In fact, it is the Luddites at one extreme and IT professionals with a very good understanding of security at the other who probably make the 2 biggest groups of people who reject IoT.
IoT is a fledgling technology area that is built to the minimum cost, which is the exact opposite of what you want for something hanging off the Internet. Non-IoT technology is generally a lot cheaper and more secure and current IoT is, generally too expensive, compare to non-IOT, but not expensive enough to allow it to be made secure over a long time period.
Just look at fridges or TVs, they have a lifespan of 10 - 20 years, yet you will be lucky if the manufacturer has thoroughly tested the device for security today, let alone them providing security updates in 5 years, let alone in 10 or 20 years.
The same goes for lightbulbs, an LED has a working life of several thousand hours, which at a few hours a day equates to years, but I bet they won’t see security updates after 18 months!
A lot of IoT just doesn’t make sense either. A washing machine I can control from an app on the move? Yes, but I still have to load it and put the powder/capsule in and close the door, so I can turn it on. If I want it finished when I get home, I just set the timer. I don’t need an app and have to replace it after 18 months, because it is no longer secure.
I buy dumb equipment and add smart controllers where it makes sense - E.g. FireTV for the intelligence, a dumb TV for the picture.
YES, excellent point. It’s like all the Silicon Valley bigwigs who won’t let their kids use smartphones or iPads and send them to Montesorri schools, haha.
I totally agree with your (and the experts’) take on IoT in general, for all the reasons you cited. The vulnerabilities are insane, and a lot of the “convenience” arguments (like your washing machine example) are just ridiculous. I prefer the dumb equipment/smart controller solution as well, or something like our home’s climate system, which gives us total control without compromising our data or security.
Since mobile anything is currently the hottest profit center for hardware/software producers, losing audio jacks, lack of long term support programs, Googles changes in raw vs. compressed content for the pixel 4 and 3a, corralling users into siloed eco-systems, is more a profit motive in this mobile revenue sector, IMO. Not necessarily tech innovation for consumers but more like revenue innovation strategies.
For mobile producers, getting rid of onboard hardware helpers provides an opportunity to sell more stuff and create more revenue, like wireless earbuds, beef up cloud offerings, and in general, what used to be done with hardware is now done with new product categories like Bluetooth stuff and many more gadgets connected wirelessly. This means the real intention of all the improvements is more about keeping customers trapped in an eco-system, a long term customer steering control for revenues.
It’s like the big hardware and software producers are desperately creating new revenue streams to insure their future. Kinda like the multi-year subscription craze for literally anything and everything we are all experiencing the last several years, anybody large & small is looking for that revenue/profit bump, and again, desperately.
also
The new legislation in California to protect contractors, like freelance writers, is actually going to kill jobs and create one more out-migration from the state. I know that the Medium Blog site internal pubs and any kind of freelancer there in the state of California are very worried about this boondoggle legislation. Yet another example of the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Please forgive me, but a pet peeve of mine is when the sound guy* is constantly “contributing” to the conversation as if he’s one of the pundits. I just don’t like it - it feels very unprofessional and jarring (like breaking the 4th wall). This isn’t anything personal about the sound guy himself, since this has been happening for years on TWiT and with multiple people in that role. If the sound guy is addressed by Leo, or if he was actually invited to sit in the chair and be a pundit, that would be totally okay IMO. But jumping in from behind the curtain and contributing his thoughts multiple random times throughout the show, that’s different…
Anyway, I’m just sharing my thoughts on this. It really bugs me (like nails on chalk), but it won’t stop me from listening to the shows.
* The ladies (Kim S is first one that comes to mind) thankfully don’t do this, LOL.
I know I am late to the party but I only recently listened to this episode. The overall tone in the conversation about the California legislation seemed to be “It’s probably a good thing for this poor exploited Uber drivers but in my business (journalism) it makes no sense.” I’d suggest that it may not make sense for Uber drivers either.I travel a fair amount and use Lyft and Uber. I always ask the driver if they drive for another service and why. Almost all of them drive for both Uber and Lyft. Given that, whose employee do they have to be to comply with the legislation? Also, most of them have other jobs.
This law seems to be a product of the classic government syllogism: “Something must be done to fix this problem. This is something. Therefore this must be done.”