4 ms·

> what is the point of an internet connected dishwasher? The purpose of IOT is pretty clear, although it is also pretty broad. It's a win-win for the manufactu

> what is the point of an internet connected dishwasher? The purpose of IOT is pretty clear, although it is also pretty broad. It's a win-win for the manufacturer, but probably a ticking time bomb for the customer. The Good: 1. Reduce production costs by converting electronic control to digital control with COTS chips. 2. Reduce development costs by reducing the cost of correcting bug-free software. The system requires updates because it assumes that it is faulty. 3. Allow additional services, such as special run cycles, custom control of run cycles, etc. 4. Collecting anonymous telemetry data to determine actual use patterns, allowing for better focus on features people actually use or may want. Potentially allows for increases in efficiency (including end user resource costs like time, water, and electricity). The Bad: 1. Aggregating anonymous telemetry data to sell to third parties for additional profit. 2. Facilitating planned obsolescence (software EOL = appliance EOL). 3. Denial of right-to-repair (John Deere). 4. Facilitating vendor lock-in. 5. Collecting non-anonymous telemetry data used for targeted advertising.

mattbrewsbytes 5y ago
You missed one of the Bad: * Potential for wifi chipsets to collect other data from your network and send to anywhere. If you are going to do IoT or have wifi enabled appliances, setup a separate network for them to operate on. I find it easier to just not have them, so far.
- slantyyz 5y ago
  Also, since dishwashers are "supposed to" last 10 years or more, they may force you to keep an older version of Wifi available on your network (e.g., 2.4ghz n) when all of your other devices may be on the latest version.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
None of those 'good' are very good, or good at all. The buttons on the front are a few cents. On a $1000 appliance, that benefits only the manufacturer (if even them). Being able to ship buggy software, again a benefit to the manufacturer. More complex controls for more complex cycles etc? Questionable if this kind of fiddling on e.g. a dishwasher is of any use. Collecting data - because we want to spend Saturday in a spreadsheet, going over our dishwasher telemetry? Oh! Maybe you mean, also only of use to the manufacturer. Not my problem; not a reason to make my device more complicated for me.
- peteradio 5y ago
  One quibble: > The buttons on the front are a few cents. It's knowing where those buttons need to be that is potentially costly. Offloading that to an app lets you cover all bases of unknown UI desire. Of course its still a terrible argument because dishwashers don't need to also be a disco ball or whatever nonsense marketing there is to justify the obvious money grab.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  "It doesn't help me personally immediately right now," is certainly a take you could have, sure. Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely skeptical about IoT. I'm an experienced sysadmin, and that means I hate technology. There is a massive legislative need to protect the public from the damage these devices could do to customer rights, and the legislatures we've had for almost as long as I can remember are about as interested in filling that need as they were interested in protecting the worker and the right to unionize in the 19th century. Which is to say, it's more likely that the President will send the Army in to crack skulls than they'd pass a bill to do something right. But the Digital Revolution doesn't just mean FAANG. It also means the Third Industrial Revolution. That's been going on for 35+ years. It's not new, and it's not going away. IoT will happen because it's simply too good for manufacturing not to do it even if they can't monetize their customers' data. IoT can provide real improvements just like networking computers has. There are unknown gains in efficiency, productivity, and quality of life to be gained here. The Information Age isn't NFTs and tracking cookies all the way down. > More complex controls for more complex cycles etc? Questionable if this kind of fiddling on e.g. a dishwasher is of any use. It's just an example, man. I'm not a dishwasher engineer. I don't know what they need to do, let alone to what they are capable of or what they could be used for but aren't because of the current structure. It's not just about dishwashers either. All modern appliances are digital. What can you make any appliance in your home do with continuous monitoring and re-programmability?
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    If IoT was done responsibly, then we'd be more willing to try. The example was wifi connecting something that gave no benefit, and introduced significant risk (having a bad actor inside your wifi network). It doesn't take a scientist. IoT could be done so much better. First, give some benefit (E.g. give you a service call when something went wrong). And Why not use a simple VPN to the host? Encrypt the link some other way? Hell, require a password? I've programmed IoT device firmware for clients. I put in security - they want it removed. Because it makes installation harder for their staff. No profit in it. I'd run from any IoT device today. Until we have some legislation or accountability or even UL rating for security, there will be no security at all.
bambax 5y ago
> 4. Collecting anonymous telemetry data to determine actual use patterns, allowing for better focus on features people actually use or may want. Potentially allows for increases in efficiency (including end user resource costs like time, water, and electricity). Ok, but many times this leads to wrong conclusions. Just because a feature is not used by everyone, or used rarely, does not mean it's useless.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  > Ok, but many times this leads to wrong conclusions. Yes, but they're much more accurate than the existing systems: user surveys and focus groups. Those are both notoriously useless because people lie (intentionally or otherwise). Even so, telemetry doesn't wholly replace them. It's on top of them. Marketing is hard, in part because the data you're working with is either (a) untimely, (b) incorrect, or (c) incomplete. User surveys and focus groups are often all three. Telemetry data is largely just incomplete. That's still a huge improvement. In the worst case, it can be used like grading a test. > Just because a feature is not used by everyone, or used rarely, does not mean it's useless. And thanks to a software based interface, maybe you don't need to eliminate that feature. You just don't need to continue to develop it. Look, whether or not their market data is correct, a company that dedicates their resources in the wrong spot is reducing the value of their product to the customer. It means the product is more expensive for no reason. It means that the majority are subsidizing a feature they don't use in exchange for more development on the core functionality that they do. That's just what that means. And in terms of probability, the truth is that you've got features on your appliances that you paid for and you will never use. Wouldn't you like your money back on those features? You might be the guy who loves the lilac perfume option in your dishwasher, but you probably aren't if only 5% of people use it. That makes it a luxury feature at best, especially because it might be another point of failure. Let those who want the luxury feature pay the cost of that luxury feature. Tell me you've never bought an appliance or tool that has a dozen features that get in the way of what you actually want to use it for. How that one time you bought a really nice coffee maker because you want to make good coffee easily, and you ended up spending 10 minutes every morning arguing with it. So you went out and got a coffee maker whose only control is an on-off rocker switch, and you love it because it's dead simple, gives you exactly as much control as you want, and can be operated by the pre-coffee brain.
barfingclouds 5y ago
Dishwasher makers already know how to make them properly. This whole thread makes me angry. Normal dishwashers don’t need bug updates.

mattbrewsbytes 5y ago

You missed one of the Bad: * Potential for wifi chipsets to collect other data from your network and send to anywhere. If you are going to do IoT or have wifi enabled appliances, setup a separate network for them to operate on. I find it easier to just not have them, so far.

slantyyz 5y ago
Also, since dishwashers are "supposed to" last 10 years or more, they may force you to keep an older version of Wifi available on your network (e.g., 2.4ghz n) when all of your other devices may be on the latest version.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

None of those 'good' are very good, or good at all. The buttons on the front are a few cents. On a $1000 appliance, that benefits only the manufacturer (if even them). Being able to ship buggy software, again a benefit to the manufacturer. More complex controls for more complex cycles etc? Questionable if this kind of fiddling on e.g. a dishwasher is of any use. Collecting data - because we want to spend Saturday in a spreadsheet, going over our dishwasher telemetry? Oh! Maybe you mean, also only of use to the manufacturer. Not my problem; not a reason to make my device more complicated for me.

peteradio 5y ago
One quibble: > The buttons on the front are a few cents. It's knowing where those buttons need to be that is potentially costly. Offloading that to an app lets you cover all bases of unknown UI desire. Of course its still a terrible argument because dishwashers don't need to also be a disco ball or whatever nonsense marketing there is to justify the obvious money grab.
da_chicken 5y ago
"It doesn't help me personally immediately right now," is certainly a take you could have, sure. Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely skeptical about IoT. I'm an experienced sysadmin, and that means I hate technology. There is a massive legislative need to protect the public from the damage these devices could do to customer rights, and the legislatures we've had for almost as long as I can remember are about as interested in filling that need as they were interested in protecting the worker and the right to unionize in the 19th century. Which is to say, it's more likely that the President will send the Army in to crack skulls than they'd pass a bill to do something right. But the Digital Revolution doesn't just mean FAANG. It also means the Third Industrial Revolution. That's been going on for 35+ years. It's not new, and it's not going away. IoT will happen because it's simply too good for manufacturing not to do it even if they can't monetize their customers' data. IoT can provide real improvements just like networking computers has. There are unknown gains in efficiency, productivity, and quality of life to be gained here. The Information Age isn't NFTs and tracking cookies all the way down. > More complex controls for more complex cycles etc? Questionable if this kind of fiddling on e.g. a dishwasher is of any use. It's just an example, man. I'm not a dishwasher engineer. I don't know what they need to do, let alone to what they are capable of or what they could be used for but aren't because of the current structure. It's not just about dishwashers either. All modern appliances are digital. What can you make any appliance in your home do with continuous monitoring and re-programmability?
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  If IoT was done responsibly, then we'd be more willing to try. The example was wifi connecting something that gave no benefit, and introduced significant risk (having a bad actor inside your wifi network). It doesn't take a scientist. IoT could be done so much better. First, give some benefit (E.g. give you a service call when something went wrong). And Why not use a simple VPN to the host? Encrypt the link some other way? Hell, require a password? I've programmed IoT device firmware for clients. I put in security - they want it removed. Because it makes installation harder for their staff. No profit in it. I'd run from any IoT device today. Until we have some legislation or accountability or even UL rating for security, there will be no security at all.

bambax 5y ago

> 4. Collecting anonymous telemetry data to determine actual use patterns, allowing for better focus on features people actually use or may want. Potentially allows for increases in efficiency (including end user resource costs like time, water, and electricity). Ok, but many times this leads to wrong conclusions. Just because a feature is not used by everyone, or used rarely, does not mean it's useless.

da_chicken 5y ago
> Ok, but many times this leads to wrong conclusions. Yes, but they're much more accurate than the existing systems: user surveys and focus groups. Those are both notoriously useless because people lie (intentionally or otherwise). Even so, telemetry doesn't wholly replace them. It's on top of them. Marketing is hard, in part because the data you're working with is either (a) untimely, (b) incorrect, or (c) incomplete. User surveys and focus groups are often all three. Telemetry data is largely just incomplete. That's still a huge improvement. In the worst case, it can be used like grading a test. > Just because a feature is not used by everyone, or used rarely, does not mean it's useless. And thanks to a software based interface, maybe you don't need to eliminate that feature. You just don't need to continue to develop it. Look, whether or not their market data is correct, a company that dedicates their resources in the wrong spot is reducing the value of their product to the customer. It means the product is more expensive for no reason. It means that the majority are subsidizing a feature they don't use in exchange for more development on the core functionality that they do. That's just what that means. And in terms of probability, the truth is that you've got features on your appliances that you paid for and you will never use. Wouldn't you like your money back on those features? You might be the guy who loves the lilac perfume option in your dishwasher, but you probably aren't if only 5% of people use it. That makes it a luxury feature at best, especially because it might be another point of failure. Let those who want the luxury feature pay the cost of that luxury feature. Tell me you've never bought an appliance or tool that has a dozen features that get in the way of what you actually want to use it for. How that one time you bought a really nice coffee maker because you want to make good coffee easily, and you ended up spending 10 minutes every morning arguing with it. So you went out and got a coffee maker whose only control is an on-off rocker switch, and you love it because it's dead simple, gives you exactly as much control as you want, and can be operated by the pre-coffee brain.

barfingclouds 5y ago

Dishwasher makers already know how to make them properly. This whole thread makes me angry. Normal dishwashers don’t need bug updates.