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

Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

nest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 600 posts

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#401

Post by sitharus »

tiredyam wrote: post #365
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry, I thought I was clear in suggesting it as a law - although realistically in a lot of EU countries you could make the case and get it returned. For example I'm in Denmark and we have a consumer ombudsmand were you can make complaints about violations of your rights as a consumer https://www.consumerombudsman.dk/about-us/ (it talks about marketing but I the Nest was marketed to have functionality it no longer ha…

This law would end up hurting the upstarts. Alternatives should be made and the consumer should be picking winners with their dollar.

The problem is you’ve voted with your dollar already. You’ve looked at the market and selected the one that meets your needs. Then the maker changes what you’ve purchased.

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#402

Post by jcrites »

Svip wrote: post #278
modzu wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

see that's what i mean; "encrypted search" is on the list, which is referencing this: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/7631341?hl=en and does not have anything more to do with "anonymous" searching

OK, but then that's different. Because you were complaining that they were not differentiating between actual killed services and things that naturally reached their end of life, but in this case, the site is actually wrong . It clearly says that it provided provided users with anonymous search, which gives the impression of something like DuckDuckGo or Startpage. But that's not what's happening, and I think that's w…

For the curious, here is the about page for encrpted.google.com from 2010:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100524223335/http://www.google...

> Note that SSL search does not reduce the data that Google receives and logs when you search, or change the listing of these terms in your Web History

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#403

Post by blotter_paper »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #392
blotter_paper wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, given that you already know that they won't reliably keep those services available indefinitely, you could consider this incentive as a consumer.

Do we want to let the low morals of companies hamper technological development? Perhaps there's a legislative solution. Although in the UK the Consumer Rights Act has no time-limit, so in theory of your thermostat stops working because the company decided to pull the plug then you can get refunded, at least.

It's hard for me to buy into the idea that allowing a company to launch a product with a given feature hampers technological development. Requiring that a company runs an API forever if a product depends on it (and commit to refunds if that doesn't work out) seems like it would raise the barrier of entry to release such products, thus resulting in fewer products in this space (especially from smaller companies). That sounds like it would hamper technological development to me.

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#404

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Krasnol wrote: post #378
tiredyam wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law would end up hurting the upstarts. Alternatives should be made and the consumer should be picking winners with their dollar.

Or, they could build it in a way where it can be modified (for self hosting for example) in the first place.

that's what I meant with simple to change, basically.

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#405

Post by marapuru »

I wonder how big the "Works-with-Nest" ecosystem actually is. With that I don't mean the _potential_ size, but the actual size in terms of usage.

Does anyone have a bit of insight in that? Maybe that could give more insight in the reasoning of Google to shut it down.

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#406

Post by pjc50 »

bpfrh wrote: post #393
tpxl wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC there is a law where you can return items for a full refund or exchange if the product was "not fit for purpose", which includes shenanigans like these.

There is a law you can return anything brought online without giving any reason for 14 days, I don't think there is a law which applies here?

UK has had the basic "fit for purpose" since the 1979 Sale of Goods Act.

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#407

Post by csixty4 »

Beldin wrote: post #288
panarky wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would love to see a comparison of products "killed by Google" to products "killed by Microsoft" or even "killed by General Electric". I'd bet a week's paycheck that Google's list would be the shorter one.

Are you including all products that work, but no longer receive updates? Because yes, MS-DOS 1-6 ate no longer supported, windows 1.0-3.11, qbasic,... All those would still work btw. You just wouldn't get updates / newer versions of them. But if you're talking about services that rely on online servers it seems different. And these are services that no longer work once the plug is pulled. For MS the list I can pull f…

The health services Microsoft Band used were shut down. I'm not sure about the rest of the functionality.

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#408

Post by kristianc »

gergles wrote: post #22

> I’m a Works with Nest developer. Will I be able to access and control Nest devices moving forward? > No. The Actions on Google Smart Home platform does not provide open API access to Nest devices, so it cannot be used to access and control Nest devices. Instead, managing and controlling Google Home, Nest, and thousands of third-party smart home devices is done through the Google Home app and the Google Assistant. W…

> Wow, just wow. The entire non-Google Nest ecosystem evaporates overnight.

Has it really, or does it simply mean that access is going to be through Google’s API going forward?

It doesn’t seem super clear, but I can see why Google wouldn’t want to maintain two separate APIs.

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#409

Post by Angostura »

masklinn wrote: post #312
URSpider94 wrote: post #214

For those who see this as Google turning off an unused service: no, just no. This is Google cutting off a massive interop ecosystem to try to parlay the success of Nest into higher adoption of Google Home. That’s vastly different than shutting down G+, Wave, Orkut, Reader, etc. It would be as if they announced tomorrow that the only way to read GMail is in Chrome browser or on an Android phone.

> For those who see this as Google turning off an unused service: no, just no. This is Google cutting off a massive interop ecosystem to try to parlay the success of Nest into higher adoption of Google Home. That’s vastly different than shutting down G+, Wave, Orkut, Reader, etc. It's exactly the same as previous shutdowns, it's just that you didn't personally care about previous shutdowns and couldn't be arsed to em…

Since you claim its exactly the same as previous shutdowns listed; when Google shut down Wave, which paid for Google product were they aiming to increase adoption of?

Re: Google Is Turning Off the Works-with-Nest API

#410

Post by barrkel »

URSpider94 wrote: post #214

For those who see this as Google turning off an unused service: no, just no. This is Google cutting off a massive interop ecosystem to try to parlay the success of Nest into higher adoption of Google Home. That’s vastly different than shutting down G+, Wave, Orkut, Reader, etc. It would be as if they announced tomorrow that the only way to read GMail is in Chrome browser or on an Android phone.

It's a typical Asshole Executive move: leverage successful feature to increase adoption of random other product, and then convert adoption increase into bonus and career opportunities, and hope that the loss in goodwill isn't noticed.

It was the same when G+ was created. Asshole Executives started jamming + buttons everywhere, including search results (!). They killed + in search queries as meaning "required". Every semi-successful feature had to get G+ integration to maximize the adoption of G+.

Post reply on HN