You're viewing a single thread.
If it needs someone’s cloud servers to function, you don’t really own it.
We need consumer protections here, though.
Like 10 year money back guarantee or something. If the device becomes unusable due to actions outside of the device owners control, those in control should be obligated to reimburse.
Not doing so opens the doors to racketeering.
Not doing so opens the doors to racketeering.
That's the idea.
I mean I haven't seen it yet but for a simple example, imagine a Netflix competitor that says you just buy the device for $5,000. One time purchase. Free ad-free tv forever.
Let's say they get enough
subscriberspurchasers to profit by year 3.Okay. Rug pull. Chapter 11. Sorry bye, thanks for all the fish.
or just install a rootkit on users’ computers …
Wow I forgot about switchfoot
Holy shit that just gets worse as you read it. These companies have always acted with impunity, and always will.
I don't think we need to set a global minimum date, but the manufacturer should have to put a date on the box. If they don't support the device up to that date (including security updates and maintaining any required cloud services) then the consumer gets a full refund with possibly additional damages.
I think of it like the digital version of a nutrition facts table.
Good idea. If we do this and also add some sort of positive label on devices that work locally and are interoperable it might start a positive feedback loop: More people become aware of the issue or simply want the device with the better label when choosing in a store, leading to more manufacturers producing more devices that aren't cloud-dependent.
Right now I often see the opposite happening: Manufacturers who don't even put on their packaging that their system is really just Zigbee under the hood for example.
Yeah. For sure. If your device doesn't depend on a cloud service you can put that on your label and it is basically a gold star.
Although even local devices should get security updates. The radios and the firmware speaking the ZigBee protocol can have vulnerabilities.
I vote for forced open sourcing of the server side components and communication protocols. That way people can create custom firmware or build support into generic NVRs
Most customers would not be able to take advantage of this because they lack the skills to do so.
You don't need every consumer to roll their own. If they're obligated to provide server code, or an API, or whatever, stuff that sells at scale can be integrated into community projects. If you buy something obscure you might have issues, but you have options if you buy something mainstream and get the rug pulled.
Right, but what I'm saying is how many people do you think will be able to track down the new open-source project and connect it to their hardware?
You don't think it will be mentioned in any of the articles about the hardware being abandoned?
But community projects would very likely also allow third parties to provide services that handled the legwork for customers if they preferred as well.
Because if the community solutions are good enough then half the articles about the shutdown will mention it
Word does spread and if there are enough of a group, people will likely setup 3rd party hosting solutions around supporting abandoned abut functional products.
But the secondary effect is likely to be that companies support their products for much longer.
If companies do that then it's useful. Otherwise, open servers is a good thing, but is only a true solution for smart home hobbyists.
Ten years really isn't that long.
This is a good place to plug* Home Assistant .
That combined with Thread/Matter ensures I own my own stuff, and they don't need to report to the cloud.
It's still a little rough around the edges, but I'd rather deal with the frustrations of bleeding edge open source than to just have tech I've built into my house expire at some company's whim.
Check out some screenshots of home assistant dashboards.
* This is not an for profit advertisement. It's all open standards, and you don't have to give anyone a dime that you don't want to. The whole point of this is to avoid vendor lock in and data collection. And to have your stuff keep working without internet.
Yeah.
This is why I bought myself some blink cameras. Obviously, privacy is shit (and I've factored this) and you're affectively forced to pay for use their cloud service, but at least the (initial) purchase price is cheap.
But I've 'bought' cameras for far more, only for them to hobble functionality a few years down the line. And they've had vulnerabilities or whatever.
For the sensitive stuff, I have a camera with an SD card, but obviously phone notifications is a big selling point of systems like this.
Amcrest. Cloud service is optional, you can self host with their equipment, or use industry standard Onvif to integrate with any 3rd party (self hosting) hardware and software.
Yea... My current home automation is all local, but cameras are still an issue.
I've got 3 cameras running on a vlan, with no access to the internet.
Frigate / Home Assistant + tail scale (want to move away from this service) let me see my cameras remotely, receive notifications from events and even look at events / stills on my watch.
I have some cheap 5mp Reolink camseras, not the best for frigate but get the job done.