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

191–200 of 325 posts

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

#191

Post by tomp »

Someone1234 wrote: post #14
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…

You don't have to imagine, cars are already being remotely disabled on purpose due to late loan repayment[0]. [0] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/miss-a-payment-good-l...

What's wrong with that? You don't really own the car if you haven't paid off the debt. As long as it's not disabled while it's being driven (that would endanger others), I don't see an issue with that.

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

#192

Post by scrollaway »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #119

It is a sad evolution of things. What happens to your Model S if Tesla goes out of business? The whole "remote compute / hosted" thing is a challenge. I hit it recently when I was looking to demonstrate an old game that used to run on Win98 and realized the version on the CD was unplayable and the servers where it originally downloaded the 2 gigabyte "patch" was no longer online. I found an older image of my C drive…

This is something that hits gaming especially hard, yeah. It sucks. What especially sucks is most people don't understand the downsides. Most people don't understand that their kids won't be able to play or even look at those games.

Most game devs don't even realize it. I had an interesting chat with one of the WoW devs a few months back and I asked him what his thoughts were on the ephemerality of what's created. Not only how nobody will experience the content but how all the lessons learned from creating the content, all the man-years spent in creating the art, the design etc are also lost. Well, he didn't really have an answer, I think the question just made him feel bad. Understandable.

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

#193

Post by ilyanep »

deelowe wrote: post #184
imaginenore wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody gives a crap about these semantic games. Nest is owned by Google. https://nest.com/about/

I'm trying to explain (perhaps poorly?) that the change is not simply semantic. No one who is part of Google proper has any say in what nest, glass or those other companies do at this point. None of the culture, support etc... transfers over. The CEOs of these new alphabet companies are free to do as they please. What you're seeing here is this in action. Saying Google are somehow accountable for nest or glass is lik…

They all ultimately answer to Larry Page, presumably.

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

#194

Post by baseten »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #84
mrexroad wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

counter point: i pre-ordered dropcam for the reason that it was limited to cloud-use only. I wanted something dead simple to use so my wife / house sitter / etc could easily move it as needed, we had access anywhere without configuration, and devops/it being handled by someone else incase i'm not around. Classifying their cloud-only product design decision as "incredible arrogance" quite a stretch... if anything, sou…

Ubiquiti just came out with cameras and a DVR device (atom-based) to store the content with you: https://www.ubnt.com/unifi-video/unifi-nvr/

I've been looking at the ubiquiti nvr for a bit as i like their wireless stuff but i'm not sure what cameras i'd want. The reviews of the newer micro cameras are crap and the new-new g3 ones they just announced aren't delivering til fall.

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

#195

Post by jasonlaramburu »

the_ancient wrote: post #168
jasonlaramburu wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's an ideal outcome for a company to sunset a product, but why is the consumer expectation so different for pure software vs a connected hardware device (i.e. software + hardware)? Consumers experience sunk cost when any product gets sunset, whether it's hardware or not.

Mostly it is because "Connected to the point of bricking" is very new. Most "connected" devices simply have lesser or limited functionality when services they are connected to disappear. It also comes down to Ownership. When I buy a device I expect it work until it gives up its electronic ghost. When I subscribe to a service I expect it to work for the month I paid for. Ofcourse I would have never bought that hub in…

Interesting. The reality is that every connected device has an ongoing cost to the company that sells it. Most consumers probably aren't aware of this. Depending on the architecture, # of users etc this could be some fraction of a cent/month in AWS costs or much more. Should Connected Hardware companies/startups disclose this upfront when making the sale? i.e. say "Your $199 purchase includes a free license to our software for x years."

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

#196

Post by jasonlaramburu »

voltagex_ wrote: post #186
anexprogrammer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how you sunset it. Depends on the reasonable life of the product. In Europe at least Consumer Legislation has an expectation of a reasonable life. It's not reasonable for instance for lots of your fridges to die after only a couple of years. Car makers have to provide spare parts for, I think, six years after the end of production of a model. I think a lot more could be done to sunset products gracefully, and…

Damnit. If you're going to remove my ability to use it after 18 months, then just sell it to me on an 18 month contract for $20/month and let me decide whether to sign. It's already clear I don't own the hardware, so why not make it official?

It would be tough for a hardware startup to do that, since they must buy the hardware upfront before they ship it to the user (and returns always cost $). What if the manufacturer stated clearly that your upfront purchase includes a free license to the SW for x months?

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

#197

Post by voltagex_ »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #196
voltagex_ wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damnit. If you're going to remove my ability to use it after 18 months, then just sell it to me on an 18 month contract for $20/month and let me decide whether to sign. It's already clear I don't own the hardware, so why not make it official?

It would be tough for a hardware startup to do that, since they must buy the hardware upfront before they ship it to the user (and returns always cost $). What if the manufacturer stated clearly that your upfront purchase includes a free license to the SW for x months?

They're not a startup any more. I agree, they were in a tough situation. It's difficult for Nest, it's more difficult for consumers.

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

#198

Post by jasonlaramburu »

click170 wrote: post #177
jasonlaramburu wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's an ideal outcome for a company to sunset a product, but why is the consumer expectation so different for pure software vs a connected hardware device (i.e. software + hardware)? Consumers experience sunk cost when any product gets sunset, whether it's hardware or not.

What bugs me is how many companies these days want to include reliance on the cloud for features that don't require it at all, in the interest of gaining access to more customer usage data, but then when they turn the servers off the product becomes useless. This has become a key thing that I look for when buying new products. If the product relies on the cloud for a feature that I think should be entirely offline, t…

How do you determine if a given feature 'should' be entirely offline?

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

#199

Post by jkelsey »

deelowe wrote: post #184
imaginenore wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody gives a crap about these semantic games. Nest is owned by Google. https://nest.com/about/

I'm trying to explain (perhaps poorly?) that the change is not simply semantic. No one who is part of Google proper has any say in what nest, glass or those other companies do at this point. None of the culture, support etc... transfers over. The CEOs of these new alphabet companies are free to do as they please. What you're seeing here is this in action. Saying Google are somehow accountable for nest or glass is lik…

Consumers don't care how about Google/Alphabet organizes itself. Google owns Nest; that fact can't be avoided. When you own a company that intentionally bricks their customers' $300 devices for no other reason that they don't want to support them anymore, you're going to have to deal with the negative perception that it creates.

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

#200

Post by rwl4 »

maxaf wrote: post #72

As a longtime Dropcam owner, I find this very unsettling. Truth be told, Dropcam service has steadily decreased in quality ever since the Nest acquisition. Not a month passes without an unexplained multi-hour outage; our mobile apps are randomly logged out every few days, requiring us to enter lengthy passwords while nervously wondering what that motion alert might be about. One day the whole Nest rigmarole will beco…

Remember the good old days when the Dropcam had a practically-magical Bluetooth 4.0 config process and when the Dropcam Pro was sold as a 1080p device? Then Nest acquired them, released the Nest camera which was basically just the same device as the Dropcam Pro repackaged but with 1080p enabled. Oh, and they made configuring the Dropcams a total pain requiring plugging it into a USB port and executing some random executable. Fun.
Post reply on HN