A recent news item on Revolv home hubs made me want to revisit my
feelings on the Internet of Things.
Not that they've changed particularly; rather, this reinforces
the point I was making, from a different angle.
Google's parent company is deliberately disabling some of its customers' old smart-home devices
This article, and other coverage, says "oh no, how terrible, these
devices are going to stop working because of Alphabet's decision".
Which is true enough. But what's the alternative? Should Alphabet be
forced to keep running the Revolv servers forever, for a gradually
declining number of users who in any case aren't contributing to
profits any more (they already paid a "lifetime service subscription",
carefully not defined by contract, when they bought the things)? I
certainly wouldn't be willing to take on that commitment if I were
launching a product.
Part of the problem is the corporate purchase system which lets
Alphabet take the assets but ignore most of the liabilities, but if
Revolv had been allowed to go honestly bankrupt the problem for its
users would have been exactly the same.
If the devices had an open architecture, they could be made to talk to
other servers, including ones run by individual users or enthusiastic
third parties.
Come on, people. This is no different from a hot drink machine that
only runs off one maker's capsules, or a 3D printer that needs its own
brand of sealed filament cartridges "for better quality" (yes, these
really do exist and some people are actually buying them). Except you
can't stockpile the inputs; they can go away overnight. You wouldn't
buy a car that only ran on Shell petrol… would you?
Join us now, and share the software
(warning: DO NOT CLICK ON LINK).
Comments on this post are now closed. If you have particular grounds for adding a late comment, comment on a more recent post quoting the URL of this one.