Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday April 07 2016, @11:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the daily-reminder dept.

An article at The Electronic Frontier Foundation goes over a recent decision by the home automation company Nest to disable some of its customers' devices in May:

The Hub debuted in 2013 and was discontinued after Nest acquired Revolv in late 2014. One selling point was that the one-time payment of $300 included a "Lifetime Subscription," including updates. In fact, the device shipped without all of its antennas being functional yet. Customers expected that the antennas would be enabled via updates.

Customers likely didn't expect that, 18 months after the last Revolv Hubs were sold, instead of getting more upgrades, the device would be intentionally, permanently, and completely disabled.

The article also highlights the legal grey area for customers who attempt to keep their own hardware functional, due to "conflicting court decisions about the scope of Section 1201" (of the DMCA).

The EFF article links to a medium.com posting which goes over the experience of a user of the hardware in question:

On May 15th, my house will stop working. My landscape lighting will stop turning on and off, my security lights will stop reacting to motion, and my home made vacation burglar deterrent will stop working. This is a conscious intentional decision by Google/Nest. [...] Google is intentionally bricking hardware that I own.

Originally spotted at Hacker News.

Previously: Google Shows us the Future of Cloud-Dependent Home Automation


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday April 07 2016, @12:01PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday April 07 2016, @12:01PM (#328429) Journal

    The correct reaction to this (if you don't already do it anyway): Avoid Google wherever you can. They have proven themselves not trustworthy.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Nerdfest on Thursday April 07 2016, @12:19PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday April 07 2016, @12:19PM (#328434)

    I normally defend Google as I think they;re one of the better behaved companies, but yeah, this is at least bordering on Evil. Not providing updates is one thing, but going out of your way to disable devices quite another. This is a move worthy of Sony.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @01:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @01:00PM (#328450)

      Not providing updates is one thing, but going out of your way to disable devices quite another.

      Wait, what? The device is dependent on a web service. Turning off a server you no longer want to support is not "going out of your way to disable devices".

      Google buying out a company and than not honoring that company's promises and/or contracts is dickish enough, there's no need to overplay it :)

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday April 07 2016, @02:16PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday April 07 2016, @02:16PM (#328482)

        If I buy something that relies on 'cloud' services, I *expect* that it is possible the services will disappear, as should anyone using these services. Having my device effectively intentionally *killed* is not something I expect.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 07 2016, @02:54PM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday April 07 2016, @02:54PM (#328496) Journal

          You aren't representative of the normal population. The normal population doesn't comprehend what "cloud" really means.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 07 2016, @02:57PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 07 2016, @02:57PM (#328497)

          If the device is absolutely dependent on that cloud service to function, that what do you expect to happen when they shut down the service?

          The answer here is to make sure you don't buy anything that absolutely depends on the cloud service, unless you accept that it's probably going to be a doorstop in 5 years or so, maybe less. And don't let yourself get surprised: when you buy the thing, try it out without connecting it to the internet first. If it doesn't work at all, send it back. I hear there's actually some smart TVs now that won't work without a network connection.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @03:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @03:13PM (#328500)

            Them to release updated firmware allowing one to use a configurable server address.

            You expect them to release documentation and/or code on how to replace said cloud service with your own server and/or 3rd party cloud service.

            You expect them to either live up to their promises or find another mutually acceptable alternative. Not just the unilateral alternative that makes them the most money while abandoning the 'loyal' first adopter customers who allowed them to become what they are today.

          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 07 2016, @03:21PM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday April 07 2016, @03:21PM (#328503) Journal

            You're preaching to the choir here -- the real problem is that for non-techies, they aren't going to find out until too late because all of this stuff is simply magic to them. Maybe devices dependent on cloud services should come with a prominent explicit warning, like on cigarettes -- something like "if the company is bought or goes out of business, this device will become totally useless and cease to function."

            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 07 2016, @04:17PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 07 2016, @04:17PM (#328524)

              A warning label for tech devices... I like that idea actually. If people want to make dumb purchasing decisions based solely on convenience, if there's a warning label informing them of the pitfalls, then at least they've made an informed choice.

              • (Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday April 07 2016, @05:15PM

                by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday April 07 2016, @05:15PM (#328560)

                "Warning: Any recent, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Think less "flying-carpet", and more "Sorcerer's Apprentice" type magic."

                • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday April 07 2016, @09:26PM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 07 2016, @09:26PM (#328687) Journal
                  Any sufficiently crude magic is indistinguishable from cloud technologies.
                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08 2016, @05:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08 2016, @05:58AM (#328852)

              Using cloud services is known to cause cancer in the state of California.

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday April 07 2016, @09:28PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday April 07 2016, @09:28PM (#328689)

            The answer here is to make sure you don't buy anything...

            The answer is to accept that you never "buy" anything anymore, you are leasing or renting. If it is tied to the vendor with DRM locks it isn't yours and never will be. They might charge you up front and say it is a lifetime agreement but it is impossible for any corporate entity to make such a promise since apparently no agreement they make is binding upon whoever acquihires their husk. So you must understand that you are assuming all risk by prepaying for service up front. Any locked hardware supplied is purely incidental, you are buying services and prepaying up front in the hope the company lasts long enough for the lump sum to win out over a monthly charge.

            What should be demanded, but we lack the numbers to make it stick, is a demand that the keys and source code be held in escrow by a third party and will be released to all customers should the original contract be breached. Pretty sure bet Google wouldn't have breached the contract if they knew there would actually be consequences for them.

        • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday April 07 2016, @04:26PM

          by Geotti (1146) on Thursday April 07 2016, @04:26PM (#328529) Journal

          It depends on exactly how this device requires the butt: if it's just to connect to the device from outside, then they really should provide a fallback via port forwarding.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 07 2016, @05:37PM

            by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 07 2016, @05:37PM (#328573) Journal

            Access from outside is not really necessary, and provides little in the way of actual utility. An inward connection from the web just so you can turn off lights from your phone is nice but not really essential for most users. It could all be programmed via email, or the device could just connect to XMPP (jabber) server of your choice.

            For the most part, I suspect these cloud connections are just there to prevent users from installing controlling software on some computer that isn't left on 24/7 and then complaining that their lawn didn't get watered. It saves them $5 in manufacturing costs for not having to bundle the equivalent of a Raspberry pi into the device to manage storage of settings and a user interface, or even bothering to develop the software for end-users to install.

            Actually, I blame Agile development for must of this trend. These guys only know how to use a hammer, so every assignment is looked at as if it was a nail. Just get-er-done and damn the maintenance.

            I don't understand why Google does not opensource all of the software (or at least the database design) and let 10 or 40 little companies step in and handle the whole thing via their own web servers or pre-packaged micro computers like the Pi.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by snick on Thursday April 07 2016, @01:10PM

    by snick (1408) on Thursday April 07 2016, @01:10PM (#328453)

    Avoid Google wherever you can. They have proven themselves not trustworthy.

    Accurate but narrow.

    If you want to avoid untrustworthy technology companies, you will have to make a _long_ list. All you will be left with is fire and (maybe) the wheel.

    We've seen this play out before with divx (no, not that [divx.com] divx, this [wikipedia.org] divx)

    The lesson isn't that there are good companies and bad companies, but that technology that has to phone home to be functional (not just for updates and to report on your activities) is inherently risky.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @06:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @06:32PM (#328601)

      the wheel--even Goodyear and Firestone were in a conspiracy, the Great American Streetcar Scandal

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @01:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @01:55PM (#328472)

    The correct reaction to this is: "IoT" stands for "Internet of Things I do not own".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08 2016, @06:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08 2016, @06:00AM (#328853)

      IoTidno, catchy name

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fnord666 on Thursday April 07 2016, @03:46PM

    by Fnord666 (652) on Thursday April 07 2016, @03:46PM (#328510) Homepage

    The correct reaction to this (if you don't already do it anyway): Avoid Google wherever you can. They have proven themselves not trustworthy.

    That's not very useful in this case. When people bought the product it wasn't sold to them by Google. It was sold to them by an independent company that included lifetime support and maintenance with the product.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 07 2016, @05:12PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday April 07 2016, @05:12PM (#328557)

      What I want to know is whether the company doing home automation relying on the cloud gave anyone any warranty for when their ISP drops the ball.
      "It's not our fault your children froze to death overnight, we didn't expect North Dakota ISPs to need 48 hours to dig through the frozen ground and snow to patch a broken cable"

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bart9h on Thursday April 07 2016, @04:03PM

    by bart9h (767) on Thursday April 07 2016, @04:03PM (#328518)

    That should be: Avoid non-Free software, and hardware you can't control.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @07:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07 2016, @07:18PM (#328634)

    Correct reaction: Only use software and products that respect your freedoms. Don't use anything that the user does not fully control.

  • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday April 07 2016, @07:18PM

    by davester666 (155) on Thursday April 07 2016, @07:18PM (#328635)

    No, the correct reaction is to not purchase a product that relies on a company to keep the device functional, if you want that that device to keep working if that company decided to no longer support the device.

    We've seen this story before with DRM.