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

More awful IoT stuff

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 245 posts

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#141

Post by FussyZeus »

komali2 wrote: post #133
FussyZeus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose but it still seems like a copout (not on you of course, on them) to play the brand lock-in game. You don't need a centralized server to personalize and operating those servers, even on something like AWS, costs money. Why not put that on the consumer instead? Many consumers I know would prefer the roll-your-own solution and it saves the manufacturer money.

Well, we are on a something.ycombinator.com website right now... why don't you throw together a prototype, register a company, and present to ycombinator?

Well primarily because I wouldn't take VC money anyway, too much pressure to grow too fast. I'd rather have a company that lives and dies on it's own.

Second because I'm not at all a hardware guy.

Thirdly I'm not at a point where I feel entrepreneurial yet, I don't have enough experience.

Lastly I'm incredibly lazy.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#142

Post by awesomerobot »

CaptSpify wrote: post #66

I just blogged about this yesterday. In short: > The line in the sand for me is: network vs cloud-based systems. I want things to be network connected, but I want it for my own network only. I want to be able to control my coffee pot, but only from home. If I choose to expose this over the internet, great! It's up to me to make sure it's secure. I don't want anyone making that decision for me. I also want it to be up…

It's absurd that an IoT device contacts a server hundreds of miles away when I'm inside my house turning on my lights via wifi.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#143

Post by antoniuschan99 »

CaptSpify wrote: post #66

I just blogged about this yesterday. In short: > The line in the sand for me is: network vs cloud-based systems. I want things to be network connected, but I want it for my own network only. I want to be able to control my coffee pot, but only from home. If I choose to expose this over the internet, great! It's up to me to make sure it's secure. I don't want anyone making that decision for me. I also want it to be up…

What do you think of this. I'm producing it:

https://www.facebook.com/kokonautweathersensors/

It's not using my network, but it's hackable enough that you can use it on your own network if you know how to flash it yourself.

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#146

Post by stcredzero »

The short version: they introduced terrible vulnerabilities on your network, they violated the GPL and they were also just bad at being...

Overall: the hardware seems fine, the software is shoddy and the security is terrible

This article begins and ends with two great tl;dr for IoT. There is value in this. Just look at the prevailing cluelessness, and be much better than that to stand out from the pack. In fact, how about applying that formula to the next nascent big thing that comes along?

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#147

Post by gh02t »

tzs wrote: post #139
beamatronic wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a simple device like this: 1. It plugs into the wall 2. You can plug an appliance of some sort into it 3. The device has a USB interface 4. The device has a WiFi interface 5. When I plug in the device with the USB interface, it looks like a serial device 6. The device has a very simple protocol that you can use to set it up, over the serial interface 7. You can optionally have the device join a WiFi network, a…

If you are OK with building it yourself, you could do this with an ESP8266, a USB to serial cable, a solid state relay, a power brick, and some miscellaneous things like a power cord and a socket (and ideally some case to put all this in for safety). The ESP8266 is a micro controller with built in WiFi and network stack and a serial interface, and several digital I/O pins you can use to interface to other things. Var…

Don't even need to make it yourself, Itead sells the Sonoff for $4.85 + S&H. It's an ESP8266 connected to a relay, with integrated AC-DC power supply and a properly designed, physically isolated PCB.

Two caveats are that it doesn't directly have a USB plug. The serial header is exposed and you can reprogram the device with your own firmware to make it report whatever you like, but you do need a USB-Serial cable and maybe to solder on some header pins. Also, it is meant to be spliced into a power cable - it has input and output wire terminals and not an outlet-type connector.

I have a couple of these, they're quite useful. One controlling a fan and another I spliced into a light switch to control some overhead lights.

https://www.itead.cc/sonoff-wifi-wireless-switch.html

http://tech.scargill.net/itead-slampher-and-sonoff/

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#148

Post by blacksmith_tb »

CaptSpify wrote: post #94
ksk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm willing to pay a lot of money for standalone quality devices, but nobody is supplying! You could pay an amateur electronics hacker to make you such devices.

Well, I've been building my own with rpi's and whatnot. But I'd love to save time and just buy an off-the-shelf product that's been thoroughly tested, etc.

Agreed, I am following the same route. In many cases, I want my gadgets net-enabled primarily for timekeeping, since a lot of automation for me is really scheduling (and having to manually trigger things remotely is an edge case).

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#149

Post by seizethecheese »

omni wrote: post #124
deelowe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter example, my brother who never uses a computer setup his chromecast in 5 minutes with zero help from me. I know b/c he called me and asked for help. I told him he wouldn't need it, but he didn't believe me. Things are getting better. There will always be more crap out there than good stuff. That's why walmart is so popular, but things will generally improve.

I don't consider Chromecast as being part of IoT. Chromecast is mostly used as an internet media device, whereas I usually interpret IoT as slapping Internet capabilities on traditional appliances (light bulbs, fridges, whatever). Curious what other people think.

Chromecast is slapping Internet capabilities on a traditional appliance (TV).

Re: More awful IoT stuff

#150

Post by roel_v »

CaptSpify wrote: post #66

I just blogged about this yesterday. In short: > The line in the sand for me is: network vs cloud-based systems. I want things to be network connected, but I want it for my own network only. I want to be able to control my coffee pot, but only from home. If I choose to expose this over the internet, great! It's up to me to make sure it's secure. I don't want anyone making that decision for me. I also want it to be up…

I have that, based on zwave devices. Can be bought off the shelf, requires some tinkering to set up usually when you want to do something that's not trivial, but is as flexible as you want it to be. Can run on raspi, there are diy sets for it etc. Ppl bitch about zwave being 'proprietary' but it's open/documented enough to be hackable to your heart's content.
Post reply on HN