
In general I agree with you, but the IoT is the soul of planned obsolescence. They flip a switch, and you’re the proud owner or a brick. A tractor, a PC, a cell
by IntronExon 9y ago
In general I agree with you, but the IoT is the soul of planned obsolescence. They flip a switch, and you’re the proud owner or a brick. A tractor, a PC, a cellphone? Sure, make it repairable. A networked speaker? I say that’s not a battle worth fighting.
It’s also worth noting that history is full of disposable products, but since they tare need to break or be disposed of, we focus on the outliers which remain. The old bread mixer which can run until the end of time is memorable, the cheap blender is not.
- xg15 9y agoExcept this is not cheap. It's sold as a $300 luxury item and marketed as the height of technological development. Also I think the bigger picture is more worrying. Yes, planned obsolescence seems to be the soul of IoT - and for reasons perfectly understandable from the industries' PoV there seems to be immense push to make this the new norm. So if zero reparability isn't supposed to become the norm (more than it already is), I think drawing a little attention to cases like this is justified.
- IntronExon 9y agoI never said that it was cheap, just that it’s IoT shit. Avoid the IoT, it’s as simple as that. Nobody actually needs a networked toaster or HomePod, so don’t support it. Reforming something as born-broken as IoT is a mistake!
- xg15 9y agoYes, absolutely. I'm always saddened by that because I think the idea of having all kinds of hardware that you could link together and program would be amazing. But of course with the current vision of IoT - where devices mostly seem to be physical extensions of cloud services - the only way is indeed to avoid them.