21–30 of 325 posts
Is really annoying to see the website talking about "We are excited about the next chapter for our team." Thanks guys. http://www.boxee.tv/
Luckily the box was insecure enough that someone found a hole to allow installation of Kodi.
This is why I refuse to buy any 3rd party internet connected (I mean connects to a 3rd party, not just TCP/IP) appliance unless I can install anything I want on it.
It doesn't matter if internet connectivity is required or optional - if I'm not in charge of the software on it, and it connects to a 3rd party I refuse to buy it.
I have a feeling more and more people will refuse to buy these devices until this fad moves on.
I was burned by them buying Revolv, the most promising of all hubs due to having multiple antennas and touted as supporting multiple new protocols via software updates (which never happened post merger).
If you can't rely on ownership of something anymore we'll be in big trouble. Maybe there will be a countertrend where instead of relying on the cloud as storage/computing service computing and storage will go back to the customer.
Ah. 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.
I sincerely believe that many of these entrants into IoT do want to remain in control of the devices and the users who "rent" said hardware. I've seen laziness in code before. It's usually sloppy, unmaintained/badly maintained, and just messy.
These products are polished, just work, and smooth... and make you go through their systems. That's an intentionally designed system.
> 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.
Indeed true. I'm not advocating axing out those features. I said to add in another: which is to use open standards as well.
I also develop IoT hardware (not for sale). I use Arduino Nanos, nRF24L01+ radio chips, whatever sensors/actuators for the hardware. For the software, I use Node-Red, Mosquitto (MQTT server), and Apache NiFi. For "cloud support", I use Tor Hidden Services at every gateway machine, and communicate between .onion addresses. I effectively treat all my machines in the world as a simple ethernet hub. I'm just an individual, and was able to figure all this out.
Very pro-profit, very anti-consumer.
I'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.
Planned obsolescence is extremely prevalent (just see Apple's view on it - http://www.geek.com/apple/phil-schiller-thinks-its-sad-that-... ), and this intentional bricking is a close and sinister cousin. Before the idea of regularly replacing your hardware was so widespread, companies needed to at least pay lip service to the idea of continuing support. Now that it's become the status quo to buy a new phone every two…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha - imagine a bank robbery escaping in a driverless car, only to have the manufacturer brick it during their daring escape.
I can imagine a much scarier scenario... You use whatever app to summon a car. You give it a destination, and instead, the car makes a detour to the local police station. the address you entered is in a higher crime rate locality, and therefore the car owner approved further "screening". So the car goes to the local police station for a routine search of the car (authorized by car owner) and a dog search of you... Th…
My search-fu fails to find you a link.