
Google is a bald-faced IoT liar and its Nest pants are on fire - tdrnd
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-is-a-bald-faced-iot-liar-and-its-nest-pants-are-on-fire/
======
Causality1
This should surprise absolutely no one. After the way Google utterly fucked
its Revolv customers who'd sunk hundreds if not thousands of dollars into
suddenly-useless hardware, you can rest assured Google will happily shut down
any product or feature the very instant it stops making money. They have no
legal obligation to not behave reprehensibly so that's just what they'll do.

------
cameronbrown
All IoT hardware should have completely open APIs and have the cloud involved
_only_ as a value-add. If you really must collect analytics data on my fans,
fine.. ugh.. I guess. But don't leave me hanging if you decide you don't want
to support my device anymore.

~~~
m463
> If you really must collect analytics data on my fans

...ask, but don't make it a requirement for things to work

------
devoply
There will be plenty of a*holes in this space. And then someone will get wise
and let everyone play on their network and they will win out.

------
cbsks
> IoT was supposed to bring about this wonderful new era of integrated devices
> in the smart home. Instead, we now have walled gardens of stuff running in
> their own isolated ecosystems

Was that really the expected outcome of a smart home? I always assumed that
there would be a few walled gardens, and you’d have to pick which garden you
wanted your house to be in.

------
smitty1e
> The end result of this? If I decide to accept Google's offer to migrate my
> Nest account to Google Assistant, the part of the Haiku app which integrates
> the fan and the Nest controls will stop working. The fans themselves will
> also stop communicating with the Works With Nest APIs and the Smart Cooling
> mode will cease functioning.

Is this not precisely the sort of hogwash that prompted RMS to found the FSF?

Capitalism is good, but it's predicated upon the concept if competition.

As with paper ballots, we really need to awaken to the concept that there is
more than one dimension--efficiency--to many of life's challenges.

------
solarkraft
It is an education issue (that will hopefully solve itself) that people still
buy hardware (or software) the functionality of which entirely depends on some
uncontrollable (and often dubious) entity.

------
lallysingh
Looks like Google should've had a larger zdnet advertising budget...

------
mikelyons
Bold-faced*

> Although many people seem to believe that “barefaced lie” is the source of
> both the “bald” and “bold” versions, it appears that “bold-faced lie” is by
> far the oldest, dating back to at least the early 1600s.

~~~
egypturnash
Bald-faced. [https://mentalfloss.com/article/57985/it-bald-faced-or-
bold-...](https://mentalfloss.com/article/57985/it-bald-faced-or-bold-faced-
lie)

~~~
mikelyons
Bold-faced. [https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/07/lie-
detection.htm...](https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/07/lie-
detection.html)

Of the two, “bold-faced lie” is by far the more popular, with nearly 1.6
million hits on Google compared with only 39,000 for “bald-faced lie.”

Although many people seem to believe that “barefaced lie” is the source of
both the “bald” and “bold” versions, it appears that “bold-faced lie” is by
far the oldest, dating back to at least the early 1600s.

unfortunate dislikes from those who are ignorant.

~~~
happytoexplain
I wouldn't be surprised if "bold-faced" was a common mistake that superseded
the original, in the same way that "literal" now has a dictionary entry for
its meaning as "figurative". As a theoretical example, we may see "pour over"
come to be an acceptable alternative to "pore over", as the mistake is common
and the meaning can be justified (I am "pouring" my attention over something).
It follows in these cases that more educated people may be more likely to use
the original term while the new version is more more likely to become more
numerous in Google hits. It also follows that users of the original term may
reasonably be unhappy with the evolution.

What I don't think follows is justifiably calling the original meaning
"wrong", and what I think is simply petty is calling people who use it
"ignorant".

Edit: When I say "bold-faced" may be a mistake, I mean that it may have
mistakenly been used in place of "bald-faced" more and more - not that it
never had its own separate, valid meaning.

~~~
mikelyons
Nah what I meant was that people are ignorant of the fact that "bold-faced"
came first

