Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 325 posts

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#291

Post by wildmusings »

My favorite example of this is the evolution of volume controls in cars. These days you have all sorts of fancy and inferior alternatives that leave you wishing for a plain old-school volume knob. The worst are the purely virtual volume settings with up and down buttons on a touch screen. Or only a bit better, physical knobs that spin endlessly and just send up and down operations to a digital volume level. Reasons why the old school knob is better:

* It maintains its position across power cycles. It can even be adjusted when the car is off. So you can lower the volume knob before you turn the car on and blast loud rock into your grandmother's ears.

* It does not require you to look at a touch screen to find the volume buttons. Tactile feedback is enough. You can operate it while maintaining the other 99% of your attention on the road.

* It physically stops at the lowest and highest possible volumes. Again, no need to look at some display.

Even better would be a physical slider instead of a knob. That would let you feel out the exact position of the volume without looking. The downside would be the limited space on a car stereo dashboard. But please, a touch screen is the worst and most dangerous interface while driving.

The same goes for radio presets. In a car with physical buttons for the presets, I can switch between my favorite stations without having to look. Try doing that with a touchscreen. How is this progress?

Maybe it's just a symptom of an industry that's often more about selling status symbols than selling functional products.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#292

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

dcexqm wrote: post #13
binarymax wrote: post #3

I feel like I'm missing out on a huge bulk of money simply because when I have ideas of "Internet of Things", I cant get over the security obstacles and cancel the ideas. If only I just didn't care (or didnt know) and just implemented whatever the heck brought in money from oblivious customers.

Under pressure in an interview, yesterday, I found myself saying "'The Internet of Things' is short for 'The Internet of Things you don't need, sending surveillance data you don't want, to people you don't know.'"

Haha.

At the interview for my current job I was asked how I'd secure a remote service. My first response was along the lines of "Ask someone who actually knows about security, because I know just enough that I'd probably mess it up".

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#293

Post by devishard »

This is a great example of more technology making things worse. I don't mean badly done technology, I mean that even if this were working and secure, a light switch would be cheaper, more durable, easier to repair, and easier to use.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#294

Post by [deleted] »

robotmlg wrote: post #205
Klathmon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, i'm not sure. It's clearly more work to do it that way, as you'd need multiple "layers" of firmware/code which all need to communicate and run on their own, but i personally see that as insurance against the exact situation you are describing. Nest is far from what i'd consider a good IOT company. They are the epitome of vendor lock in, proprietary and buggy code, and shitty support.

What would you consider a good IOT company?

[deleted]

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#295

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

robotmlg wrote: post #205
Klathmon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, i'm not sure. It's clearly more work to do it that way, as you'd need multiple "layers" of firmware/code which all need to communicate and run on their own, but i personally see that as insurance against the exact situation you are describing. Nest is far from what i'd consider a good IOT company. They are the epitome of vendor lock in, proprietary and buggy code, and shitty support.

What would you consider a good IOT company?

I'd consider Philips one (specifically whatever part of the company does Hue products; even with their recent base-station changes to only work with their bulbs). I don't think their base station has EVER crashed on me, not once. They made sound architectural decisions for the product as a whole - it's not some bloated Linux thing but it runs FreeRTOS and does only what it needs to. I have one of their push-button kinetic power light switches in my setup and I've forgotten that it isn't an old-school lighting setup most of the time. That's because of another good architectural decision - they had the sense to decide that simple RF code-sending to the base station was good enough for the switch, rather than trying to make the switch into some kind of Wi-Fi connected thing running a TCP/IP and web stack (did I mention the switch needs no battery or external power of any sort?). The system stays out of my way and just works when I want it to, while still allowing me to dig in and add-on cool automation where it's appropriate.

The thing I don't get with 'control everything with your smartphone!' is that people don't think about everyday use. It's like the people that design these products don't look at the actual, repeated use cases. Why would I want to pull my phone out of my pocket, unlock it, find the app I need, launch the app, wait for it to connect, hit the buttons I want....

(Even when I'm on Android and I can have an IoT control widget on my homescreen, that's still pulling the phone out, switching it on, unlocking it with my fingerprint, finding the page, hitting the button.... oops I forgot to turn Wi-Fi back on, better do that....)

I think IoT is great, but to do a great job at it you need to design the product with that in mind to begin with. The whole architecture of the product has to fit (see again, Hue). Sure, picking an Android tablet is easy, but why would you architect all that complexity? Why not a touchscreen device with a really simple real-time OS that does only what it needs to do?

I'm confident that this will all be self-correcting in the end. Consumers and 'the market' are smarter than we give them credit for. Certainly it takes a long time for them to react, but I think that when enough of the public is jaded by 'bad IoT' and the fad phase has passed, the actually good IoT products will survive and those companies that really think about their designs as a whole will be rewarded.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#296

Post by drdaeman »

watty wrote: post #122
matthewmacleod wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, anybody should be able to do that with no legal consequences. If you don't want to give people access to your network, don't provide them with a fucking port and cable explicitly designed for doing so.

Come on now, you really think people should be able to unplug cables anywhere they go? This could have major consequences at a hospital. Edit: Completely agree Ska, no excuse for making it this easy. I'm just pointing out that just because it's easy to pick a lock or unplug some wires to MiTM doesn't mean it should be legal.

Yes, if it's accessible, and nothing implies that you shouldn't - why not?

If a cable is not meant to be unplugged - there should either be a warning sign/message, a protection measure (even a nominal one, serving as a mere warning), or you shouldn't normally get access to it in a first place.

Obviously, there is common sense, too - you don't plug some working medical equipment, even though there may be no warnings - it's implied that it's commonly understood that disconnection would interfere with device's operation and endanger the patient. Or you don't suddenly turn off someone's PC at office just because the power outlet isn't covered by the table.

The door example is also misleading and plain wrong analogy. We're not talking about trespassing on others' property. When you rent a room, it's a common sense that you shouldn't steal the TV from it, but nothing tells you if some random Ethernet cable is some private network or just a WiFi replacement. It's the same as any other electrical socket (well, except it's a plug, not socket) - nothing implies that you can't use it, as long as you don't cause any damage to the property. If a rented room has a floor fan plugged in, I doubt you shouldn't be allowed to plug it out or even satisfy your curiosity and measure how much power it consumes. As long as you don't damage anything, of course.

There are too many people out there who want to plug in some odd lawmaking solutions (always, restrictions) that don't actually solve anything.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#297

Post by ared38 »

Jean-Philipe wrote: post #230
ChuckMcM wrote: post #206

So sad. I find the mechanics here really challenging to overcome. The hotel management no doubt wants "really cool tech" for their hotel to show they are up to date etc. And they send out an RFQ which someone bids on, really cheaply. Knowing that by only doing the things the hotel asks for, they can throw something together quickly and cheaply for a big payday. This is exactly the mechanism that gets people in troubl…

I agree with you on all your points, except: > This is exactly the mechanism that gets people in trouble going to China for manufacturing. I keep hearing about the "cheap Chinese tech", even though nowadays a lot of high-quality gadgets are really Chinese. Even Apple's products are mostly from China. And it's not even for the cheap prices, it's because the entire production chain is there[1] The mistake is not going…

I think you misread cheap. The "mistake" is assuming the low cost bids will deliver the same high quality you see in other Chinese exports,so not doing proper research / QA.

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#298

Post by syrrim »

elorant wrote: post #51
nly wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you keep a straight face while you suggested that people actually upgrade firmware?

Keep in-mind that we're talking about always connected devices. Firmware updates could be done remotely without the end user needed to do anything, except perhaps give his approval.

So we're now talking about insecure devices that can recieve firmware updates remotely?

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#299

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

geon wrote: post #260
Jean-Philipe wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on all your points, except: > This is exactly the mechanism that gets people in trouble going to China for manufacturing. I keep hearing about the "cheap Chinese tech", even though nowadays a lot of high-quality gadgets are really Chinese. Even Apple's products are mostly from China. And it's not even for the cheap prices, it's because the entire production chain is there[1] The mistake is not going…

The practice of unethical corner cutting seems somewhat rampant in China, though. And isn't there a reason why cheap tools that easily break are said to be made of "chineesium"?

I can remember a time when "Made in Japan" was still used to mean "shoddy and cheap".

Re: I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was as bad as you'd think

#300

Post by peteretep »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #206

So sad. I find the mechanics here really challenging to overcome. The hotel management no doubt wants "really cool tech" for their hotel to show they are up to date etc. And they send out an RFQ which someone bids on, really cheaply. Knowing that by only doing the things the hotel asks for, they can throw something together quickly and cheaply for a big payday. This is exactly the mechanism that gets people in troubl…

We still use locks on doors, even though they provide security theatre only. Not everything needs to be that secure. Criminal nuisance laws are probably enough to deter anyone actually turning on all lights at 3am.
Post reply on HN