> actually useful... however, is that there isn't an incentive for utility I hope this is something we start recognizing more broadly. Even the 'scary' feature

> actually useful... however, is that there isn't an incentive for utility I hope this is something we start recognizing more broadly. Even the 'scary' features of these things could be useful and preserve privacy. I can think of a half-dozen IoT, voice control, or "Smart Home" features I would really like to have. But in practice, not only am I unwilling to make the privacy tradeoff, the existing solutions are made noticeably lower-quality by their monetization and data gathering. As a basic example, IoT products should (obviously!) work offline for all functionality that doesn't actually need an internet connection. But even a Chromecast won't function on a local network unless it's allowed to call home constantly. People sell lightswitches that cease functioning without a nonstop internet connection. That's insane. Worse, my ideal use cases would all involve heavy integration between devices. When that's available at all, it's based on attempts at ecosystem lock-in. Not only does that give one company extensive data, it destroys any market competition or ability to choose the products and features I want. Even the crudest tools for integrating for this stuff don't work. IFTTT is "user friendly", but half the supported components can't be used as triggers/inputs without joining their developer program. The monetization and privacy issues with this stuff aren't just a cost for the service, the way TV ads are. They actively destroy value. I would pay a massive premium for no-data-gathered hardware with robust APIs, but without wiring my own devices from scratch, I can't.