This is a big problem for HVAC control devices that ought to last decades. Even Honeywell only offers a 2-year warranty on their Lyric network-enabled thermostat.[1]
[1] https://customer.honeywell.com/resources/techlit/TechLitDocu...
Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
11–20 of 325 posts
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#12Ah. Now we see the end of the beginning of the age of IoT. I have consistently complained that these companies are completely deficient in requiring some cloud service (read: other peoples' servers). And guess why I had those issues? Because they offload all processing to these machines to retain control of them. I am not against companies trying to make a buck. Instead of tying your service that will explode, suppor…
The Internet of Bricked Things.
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#13Ah. Now we see the end of the beginning of the age of IoT. I have consistently complained that these companies are completely deficient in requiring some cloud service (read: other peoples' servers). And guess why I had those issues? Because they offload all processing to these machines to retain control of them. I am not against companies trying to make a buck. Instead of tying your service that will explode, suppor…
> Because they offload all processing to these machines to retain control of them.
That makes it sound like their primary concern is keeping control of the devices. In reality I think it's just laziness. We all know how much easier it is to support code running on a server than to support code running on hardware sitting on somebody's dusty garage shelf with no internet connection.
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#14Wow, this is certainly something to think about in the age of the IoT's. I guess the question should be asked as to where the line is between when a user should and shouldn't expect a device to work. Especially in the coming age of drivers less cars. I can easily see a case where each driver-less car will need to talk to a mother-ship if for no other reason than syncing with other cars around it, getting new GPS maps…
You don't have to imagine, cars are already being remotely disabled on purpose due to late loan repayment[0].
[0] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/miss-a-payment-good-l...
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#15Wow, this is certainly something to think about in the age of the IoT's. I guess the question should be asked as to where the line is between when a user should and shouldn't expect a device to work. Especially in the coming age of drivers less cars. I can easily see a case where each driver-less car will need to talk to a mother-ship if for no other reason than syncing with other cars around it, getting new GPS maps…
[deleted]
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#16And this boys and girls is why the IoT is only useful if you control the device.
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#17[deleted]
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#18I'm not against IoT devices but when it requires an external service to work at all I put my foot down. I looked at devices like Nest but decided against it. My Synology NAS has some cloud like services but it does not require any external services to work. Just the way IoT should be.
Once of the reasons why I thought it's stupid that Google's OnHub router (everyone still remember that one?) require an app that would only work over the Internet to set it up - when it could've easily been done over its own Wi-Fi connection.
I do not want (most) IoT devices to be controlled directly over the Internet. For some it may make sense to do it like that, like say for surveillance cameras, but stuff like routers or coffee makers should be controlled locally.
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#19I bought a Dropcam when they were a new thing. When I realized they did literally everything via a cloud service and would be a brick without that service, I was furious. The incredible arrogance of a company making a webcam that sends your video to their servers, and provides no means to use the camera in a secure/local fashion, was astonishing to me.
I still can't believe something like Dropcam is such a huge success. The level of security awareness the general public has is terrifyingly small, and companies are taking advantage of it to produce brickable devices. It is the legal variant of ransomware...They can hold your data hostage for any reason and at any time. You're completely at their mercy, with regard to pricing and availability, and you have to trust they won't fall on hard times, or get tired of running the service.
This is the next front in the battle for electronic freedom, and lots of folks (even nerds) don't seem to realize it.
Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
#20FWIW, I bought a Revolv hub looong ago before google bought them. They stopped updating the app and the hub when they were acquired by Nest, which is when it stopped being super useful. It has been mostly useless since then, and now the service no longer works. This sounds worse than it is as they more or less did this when they were acquired, since it was a very new product that hasn't had any updates since.