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

Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

uk.businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 325 posts

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#41

Post by jimrandomh »

This is neither the first time Google's done something like this to customers, nor the first time Tony Fadell has been directly involved. When they pulled Google Glass from the market, it was concurrent with moving the Glass team to Fadell's leadership. They didn't go quite so far as to push an update to brick devices, but they left the software in a broken state, and refused to open source their fork of Android so users could fix it themselves. Nest has also burned a lot of Google's goodwill with badly designed smoke detectors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY) and thermostats (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/fashion/nest-thermostat-gl...).

And then there's this, on a recent HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11105510

> "I still wake up with something like PTSD occasionally from getting yelled at and bullied by Tony Fadell almost literally every day while I was there."

> "Tony literally stood up at an all-hands after the Alphabet thing and said "Fuck being Googley" (direct quote)."

I think Google/Alphabet need to take a serious look at what Nest has been doing to their brand. A few thousand very-pissed-off people here and a few thousand very-pissed-off people there add up to a serious liability for a company like Google.

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#42

Post by syntheticnature »

darkclarity wrote: post #33
chollida1 wrote: post #3

Wow, 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…

I think the public will eventually notice that gadgets and appliances that rely on apps and internet access are a risky investment. Even multinational appliance manufacturers give up on the smart features in their TVs after several years. Forget the high end products with their fancy features and instead stick with reliable basic/mid range products that will last for decades rather than years.

What's "amusing" to me is it seems that all except the very lowest end TVs come with "smart" features, now. The good news is that it's not really a differentiator, the bad news is that a poor integration can cause your TV to "boot slowly" -- my current TV, purchased for other reasons but with smart features included, won't let you use the input selection button until about 30s after being turned on from standby.

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#43

Post by maxerickson »

kefka wrote: post #9
sharkweek wrote: post #5

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…

I'm not sure it is so bad for technology to force us to confront our ideas about justice head on.

From a ridiculous bullshit standpoint, arrest by autocar isn't so far off from stop and frisk.

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#44

Post by Bud »

xianshou wrote: post #27

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…

That Phil Schiller quote is, frankly, a pretty lousy attempt at establishing that that is Apple's "view" on planned obsolescence. The swipe at Apple in this context is absurd. I have 15-year-old Apple products that are still working perfectly well. I have a 9-year-old iMac on my desk that is still up 24/7.

I have zero (0) Apple products that have been unceremoniously bricked by Apple in the way Google is doing to the product in question. Zero.

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#45

Post by frandroid »

ars wrote: post #22

Very cutesy title, but a very poor title. 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…

Nice for you to say as a developer, but not every customer cares about this. I mean of course one should be able to flash new firmware. But more importantly people like Google shouldn't brick devices the customer has bought, whether they can be flashed with a new / alt firmware or not.

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#46

Post by joezydeco »

jimrandomh wrote: post #41

This is neither the first time Google's done something like this to customers, nor the first time Tony Fadell has been directly involved. When they pulled Google Glass from the market, it was concurrent with moving the Glass team to Fadell's leadership. They didn't go quite so far as to push an update to brick devices, but they left the software in a broken state, and refused to open source their fork of Android so u…

A few thousand very-pissed-off people here and a few thousand very-pissed-off people there...

s/people/early adopters/

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#48

Post by SwellJoe »

mhurron wrote: post #40
SwellJoe wrote: post #19

I 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 succe…

> 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 I basically say the same thing about every 'smart home' device. I would love to be able to query my thermostat to find out when and how long it turned the heat/AC on and whatnot, but I only want it to talk to my local wifi and devices. I don't want it to use a cloud servic…

After the Dropcam fiasco, I wondered if there would be a market for secure smart devices with an open API. To me, it's an obvious benefit and one that I would buy (whereas I won't buy the cloud-based devices of this sort), but I suspect the ease of use of something like Dropcam trumps all of the other considerations. I even considered doing a Kickstarter to build something in that space; the technical side, both hardware and software, is actually very, very, simple these days. I mean, a thermostat is a temperature sensor, a clock, and some switches; the kind of thing electronics nerds put together when first learning. The smallest Arduino could more than handle the task (for the prototype, and a dedicated device could be manufactured in quantity very cheaply). Controlling switches and sensors in software is also very simple. Making a beautiful UI (which I think is a big part of the appeal of Nest, Dropcam, and the like) is more challenging, for me, but perhaps there's a UI/UX designer out there who has similar inclinations.

I never thought I'd want to be in the home automation business, or the web cam business, but this kind of thing is just so offensive to me, that whenever I think about it, I want to do something.

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#49

Post by scrollaway »

joezydeco wrote: post #46
jimrandomh wrote: post #41

This is neither the first time Google's done something like this to customers, nor the first time Tony Fadell has been directly involved. When they pulled Google Glass from the market, it was concurrent with moving the Glass team to Fadell's leadership. They didn't go quite so far as to push an update to brick devices, but they left the software in a broken state, and refused to open source their fork of Android so u…

A few thousand very-pissed-off people here and a few thousand very-pissed-off people there... s/people/early adopters/

Early adopters are people too.

Of course, that doesn't mean they're not pissed off, so nothing in your comment invalidates the parent's.

Edit: I assumed ill intent. Corrected it.

Re: Google's Nest is disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices

#50

Post by raverbashing »

To be honest, some things are better with old-technology

Like the Bluetooth door lock fiasco, like some complaints about "you have to download an App to turn the lights on in this house", the IoT/"Smart Home" people are not accustomed to the reliability expected of such things

Having a device that requires it to be online to work I can only accept if I don't "need it" (like to get in my home or heat it when it's cold - have fun heating your house after a snowstorm knocks your internet)

Post reply on HN