3 ms·

But unless IotZombieCo can ensure it too doesn’t go out of business isn’t it just the same risk to the customer however with 2 companies instead of one? I think

by 14 7y ago

But unless IotZombieCo can ensure it too doesn’t go out of business isn’t it just the same risk to the customer however with 2 companies instead of one? I think that 2 companies with the ability to keep a device running is better but the real solution is fully open sourcing the code of these devices since the company is no longer going using them or supporting them. Instead the company is offering a disingenuous offer where you can get some Ring equipment for a discount but really that discount is a minuscule fraction of what one would pay just going to the store and if I were to guess they probably made some back room deal with Ring as well that they could convert ‘x’ amount of customers to their service and got some sort of back pay. This was just a shit deal but it is good it happens from time to time because we need people to start to become aware of this and demand open source.

dboreham 7y ago
Turtles all the way down. But the difference is that IoTZombieCo has an obviously viable business model as long as consumers want their devices to work and are willing to pay the cost. Many of the original vendors don't have viable business models which is why they go out of business. There are many devices used in business scenarios for example where the consumer is likely to take a keener interest in long term viability and also has a higher tolerance for paying for that.
- 14 7y ago
  "as long as consumers want their devices to work and are willing to pay the cost" This is what is upsetting the current customers. All they have to do is buy a Ring device and they essentially get their service to continue. Or you propose they continue to pay IotZombieCo and they get to have their software run on their device. So either they pay for the device or software in order to keep a service that worked perfectly fine before, and really does not need some other person's servers controlling it when a person could set that up on their own network (not against cloud services as they can provide added value but the ability to run on your own network should be an option too).
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > All they have to do is buy a Ring device That's expensive. Much more expensive than basic firmware updates and a couple servers from a system that by design is going to put a priority on keeping the cost of firmware updates low.
michaelt 7y ago
Seems to me there are two related problems: 1. IoT device stops working when the vendor drops support. 2. IoT device stops getting security updates and ends up on an DDOS botnet when the vendor drops support. If you want to solve 2, whoever takes over support needs control of the auto-update mechanism, something to deter them from abusing that control, and no unpopular devices or cheapskate customers to fall through the cracks.

by 14 7y ago

dboreham 7y ago

Turtles all the way down. But the difference is that IoTZombieCo has an obviously viable business model as long as consumers want their devices to work and are willing to pay the cost. Many of the original vendors don't have viable business models which is why they go out of business. There are many devices used in business scenarios for example where the consumer is likely to take a keener interest in long term viability and also has a higher tolerance for paying for that.

14 7y ago
"as long as consumers want their devices to work and are willing to pay the cost" This is what is upsetting the current customers. All they have to do is buy a Ring device and they essentially get their service to continue. Or you propose they continue to pay IotZombieCo and they get to have their software run on their device. So either they pay for the device or software in order to keep a service that worked perfectly fine before, and really does not need some other person's servers controlling it when a person could set that up on their own network (not against cloud services as they can provide added value but the ability to run on your own network should be an option too).
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > All they have to do is buy a Ring device That's expensive. Much more expensive than basic firmware updates and a couple servers from a system that by design is going to put a priority on keeping the cost of firmware updates low.

michaelt 7y ago

Seems to me there are two related problems: 1. IoT device stops working when the vendor drops support. 2. IoT device stops getting security updates and ends up on an DDOS botnet when the vendor drops support. If you want to solve 2, whoever takes over support needs control of the auto-update mechanism, something to deter them from abusing that control, and no unpopular devices or cheapskate customers to fall through the cracks.