
How the world will change as computers spread into everyday objects - prostoalex
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/09/12/how-the-world-will-change-as-computers-spread-into-everyday-objects
======
modeless
I've said this before, but the "Internet of Things" is a bad vision for the
future. Dystopian, almost. I don't want every little thing to be a computer
running software that is buggy, out of date, insecure, out of my control, and
constantly pestering me for updates.

What I want is _one_ smart device: a robot that can operate all my non-smart
devices. The robot can set the thermostat, unlock the door, flip the light
switches, do the laundry and the dishes, monitor the house while I'm away,
etc. That's the goal we should be working towards. IoT should be seen as, at
best, a stopgap solution. It's not a desirable end state.

~~~
EvanAnderson
Here's the utopia I'd love: The thermostat / door lock / light would present a
simple documented interface exposing all the functionality available from the
physical device. I'd even be okay if it was delivered via Wi-Fi or ZigBee
(though I'd really prefer RS-488, RS-232, or wired Ethernet w/ PoE).

No manufacturer will do this because it limits their ability to engineer-in
planned obsolescence, vendor lock-in, and recurring revenue "cloud" business
models.

There are commercial and industrial-grade devices that do what I want, but
they're priced for their market segment and, infuriatingly, their protocols
are needlessly baroque (MODBUS, BACNET, et. al.) or proprietary.

~~~
leppr
We need the Unix philosophy in the physical world.

Our multitude of small devices themselves can stay "dumb", but it'd be a huge
missed opportunity to totally cut them off from the software world.

A robot turning knobs and pushing buttons as grandparent seems to suggest is a
romantic vision that doesn't hold up well to the real world.

------
titzer
"Such a world will bring many benefits. Consumers will get convenience, and
products that can do things non-computerised versions cannot. Amazon’s Ring
smart doorbells, for instance, come equipped with motion sensors and video
cameras. Working together, they can also form what is, in effect, a private
CCTV network, allowing the firm to offer its customers a “digital
neighbourhood-watch” scheme and pass any interesting video along to the
police."

This is the best they could come up with as an example for the "many
benefits"? Tilt your head only slightly privacy-leaning and this looks like a
terrifying dystopia. Of course the Orwellian nightmare won't come to "law
abiding" middle and upper-class citizens, who will most be tracked as
unwitting lab rats by mega tech firms intent on understanding every aspect of
human life in order to monetize it, usually through ads and Chinese-style
digital karma, but the marginalized groups--ethnic minorities, political
dissidents, and the "mentally unstable" will be persecuted and hounded
endlessly by digital means. With mass shootings all over the US, it's only a
matter of time until they weaponize the already-built surveillance network to
red-flag people. As usual, our own fear of each other is way out ahead, on the
leading edge of technology.

~~~
avgDev
Oof private CCTV network, so they can sell the live video feeds. Imagine the
possibilities with face recognition. Wanna follow your wife everywhere? Want
to follow anyone you want to stalk? No problem for this fee you will have
access to our video feed and face recognition software, which will enable you
to track anyone and anywhere.

Want their DNA? No problem. Want their interests? Sleeping schedule? Work
schedule? If you got the money we got the stuff.

Future is looking really interesting.

~~~
redisman
Think about the botnets you can build from cheap IoT with lousy security to
basically control billions of devices in peoples homes.

~~~
zipwitch
Do you want a _hot_ shower after your long day? Touch here to transfer $1 to
the malware that just hijacked your plumbing. Try to remove it, and it will do
$5000 in damage. A professional home IT security fix will run $1000 and take 3
days, while you camp in your back yard or live out of a motel.

------
amflare
Shockingly, this was published last week. I was expecting a mid-90's/early-00s
article.

I don't understand why this is an article. Its basically saying "Imagine if
the Internet of Things.... wait for it.... had more Things!" Of course you'll
see an increase in efficiency, and the balance of power will shift toward
larger corporations capable of harnessing said efficiency. This has been
happening for 15 years. This is not news to anyone.

~~~
Animats
_Shockingly, this was published last week. I was expecting a mid-90
's/early-00s article._

That's the impression I had. Home automation hasn't gone very far, and seems
to be more trouble than it's worth. Now you have to worry about your "cloud
home animation provider" going out of business, or changing their business
model, or just dropping support on your home devices. Someone faced with
Google dropping support on something recently wrote "My house won't work any
more". "Unauthorised Bread" by Cory Doctorow is close to reality now.

There's the Cameras Everywhere thing, with Ring and that crowd. That's the
telescreen from 1984, privatized.

None of this stuff does any much. All sensing, no actuation. Power windows for
houses, for example, are expensive and rare. Even HVAC systems for houses
which have a controlled damper for outside air are rare. The robot vacuum
cleaners still aren't good enough to just ignore and let them do their job.

Most of the ideas for the Internet of Things can be seen in the 1950s
Whirlpool Kitchen of the Future. Today, you can really buy most of that stuff.
Back then, though, Big Brother wasn't part of the package.

[1] [https://www.inverse.com/article/12064-we-ve-finally-
arrived-...](https://www.inverse.com/article/12064-we-ve-finally-arrived-in-
the-1950s-kitchen-of-the-future)

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/PxJo9](http://archive.is/PxJo9)

------
jaclaz
What I find missing is that the implication of this:

>The cheaper models in Tesla’s line-up have parts of their batteries disabled
by the car’s software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard
in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers
temporary access to the full power of their batteries.

has not been contemplated.

It plainly means that someone in Palo Alto can also _add_ restrictions
(possibly even stopping the car altogether) and that since everything is
remote actuated possibly _someone else_ might do the same (individually or per
area, etc.).

------
noja
Less hand waving, more real examples please Economist.

~~~
beerdoggie
Agreed, this article seems like it was written 5 years ago.

------
zefrenedior
I think every day products will have increased use, life, and other benefits
being able to have a IoT device that enhances our lives as the current
products are just there in our lives.

------
bambax
I don't want Elon Musk high on some substance, being able to control the car I
drive. Or anyone, really. While it's arguably hard to make your own car, it's
trivial to make an ebike, that nobody can control except you.

It's trivial to not rely on cloud providers for anything. I can store mp3s (or
mkvs, etc.) on a NAS and play them from a computer or a Pi. I can certainly
flip switches to turn lights on or off in my house.

In fact, most "home automation" sounds a little absurd. If you can program it
yourself and you like it, good for you. But to rely on a remote provider that
may or may not work when you most need it, or who may "discontinue" devices
you rely on, is irrational.

It seems most people are willing to give away control for the smallest gain in
convenience. We should resist more.

~~~
Drod718
What an asinine way to begin a comment attempting to explain your position. I
think it’s safe to say that nobody wishes another human “high on some
substance” has the ability to disrupt the control of their vehicle. Where did
you even pull that from?

That being said, the people who “should resist more” are the ones don’t find
it “trivial” to not rely on cloud service providers. They grab IoT products
like a Ring doorbell off the shelf and install it one and done.

~~~
bambax
Elon Musk is often high and even when not, says things that are completely
unacceptable. Look them up. He's loved here on HN. But even if you do love him
you shouldn't give him control over your life.

Why does anyone need a Ring doorbell? Can't you just stand up and answer the
door? I don't understand any of this (I do understand I'm in the wrong forum
for saying so).

~~~
Drod718
We can agree to disagree over Elon Musk, but I can give you a good use case
for Ring off the top of my head:

My parents bought a Ring (I am heavily against it for every reason you wrote,
plus I can’t stand the idea of a company owning my family’s video footage, I
asked them to let me set up some sort of CCTV system but they just want the
easy way)and it provides them with a quick, cheap motion activated video feed
of their home straight to their phones from anywhere in the world. This isn’t
even a doorbell function, the thing can be configured to detect motion over a
selection of distances and send you a notification straight to a live video
feed.

Sure that can be manually set up but for a lot of people who aren’t too tech
savvy, grabbing something like a Ring from bestbuy is quick and easy to get
running. Maybe the issue could be helped if a someone sold something like an
arduino based doorbell / cam, with easy to use software or an app like Ring
that didn’t call back home.

