4 ms·
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the failure of smart homes attributed to the SaaS model itself. Nest devices had to be killed because Google wouldn't su
by omk 5y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the failure of smart homes attributed to the SaaS model itself. Nest devices had to be killed because Google wouldn't support the subscription anymore. What it needs is licensing model and not a subscription. Get a smart home installed on your home like you'd install Windows on a PC. We are basically wanting to install a server in every home to cut off recurring costs on vendors and even dependency on a single vendor for that matter.
The bottleneck here could be the network interface once you are away from your home. That is where standards struggle.
- tharkun__ 5y agoLooking at the sibling I currently see right below hits the nail on the head as in vendor lock in is bad for both SaaS and perpetual licensing models. I think none of the models currently work well for the consumer. If your SaaS provider shuts down its service you have to replace all the hardware too because of vendor lock in. If your perpetual license vendor stops making this produ t line or changes its proprietary software incompatible say 3 years down the line (which from a software development standpoint is reasonable actually) you can't buy another light switch for the new room you added by subdividing the basement "play room" that would work with your original installation. Software incompatible. New software or other vendors' software won't work on your 'ancient' hardware. Vendor lock in bad.
- xtracto 5y agoI want a smart home that is isolated. Given that i know all the ways a computer system can fail, I want my smart home to function even when Amazon/Google/Microsoft cloud goes down. Also , I dont want my smart devices to send or receive ANY data from external servers. Of course that's incompatible with current business models. So I prefer my home to stay dumb.