3 ms·

Okay but how can you promise that? I run Acme Inc making IOT devices. I say 10 year guaranteed support. I go bankrupt next week, the company doesn't exist. W

Okay but how can you promise that? I run Acme Inc making IOT devices. I say 10 year guaranteed support. I go bankrupt next week, the company doesn't exist. Who is keeping the servers running exactly?

TOMDM 3y ago
Maybe providers should be obligated to open source their stack if they fail in that manner? Feels like your opening up a can of hurt if they're relying on licensed services from someone else, not like they can open source that as well.
- gs17 3y ago
  They're saying that there's no one to obligate in that scenario. The company made one product, then disappeared. Unless you mean their cloud providers should release their setup, but that would have bigger issues.
  - TOMDM 3y ago
    I'm suggesting making it part of bankruptcy proceedings. Again though given the sub licensing potential I can't see it being very effective. Maybe just a slight improvement.
  - toyg 3y ago
    This could be solved with a state-mandated escrow service. When selling anything that relies on network services, companies should be forced to provide server and client source code to an authority, which will keep it in escrow indefinitely. The company is then required to renew their "IP lock" every X weeks/months; if they fail to do so, the code is made publicly available (maybe for a small fee, to cover operational costs). Extra red tape? Maybe. A perfect system? Probably not, as companies would likely fail to upload updates after the initial market debut; and probably someone would occasionally forget to renew locks on products they still sell. Still better than the terrible status quo? For sure.
- brianwawok 3y ago
  And who is going to care to do anything with an open source smart fridge stack that maybe 10,000 or 50,000 people use? Open source only helps if someone cares..
kevincox 3y ago
This is definitely a big flaw of the system. And I can see abuse with spawning new companies for every product. However I still think this "IoT Facts" label would help consumers make informed decisions. If a reputable company that is unlikely to go bust makes a promise there is a good chance that I will get the promised lifespan. However if I buy from SHDUWN on some random website then I am rolling the dice. This does give some advantage to established companies but I don't think that is a major problem. If anything it gives companies a reason to build a reputation, which is something that we see a major lack of these days. And it doesn't make the situation worse. Right now if you buy some Internet of Shit light switch from some effectively anonymous online seller that depends on their HTTP API there is a good chance that it does stop working within a few years. At least now reputable companies that don't go out of businesses do have to start behaving properly.
treffer 3y ago
E.g. the company that bought the IOT department of Acme Inc after a court order forced Acme Inc to sell it in order to pay off the debt. E.g. Pebble was sold to Fitbit due to insolvency. And the cloud services continued to run for a year. Bankruptcy does not necessarily mean everything is gone. Deleting everything is actually the _worst_ outcome as it destroys value. Not having any promise means it will pretty sure be gone. Having a support promise increases the chances of future support, even in case of bankruptcy.

Okay but how can you promise that? I run Acme Inc making IOT devices. I say 10 year guaranteed support. I go bankrupt next week, the company doesn't exist. Who is keeping the servers running exactly?

TOMDM 3y ago

Maybe providers should be obligated to open source their stack if they fail in that manner? Feels like your opening up a can of hurt if they're relying on licensed services from someone else, not like they can open source that as well.

gs17 3y ago
They're saying that there's no one to obligate in that scenario. The company made one product, then disappeared. Unless you mean their cloud providers should release their setup, but that would have bigger issues.
- TOMDM 3y ago
  I'm suggesting making it part of bankruptcy proceedings. Again though given the sub licensing potential I can't see it being very effective. Maybe just a slight improvement.
- toyg 3y ago
  This could be solved with a state-mandated escrow service. When selling anything that relies on network services, companies should be forced to provide server and client source code to an authority, which will keep it in escrow indefinitely. The company is then required to renew their "IP lock" every X weeks/months; if they fail to do so, the code is made publicly available (maybe for a small fee, to cover operational costs). Extra red tape? Maybe. A perfect system? Probably not, as companies would likely fail to upload updates after the initial market debut; and probably someone would occasionally forget to renew locks on products they still sell. Still better than the terrible status quo? For sure.
brianwawok 3y ago
And who is going to care to do anything with an open source smart fridge stack that maybe 10,000 or 50,000 people use? Open source only helps if someone cares..

kevincox 3y ago

This is definitely a big flaw of the system. And I can see abuse with spawning new companies for every product. However I still think this "IoT Facts" label would help consumers make informed decisions. If a reputable company that is unlikely to go bust makes a promise there is a good chance that I will get the promised lifespan. However if I buy from SHDUWN on some random website then I am rolling the dice. This does give some advantage to established companies but I don't think that is a major problem. If anything it gives companies a reason to build a reputation, which is something that we see a major lack of these days. And it doesn't make the situation worse. Right now if you buy some Internet of Shit light switch from some effectively anonymous online seller that depends on their HTTP API there is a good chance that it does stop working within a few years. At least now reputable companies that don't go out of businesses do have to start behaving properly.

treffer 3y ago

E.g. the company that bought the IOT department of Acme Inc after a court order forced Acme Inc to sell it in order to pay off the debt. E.g. Pebble was sold to Fitbit due to insolvency. And the cloud services continued to run for a year. Bankruptcy does not necessarily mean everything is gone. Deleting everything is actually the _worst_ outcome as it destroys value. Not having any promise means it will pretty sure be gone. Having a support promise increases the chances of future support, even in case of bankruptcy.