4 ms·
This is pure FUD. I'm disappointed that it's got so many responses on HN instead of being down-voted in exchange for a better anti-IoT argument at the top inst
by lallysingh 7y ago
This is pure FUD. I'm disappointed that it's got so many responses on HN instead of being down-voted in exchange for a better anti-IoT argument at the top instead.
But hey, sure, let's go through this:
- I don't care about some dude you saw on TV. A single anecdote means nothing. Even less when it's someone not representative of the population.
- A strawman convenience is another terrible argument. Sometimes it matters that you don't have to leave the room to fiddle with a device. Sometimes you're talking to someone and ask them "are you cold?" and would like to just make it warmer without leaving them.
- Being able to monitor your house's status remotely is helpful.
- Switches and light bulbs are low investment, low risk purchases. If they don't work, you have a simple fallback and it didn't cost much. The industry's developing and it'll take time, but it's generally fine because most of this stuff is such low risk.
- dingaling 7y ago> Switches and light bulbs are low investment, low risk purchases. Outfitting my house with smart bulbs would cost about £400. I've better uses for that amount of money.
- Gorbzel 7y agoNope, your comment is just rationalization disguised as exasperated criticism. When a given product/technology just fundamentally doesn’t work, or even worse is a security nightmare, you don’t get to write it off as a risk that didn’t cost much. Especially since that last part isn’t true in most cases.
- UncleMeat 7y agoI'm frankly stunned that somebody could, with a straight face, turn to somebody else and say "No. You are wrong. That thing you like isn't actually worth it."
- yummypaint 7y agoThere are extremely serious and well known security problems with smart light bulbs. Compromising one's home network is in no way low risk.