4 ms·
> No improvements/bug fixes/etc., just a guarantee that whatever sort of phoning-home the hardware was doing before could continue after. With no new sales, so
by sah2ed 6y ago
> No improvements/bug fixes/etc., just a guarantee that whatever sort of phoning-home the hardware was doing before could continue after. With no new sales, so no growth to worry about, seems like it should be pretty easy to predict the total cost to run the thing for the promised duration on a cloud service like AWS.
For devices that are air-gapped the idea may be workable, but not in the form you’ve outlined for internet-connected devices. What happens when a major vulnerability is discovered? Who is liable when a vulnerable device gets exploited in a well-orchestrated breach?
Such a company would eventually be confronted with the reality of lawsuits.
- femto113 6y agoI reason this differently in a couple ways: 1) most IoT devices/base stations (though not all) do not expose an interface to the internet, they simply make outbound calls across the internet to some service to report stats, send messages, get commands, etc. (In the case of Automatic I believe the "thing" relied on the user's phone to act as the basestation) 2) any device that does expose an interface to the internet will still be exposed even if the central service shuts down. Now if someone actually manages to hack the service itself and use it for malicious purposes (like sending bad commands to the things) that would probably fall on the operator, but securing such services is a problem they could probably get really good at solving.