4 ms·

Initially I thought you were talking about devices such as wearable electronics, etc. Do you feel the same way about those devices? If a device expects you to

Initially I thought you were talking about devices such as wearable electronics, etc. Do you feel the same way about those devices? If a device expects you to require/want cloud access to the data captured/used with the device, do you feel the same way, that it should be optional? I get that there is probably no benefit to having a faucet connected to an account, but a water pressure monitor that you can view remotely probably requires an account. That makes sense to me. Controlling some small IOT devices via an app is probably preferable to having controls on the device. Again, using your water pressure monitor example - and I have no idea what that is, or what it is used for - but if the device is small, and not readily accessible (is it attached to your water tank), I can see having controls via an app on your phone be better than the manufacturer adding buttons and a screen to the device. I have a horse in this race, as we are building a headband that monitors your sleep state, and uses auditory stimulation to improve the effectiveness of deep sleep (https://soundmind.co https://soundmind.co). We're intentionally designing many interactive elements to only be controlled by an app, rather than on the device. The reason being, as we add buttons to the device, there is a greater likelihood that the buttons will be pressed during sleep, and they also add ergonomics challenges that can be better managed in an app. What are your feelings on that?

robomartin 4y ago
I will not buy anything that requires a connection to the mothership unless I have no choice and I really need it. I suppose the phone itself is an exception. As to the valve requiring the manufacturer's server existing in the middle of the transaction, well, I don't think that's necessary at all. One can certainly connect to devices inside the network through other means. Of course, in some cases one has to be technically capable in order to accomplish this, I'll grant you that much. The average consumer isn't equipped to manage this sort of thing. And that's how, in the name of convenience, they give up privacy and personal data. Not sure there's a canonical solution for this. My thermostat should not need a connection to the mothership to work. It should be able to live entirely within my home network and no data should ever escape it. Same is true of my solar array. This is one of the reasons for which I designed, bought and installed my own system. Everyone wanted a connection to the mothership. That's just nuts. From the standpoint of consumer protection --in terms of privacy, security and product longevity-- I think all products should function under a "privacy-first" policy. What if the manufacturer goes out of business? The consumer's investment evaporates? Same thing in the case of a company being acquired. The acquiring company could very easily discontinue the service. Five, ten, fifteen years from now? Absolutely. Having devices tied to servers just to be able to function is not, in my opinion, a service to consumers. It's a service to the company making the device. Everyone is selling data now. I might also go this far with regards to wearable electronics or IoT. They almost have to have a consumer advisory warning, like cigarettes: "This device may become inoperable any time in the future as it depends on a connection to an external service for its operation". I guess I can say that, under certain circumstances, if the consumer if fully informed, no problem. I'll give you a personal example. Many years ago (iPhone 3 era) we authored about a dozen educational apps for kids. This was around the time that apps were on a slippery slope towards zero dollars. We maintained these apps out of just loving what they were doing for kids around the world. However, at some point, Apple demanded that they be updated to the latest and greatest. It made no financial sense at all do stay on that crazy rollercoaster. So, we made the only decision that made sense: We stopped updates. Within a year they were all gone from the App Store. Imagine that, but with hardware devices from a range of companies who, after many years, either have to move on to their support their latest products or simply go out of business due to realities of life. This is not good for consumers. Again, I will admit that in some cases this is a really tough call. However, there's difference between a product made by Apple and one put out by a startup with barely a year under their belt and a runway that might evaporate six months later if sales don't go well. I would say: Fight hard to make a product that can exist on its own. Make that a selling point rather than a deficiency. You can have enhancements that require getting outside the network, but think of the consumer. Put a different way: If a product cost $1000 and it turned into a brick if the company evaporated. How is that good for consumers?
- pedalpete 4y ago
  Now I understand better what you are saying, but I think your complaint is less about requiring an app, and more about the app requiring a web-service to operate. Having said that, I think the market has spoken. This isn't an issue for most people. As you have said, most customers are not concerned about privacy, ignore if they should be or not...they aren't. We're actually looking at privacy and communications around privacy as a selling point. Most consumers like the idea of being able to control their devices from their phone, or just see the data which ends up in the cloud. I understand your rant, but most people are not technically adept as you are, and want the simplicity that an app and a login give them. The points you mention are valid, but if the majority of customers don't care, why should the company? ....to a certain extent, yes, there are the just be good to your customers, but beyond that, if the customer expects an app, as a business we need to satisfy that need. The example that goes to your point is the smart home company that bricked everyone's house a few months ago. That was insane. But most companies are not operating like that, and don't have the level of consumer purchase commitment as the items you are describing.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Having said that, I think the market has spoken. I'll disagree with you on that. This was not a decision made by consumers. It was imposed on them. The example given on another post about aquarium lights requiring an app is a perfect example of this. > most companies are not operating like that No company on earth goes into business thinking they will fail, or have to take a pivot that might be detrimental to their customers. However, this does happen. I am not talking about small insignificant events either. For example, when Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel processors they caused a lot of damage to untold numbers of customers. I remember this well because, at the time, I worked at a company that was all-in with Apple and had hundreds of machines. Every single one of those machines had to be replaced. I am sure Apple did not make that decision lightly. They had to. That's the kind of thing I am talking about.
jwalton 4y ago
> If a device expects you to require/want cloud access to the data captured/used with the device, do you feel the same way, that it should be optional? A device should not expect me to want cloud access. I’m ok with a device requiring I access its features through my phone, so long as that is made clear in advance. But my phone and the device are usually in the same room - there’s no need for a cloud of any sort to be involved, and there’s certainly no reason I would ever want any of my data uploaded to some company without my explicit permission. And I’d expect most features to work without that permission.

robomartin 4y ago

I will not buy anything that requires a connection to the mothership unless I have no choice and I really need it. I suppose the phone itself is an exception. As to the valve requiring the manufacturer's server existing in the middle of the transaction, well, I don't think that's necessary at all. One can certainly connect to devices inside the network through other means. Of course, in some cases one has to be technically capable in order to accomplish this, I'll grant you that much. The average consumer isn't equipped to manage this sort of thing. And that's how, in the name of convenience, they give up privacy and personal data. Not sure there's a canonical solution for this. My thermostat should not need a connection to the mothership to work. It should be able to live entirely within my home network and no data should ever escape it. Same is true of my solar array. This is one of the reasons for which I designed, bought and installed my own system. Everyone wanted a connection to the mothership. That's just nuts. From the standpoint of consumer protection --in terms of privacy, security and product longevity-- I think all products should function under a "privacy-first" policy. What if the manufacturer goes out of business? The consumer's investment evaporates? Same thing in the case of a company being acquired. The acquiring company could very easily discontinue the service. Five, ten, fifteen years from now? Absolutely. Having devices tied to servers just to be able to function is not, in my opinion, a service to consumers. It's a service to the company making the device. Everyone is selling data now. I might also go this far with regards to wearable electronics or IoT. They almost have to have a consumer advisory warning, like cigarettes: "This device may become inoperable any time in the future as it depends on a connection to an external service for its operation". I guess I can say that, under certain circumstances, if the consumer if fully informed, no problem. I'll give you a personal example. Many years ago (iPhone 3 era) we authored about a dozen educational apps for kids. This was around the time that apps were on a slippery slope towards zero dollars. We maintained these apps out of just loving what they were doing for kids around the world. However, at some point, Apple demanded that they be updated to the latest and greatest. It made no financial sense at all do stay on that crazy rollercoaster. So, we made the only decision that made sense: We stopped updates. Within a year they were all gone from the App Store. Imagine that, but with hardware devices from a range of companies who, after many years, either have to move on to their support their latest products or simply go out of business due to realities of life. This is not good for consumers. Again, I will admit that in some cases this is a really tough call. However, there's difference between a product made by Apple and one put out by a startup with barely a year under their belt and a runway that might evaporate six months later if sales don't go well. I would say: Fight hard to make a product that can exist on its own. Make that a selling point rather than a deficiency. You can have enhancements that require getting outside the network, but think of the consumer. Put a different way: If a product cost $1000 and it turned into a brick if the company evaporated. How is that good for consumers?

pedalpete 4y ago
Now I understand better what you are saying, but I think your complaint is less about requiring an app, and more about the app requiring a web-service to operate. Having said that, I think the market has spoken. This isn't an issue for most people. As you have said, most customers are not concerned about privacy, ignore if they should be or not...they aren't. We're actually looking at privacy and communications around privacy as a selling point. Most consumers like the idea of being able to control their devices from their phone, or just see the data which ends up in the cloud. I understand your rant, but most people are not technically adept as you are, and want the simplicity that an app and a login give them. The points you mention are valid, but if the majority of customers don't care, why should the company? ....to a certain extent, yes, there are the just be good to your customers, but beyond that, if the customer expects an app, as a business we need to satisfy that need. The example that goes to your point is the smart home company that bricked everyone's house a few months ago. That was insane. But most companies are not operating like that, and don't have the level of consumer purchase commitment as the items you are describing.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Having said that, I think the market has spoken. I'll disagree with you on that. This was not a decision made by consumers. It was imposed on them. The example given on another post about aquarium lights requiring an app is a perfect example of this. > most companies are not operating like that No company on earth goes into business thinking they will fail, or have to take a pivot that might be detrimental to their customers. However, this does happen. I am not talking about small insignificant events either. For example, when Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel processors they caused a lot of damage to untold numbers of customers. I remember this well because, at the time, I worked at a company that was all-in with Apple and had hundreds of machines. Every single one of those machines had to be replaced. I am sure Apple did not make that decision lightly. They had to. That's the kind of thing I am talking about.

jwalton 4y ago

> If a device expects you to require/want cloud access to the data captured/used with the device, do you feel the same way, that it should be optional? A device should not expect me to want cloud access. I’m ok with a device requiring I access its features through my phone, so long as that is made clear in advance. But my phone and the device are usually in the same room - there’s no need for a cloud of any sort to be involved, and there’s certainly no reason I would ever want any of my data uploaded to some company without my explicit permission. And I’d expect most features to work without that permission.