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

91–100 of 325 posts

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

#91

Post by Aelinsaar »

jacquesm wrote: post #88

Companies are getting more and more creative with interpreting what 'ownership' actually means. Books you've bought evaporate, equipment stops working, cars that can't be serviced other than at authorized dealerships and so on. Ownership is a term that has been stretched way beyond the breaking point. Any device that needs an internet connection in order to function should be leased, not bought.

On the upside, the respect of consumers for the concept of "IP" is getting creative too, and with 3D printing exploding, I'm not sure that this is a war companies want to engage in.

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

#92

Post by lmartel »

tomc1985 wrote: post #82

>1 points by tomc1985 10 days ago | parent | on: OneDrive reduces free tier from 15GB to 5GB >Never trust the cloud, it will always stab you in the back... eventually Posted this before, got downvoted... ...posting this again, and will probably get downvoted again... Seriously people, suck it up and run your own shit if it matters at all

Lots of people here undoubtedly agree with you, but you're probably going to get downvoted again, because:

    Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.    
    Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or announce that you expect to get downvoted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#93

Post by petra »

SwellJoe wrote: post #48
mhurron wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hard…

Looking at the trends in computing,coffee makers,printers,routers etc, it kinda seems like a lost battle, isn't it?

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

#94

Post by 8note »

sharkweek wrote: post #5
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…

Ha - imagine a bank robbery escaping in a driverless car, only to have the manufacturer brick it during their daring escape.

it would be easier if the manufacturer has it drive you to the police station instead

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

#95

Post by eykanal »

This has been going on for, oh, a few hundred years, in many different industries. They even have a word for it: "renting". You get something for a while, and then when the term is up, you're done with it. You can extend the lease and they can agree to let you do so, but when you're done you're done.

The only issue here seems to be that the COMPANY views the transaction as a rental while the CONSUMER views the transaction as a purchase. Legally, I'd be willing to bet good money that the company is "correct", but I'll also bet that same cash that they'll always lose in the court of public opinion.

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

#96

Post by falcolas »

With all of the love for Tesla and their v3 of late, it's worth remembering that Tesla can and does brick their cars as well.

http://syonyk.blogspot.com/2016/03/is-tesla-building-throwaw...

If it has software, and automatic update capabilities, it's never yours.

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

#97

Post by x0x0 »

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…

How long, as a practical manner, is google required to run these servers? Until all the devices die? 3 years? 5 years?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. I think 4 years from sale is reasonable though. Whatever the commitment is, it should be on the packaging, and it would be nice if the various state and federal consumer protection laws were applied here.

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

#98

Post by cududa »

maxxxxx wrote: post #51
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…

I hope there will be a trend where the computing power and storage goes from the cloud back to the customer's site. The internet should only be an addon for connectivity but not be needed for the device to work. Good old PCs weren't so bad after all. You had all your data and software locally and could do whatever you wanted.

The good old days.. I remember ~2007 everyone making a big brouhaha about moving crap tons of stuff "to the cloud" and I felt so morally outraged that in this future I'd have no control over the uptime, accessibility, or core content based on my own actions - it'd be left up to someone else completely.

I think it was a couple years ago I finally stopped resisting and said "fuck it" - signed up for Spotify, shut the hodge podge of syncing/ home NAS solutions I was using and just got a Dropbox account.

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

#100

Post by bduerst »

Someone1234 wrote: post #65
ceejayoz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only for borrowers with poor credit who explicitly agree to such a thing as a condition of getting a car loan, though.

For now. But if most lenders require this you couldn't have much of an option to say no. They always test things like this with the market most easily exploited. Reminds me of prepaid gas and water meters in the UK. They started out only doing them for those who missed payments or had poor credit, but now they're everywhere. Most new homes get a prepay meter which they can wirelessly disconnect.

Considering the competition for customers with good credit, I doubt that lenders will collude to have this included for all loans.
Post reply on HN