I think the problem is just fundamental in the arrangement. These constant changes are costly to keep up with for all the products out there, especially when it all has to be funded by the initial purchase. As the article mentions, a subscription solves this but makes products far, far more expensive to own (pay $30 for a product then pay that much each year? no thanks) and opens the door to jacking up the price and eliminating features. Legislation can't make this less costly. Local control (and thus standards) seem the only reasonable solution. If the device follows a standard protocol, your home hub can follow it communicate. The standard is fixed so no updating needed. If you want device types and features not standardized yet, you're going to have to deal with the inherent problems.
Oh yay, more regulation. Unless its to say that all devices are required to have a documented local-first and local-only API to control the device I don't really care. Oh, and the ability to disable any kind of cloud connection whatsoever.
Archive: https://archive.today/SsWfM
From the post: "The smart home is still broken, and surprisingly, interoperability isn’t the issue. The problem is, when it comes to connected devices, consumers are buying hardware that behaves like software. And unlike hardware, which fails in fairly predictable and established ways, software breaks in opaque and surprising ways. It’s hard to classify this disconnect. It can feel like you don’t really own your connected devices or you can’t rely on them. And if we want things to get better for consumers, we need both manufacturers and regulators to step up. "
Oh yay, more regulation. Unless its to say that all devices are required to have a documented local-first and local-only API to control the device I don't really care. Oh, and the ability to disable any kind of cloud connection whatsoever.
Archive: https://archive.today/SsWfM
From the post:
"The smart home is still broken, and surprisingly, interoperability isn’t the issue. The problem is, when it comes to connected devices, consumers are buying hardware that behaves like software. And unlike hardware, which fails in fairly predictable and established ways, software breaks in opaque and surprising ways. It’s hard to classify this disconnect. It can feel like you don’t really own your connected devices or you can’t rely on them. And if we want things to get better for consumers, we need both manufacturers and regulators to step up. "
I think the problem is just fundamental in the arrangement. These constant changes are costly to keep up with for all the products out there, especially when it all has to be funded by the initial purchase. As the article mentions, a subscription solves this but makes products far, far more expensive to own (pay $30 for a product then pay that much each year? no thanks) and opens the door to jacking up the price and eliminating features. Legislation can't make this less costly. Local control (and thus standards) seem the only reasonable solution. If the device follows a standard protocol, your home hub can follow it communicate. The standard is fixed so no updating needed. If you want device types and features not standardized yet, you're going to have to deal with the inherent problems.
(post is archived)