5 ms·
>Most IoT devices are not designed to be used for extended periods without internet access and a continuous stream of updates. But you could design one with a
by la_barba 7y ago
>Most IoT devices are not designed to be used for extended periods without internet access and a continuous stream of updates.
But you could design one with a manual fallback option. Doesn't seem foundational to me. Nothing about an IoT design prevents one from doing that.
>The latter means that unlike traditional home hardware, once you install "smart" devices you're at the mercy of the business plans of the vendor. So even if you get something set up that works acceptably, it will last 5 years tops (see Nest) before the vendor's priorities change.
Yes, that is the downside of dealing with any service oriented business, in any domain. But again, you can have a manual fallback option (as I think most devices do FWICT)
>Finally to address the "extra security" comment. Security from what?
I suppose it depends on what you consider security. For an intruder alert system, you'd need something that can transmit a notification to someone. An IoT device seems like a good option, but I guess you could also use a device that can send a text over a cellular network.
I personally have no use for anything IoT, but I think its premature to go completely in the other direction and say that IoT is completely useless. What we're seeing with so called "disruptive" technologies is that things get worse (or sometimes a lot worse), before they get better.
- JadeNB 7y ago> But you could design one with a manual fallback option. Doesn't seem foundational to me. Nothing about an IoT design prevents one from doing that. Certainly I could (or at least someone with the engineering skills could), but the actual IoT companies don't. My impression of IoT devices (do not want) is based on what actually exists, not on what could theoretically exist.
- la_barba 7y ago>Certainly I could (or at least someone with the engineering skills could), but the actual IoT companies don't. That is incorrect. There are several IoT products with manual fallback options on the market. I don't even know why you're disagreeing to be honest. You don't like IoT devices, I got that part.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> There are several IoT products with manual fallback options on the market. Name three. Also, "manual fallback" is a cop-out. When I want manual operations, I don't go looking for home automation. The "smart" features should be available without Internet. There's nothing technically difficult about this, but it isn't being done because of abusive business practices.
- la_barba 7y agoIf you don't want an internet enabled device, then you are looking in the wrong place. The I in IoT stands for internet.
- xg15 7y agoThis is the crazy thing. IoT is actually advertising with a requirement, not a feature. Since when has "needs internet access to function" become a selling point?
- la_barba 7y ago>Since when has "needs internet access to function" become a selling point? That is a good question. I don't know. But I'd say it became a selling point after the internet became ubiquitous and reliable enough in the eyes of consumers. Otherwise people would be complaining about 'needs internet access to watch a movie/make a video call/play a game/push source code/order food/call a taxi/etc/etc/etc".
- jameskegel 7y agoThat’s the point here though isn’t it? I don’t want the internet involved with turning the lights on when I have to get up at night.
- la_barba 7y agoI don't want the internet involved either, so we agree on that. Can we also agree that some people want internet enabled devices?