11–20 of 655 posts
If you buy a device that relies on a server connection for functioning, you might legally own it, but it essentially is 'on loan' by the company. Well, you could always strip it for copper, I guess...
If you buy a device that relies on a server connection for functioning, you might legally own it, but it essentially is 'on loan' by the company. Well, you could always strip it for copper, I guess...
Devices that rely on cloud infrastructure should be required to carry an expiration date right on the box. "This item guaranteed to receive support until XX/XX/XX"
The API breakage coincides pretty well with their brand new CTO, whose objective is apparently "transformation to a smart access software company".
It's unclear if the CTO just doesn't understand that "DDoS" generally implies malice, or if they're intentionally using that language to blame users for using their product.
Good news: ratgdo, an ESP-based local solution works great. I hope the author is making a decent profit on the kits.
can we just make non-sens like that illegal no one has time for it you bought the device you should own it it's not even anything fancy where you could argue that continuous software updated need to be done or similar also pass a law that all smart home devices had to go through a hub, no direct internet connection allowed, uh put it under "reducing DDOS potential due to long term issues with internet connected smart…
I fully agree, this is the reason I mostly buy Zigbee devices for my smart home. The problem with this rule is that there is already a device on the market that complies with it on paper, but not how you intended: Amazon Echo devices act as Zigbee gateways. While I never tried it, I bet it will not turn on your lights without calling the mothership.
If this rule were to become reality, vendors would just sell your their "mandatory" hubs that handle the calling home part. Smaller vendors would no longer be able to offer their ESP based devices, even though I can easily decloud them via ESPHome etc, if even necessary.
From a purely idealistic PoV, I guess the only way we achieve ownership as you described is if we require by law, with proper enforcement, that reasonable technical people are able to connect to the device on a local interface. But this has so many weasel words already, it would be ineffective and/or lead to regulatory capture ("implement this 600 page, 200$ ISO standard based on XML, don't mind the proprietary extensions ensuring no interop!").
For me, the way to have some degree of ownership of my smart home is doing research before buying to ensure the device either runs on Zigbee, has a local network interface and does not rely on the cloud even for initial configuration or can be flashed with Tasmota or ESPHome with minimal fuzz. I don't see this changing any time soon. It is sad that you need to have the knowledge and time to be able to "own" your smart home, but I at least can help my "tech support circle" where possible to make informed decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devices that rely on cloud infrastructure should be required to carry an expiration date right on the box. "This item guaranteed to receive support until XX/XX/XX"
I prefer to have an e-waste law that says that if you stop maintaining the service, you have to open-source it :)
If you buy a device that relies on a server connection for functioning, you might legally own it, but it essentially is 'on loan' by the company. Well, you could always strip it for copper, I guess...
Devices that rely on cloud infrastructure should be required to carry an expiration date right on the box. "This item guaranteed to receive support until XX/XX/XX"
That internet connection for cloud services for smart gear always costs someone.
Smart home devices that can’t be locally hosted or easily made to be locally hosted should be avoided.
There’s no reason a light switch that normally works for 10-20 years will only work for 2-5 due to cloud connectivity.
Luckily for the time being a lot of the providers can be reflashed with Tuyo based firmwares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devices that rely on cloud infrastructure should be required to carry an expiration date right on the box. "This item guaranteed to receive support until XX/XX/XX"
I prefer to have an e-waste law that says that if you stop maintaining the service, you have to open-source it :)