4 ms·

Manufacturers just need to realize that LANs exist and allow their devices to be used with the Internet turned off. When I'm sitting in my home and I want to t

Manufacturers just need to realize that LANs exist and allow their devices to be used with the Internet turned off. When I'm sitting in my home and I want to turn off the AC unit in the other room or close my garage door, there's no reason I should have to do an IP roundtrip to the manufacturer's server. Both devices are on my LAN. They should just talk to each other. This has been a solved problem for decades.

bluefirebrand 21d ago
I have been toying with the idea of building some kind of "home cloud" that hooks into all of your smart devices (at least all of the open devices that it can), allows photo backups from mobile devices, idk. Stuff like that. Something you can just scan a QR code with your phone and it hooks it into your backups so your "cloud backup" is sitting in your utility room at home instead of being "someone elses computer" Obviously this is all achievable by a savvy techie, but I'm thinking along the lines of a black box any idiot can use. The idea is very appealing to me, I would love to decentralize "the cloud" for your average person. And if it were possible to get one of these in every house and apartment, then the idea of a "smart home" starts to really click in ways it doesn't right now. Your smart home would have a "home cloud" box that acts as the brain Idk. I think there's a product idea here somewhere but ultimately it's just something I'm kicking around now and then.
- deleted 21d ago
  [deleted]
lazide 21d ago
Lowest common denominator? They have to round trip due to various NAT/router/firewall/App BS. Your average ‘idiot’ can barely get a managed App to work, and that typically requires some kind of cloud endpoint to co-ordinate. Other stuff is the land of prosumer.
- cogman10 21d ago
  You only need an external server if you want to make it so the end user can access their device remotely. Otherwise, an app can very easily just scan the network for the device. Heck, the app itself could be the thing that sets up the device on the network in the first place.
  - ryandrake 21d ago
    Remote access should also be do-able without having a manufacturer-run server. We over-complicate things with NAT and with ISPs sabotaging inbound connections to our networks. At least with IPv6 every device on my network is addressable by the outside world, and I can (and should be allowed to) make the decision about whether they are accessible. The device manufacturer should not have to insert themselves into this conversation.
    - lazide 20d ago
      I guess the question is, better or worse? Remote access without the central server seems to make direct attack easier?
  - lazide 21d ago
    users sometimes end up with some combination of the above: 1) multiple wifi networks 2) ‘guest mode’ wifi networks (you can’t communicate to other devices on the same network) 3) various airplane mode type scenarios where they have cellular but not wifi connections semi-randomly, even on the same property/area. these all happen with out of the box ISP setups pretty regularly, btw. and they’ll just blame you for the flakiness. also, for most of them, they love remote access anyway and don’t want to consider the security implications.
yakk0 21d ago
I have a Vizio TV that was advertised as a Chromecast TV, and I got it because of that. It was HDMI and Chromecast only. A few years later they did a silent update that added apps and generally made the UI much slower. I mainly use it with an AppleTV or game consoles, but it still irks me that they completely changed what was in my mind a nearly perfect TV.
- BLKNSLVR 21d ago
  Can you factory reset it to the prior state and turn off updates? (I know this doesn't change what Vizio did, but it might get your perfect device back)
- djtango 21d ago
  Why was it connected to the network?
  - astura 20d ago
    Chromecast requires a network
wat10000 21d ago
They realize. They hate it and wish it would go away. LAN connectivity makes it really hard to spy on you, inject ads, require subscriptions, and brick perfectly functional devices so you have to buy new ones.
- lazide 21d ago
  No it doesn’t? They can do all these things just fine over a LAN connection (assuming it routes externally). If you can firewall your LAN - you can also firewall your WiFi.
  - rolandog 20d ago
    Except some of the TVs try to connect to unprotected hotspots, or piggyback through ISP's routers' hidden secondary SSIDs. Which even opens people's data and ambient conversations finding their way to the manufacturer or advertisers through war-driving.
    - nickthegreek 20d ago
      name one.
    - lazide 20d ago
      I think it’s currently a theoretical issue, not a proven one. Do you have any concrete examples? IMO, the moment a device starts doing that, I’m setting it on fire.
  - wat10000 20d ago
    “If you can firewall your LAN - you can also firewall your WiFi.” Huh? Your WiFi is (part of) your LAN.
    - lazide 20d ago
      That’s what I’m saying, yes.

bluefirebrand 21d ago

I have been toying with the idea of building some kind of "home cloud" that hooks into all of your smart devices (at least all of the open devices that it can), allows photo backups from mobile devices, idk. Stuff like that. Something you can just scan a QR code with your phone and it hooks it into your backups so your "cloud backup" is sitting in your utility room at home instead of being "someone elses computer" Obviously this is all achievable by a savvy techie, but I'm thinking along the lines of a black box any idiot can use. The idea is very appealing to me, I would love to decentralize "the cloud" for your average person. And if it were possible to get one of these in every house and apartment, then the idea of a "smart home" starts to really click in ways it doesn't right now. Your smart home would have a "home cloud" box that acts as the brain Idk. I think there's a product idea here somewhere but ultimately it's just something I'm kicking around now and then.

deleted 21d ago
[deleted]

lazide 21d ago

Lowest common denominator? They have to round trip due to various NAT/router/firewall/App BS. Your average ‘idiot’ can barely get a managed App to work, and that typically requires some kind of cloud endpoint to co-ordinate. Other stuff is the land of prosumer.

cogman10 21d ago
You only need an external server if you want to make it so the end user can access their device remotely. Otherwise, an app can very easily just scan the network for the device. Heck, the app itself could be the thing that sets up the device on the network in the first place.
- ryandrake 21d ago
  Remote access should also be do-able without having a manufacturer-run server. We over-complicate things with NAT and with ISPs sabotaging inbound connections to our networks. At least with IPv6 every device on my network is addressable by the outside world, and I can (and should be allowed to) make the decision about whether they are accessible. The device manufacturer should not have to insert themselves into this conversation.
  - lazide 20d ago
    I guess the question is, better or worse? Remote access without the central server seems to make direct attack easier?
- lazide 21d ago
  users sometimes end up with some combination of the above: 1) multiple wifi networks 2) ‘guest mode’ wifi networks (you can’t communicate to other devices on the same network) 3) various airplane mode type scenarios where they have cellular but not wifi connections semi-randomly, even on the same property/area. these all happen with out of the box ISP setups pretty regularly, btw. and they’ll just blame you for the flakiness. also, for most of them, they love remote access anyway and don’t want to consider the security implications.

yakk0 21d ago

I have a Vizio TV that was advertised as a Chromecast TV, and I got it because of that. It was HDMI and Chromecast only. A few years later they did a silent update that added apps and generally made the UI much slower. I mainly use it with an AppleTV or game consoles, but it still irks me that they completely changed what was in my mind a nearly perfect TV.

BLKNSLVR 21d ago
Can you factory reset it to the prior state and turn off updates? (I know this doesn't change what Vizio did, but it might get your perfect device back)
djtango 21d ago
Why was it connected to the network?
- astura 20d ago
  Chromecast requires a network

wat10000 21d ago

They realize. They hate it and wish it would go away. LAN connectivity makes it really hard to spy on you, inject ads, require subscriptions, and brick perfectly functional devices so you have to buy new ones.

lazide 21d ago
No it doesn’t? They can do all these things just fine over a LAN connection (assuming it routes externally). If you can firewall your LAN - you can also firewall your WiFi.
- rolandog 20d ago
  Except some of the TVs try to connect to unprotected hotspots, or piggyback through ISP's routers' hidden secondary SSIDs. Which even opens people's data and ambient conversations finding their way to the manufacturer or advertisers through war-driving.
  - nickthegreek 20d ago
    name one.
  - lazide 20d ago
    I think it’s currently a theoretical issue, not a proven one. Do you have any concrete examples? IMO, the moment a device starts doing that, I’m setting it on fire.
- wat10000 20d ago
  “If you can firewall your LAN - you can also firewall your WiFi.” Huh? Your WiFi is (part of) your LAN.
  - lazide 20d ago
    That’s what I’m saying, yes.