
In an Era of ‘Smart’ Things, Sometimes Dumb Stuff Is Better - Dangeranger
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/technology/personaltech/smart-things-dumb-stuff.html
======
adambatkin
Many years ago (just after I left for college) my parents decided to build a
brand new house. The plan was to include a computerized lighting system where
every light was individually addressable and all "light switches" were
actually banks of 4 to 8 programmable buttons. The possibilities were endless!
What could go wrong?

I asked my parents to use a regular light switch in my room. You know the kind
that I am talking about - it goes on and off, closing and opening an
electrical circuit. It would have been less expensive and (in my opinion) more
reliable since after all, it's just a few pieces of metal. I joked that "when
everyone else's lights are flashing on and off at 3AM, I'd like to remain
asleep". My father accused me (his resident technologist) of being a Luddite
and they went on their merry way, finishing construction and installing a
fully-computerized lighting system.

A few months after they moved in, I got a phone call from my father that
started something like this: "Please don't say 'I told you so' but I have to
tell you what happened at 3AM last night..."

(they flipped that house, and when they built their next one, it had regular
light switches)

~~~
whoisjuan
I totally get the spirit of what you're saying, but to be fair a good reliable
automated light-system would have an analog fail-safe that allows you to
operate the lights normally in case of a malfunction of the central system,
meaning that you just turn off the central system, and all the lights keep
operating as normal lights that are not connected to it.

But also, centralized light systems are not new. Many corporate facilities
have been using these for years and they rarely fail.

Maybe the problem is that your father just picked the wrong vendor/system.

~~~
Someone1234
That more or less describes how Philip's Hue works.

If the hub died, the smart bulbs can still still be operated using the regular
light switch. If the bulb is in standby (smart "off") just flip the switch
twice to turn it on. Then it will act like a regular bulb until the hub
returns.

Hue only has one big defect with regards to this... If there's an electrical
outage and the smart bulb is in standby, when power is restored the bulb will
turn on. Meaning if power goes out and is restored in the middle of the night
the lights could suddenly turn on full brightness.

And as an aside, the nice thing about smartbulbs as a concept is that they
require zero re-wiring or specialized wiring. So if the manufacturer of your
bulbs went out of business or you wanted to change vendors, just replace the
bulb and your work is done. Simple.

~~~
aaronharnly
I have a couple dozen Hue lamps, and they regularly “reset” to full bright
white, presumably after a flicker in power that is otherwise imperceptible. It
happens on average once every couple of weeks, and is quite annoying! I wish
the lamps had a nonvolatile memory so they’d return to their previous color
and intensity...

(I still love them and am happy I have them rather than regular LEDs though.)

~~~
TeMPOraL
This has been suggested many times and, as far as I can tell, Philips decided
the current behaviour is best safety-wise (consider e.g. if your last preset
had 1% intensity).

~~~
criddell
But it's the least smart thing to do. They could at least put an option in the
setting to maintain settings after brief power outages.

We had a power flicker last week in the middle of the night and suddenly our
bedroom lights were on 100% and our Echo was loudly complaining that the
internet was gone. At 3am.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Which is why smart things are dumb. You can't just program features, you have
to program context. And context rapidly becomes non-trivial. So you either
have a dumb object that no one expects to act intelligently, or you have a
smart object that tries to act intelligently but fails because it's not as
smart as a human, and humans are random anyway.

For smart lights you need "Return to previous state, and then see if the state
was on a timer. If it was, wait until you get an NTP answer (i.e. the Internet
isn't down) and set up the state requested by the timer."

Which is fine unless the previous state was a party, it's now daylight, and
all the bulbs are still different colours.

Or someone was adjusting the lights and accidentally set them to 1% instead of
100% when the power went off.

 _Everything_ becomes an edge case. The most useful solution requires an
intelligent default with timer support, with some awareness of what's
happening in and around the house.

And it still has to allow for user overrides, because some people - like my
partner - sometimes want the lights on during the day, even when the room is
bright.

~~~
criddell
I think you are over-thinking things.

I also have analog switches and dimmers in my house. If I have the lights at
the lowest setting when the power goes out, that's where they are when the
power returns. If everything was on full when the power goes out, then that's
where things will be when the power returns.

Why should smart things work differently than what a lifetime of experience
has lead me to expect?

------
freedomben
Great article, I totally agree.

One area that I feel is also a "sometimes dumb stuff is better" that the
article left out, is that (at least for me) hardware controls are almost
always superior (tho certainly less flexible) than software controls. There's
no better example than the physical keyboard vs. the soft keyboard. Recently I
had to purchase a replacement stove, and I am amazed at how much worse the UX
is on this stove than my old one. I don't want to slide my finger to determine
heat intensity, and select which burner that applies to by pressing a soft
button corresponding to the hotplate. Just give me a physical knob for each
hotplate please. The UX there is excellent.

A more painful example is my Ford truck. Almost everything inside of it is
software powered, and the bugs drive me insane. At one point my GPS/stereo
touchscreen hit some bug, and the only way to "fix" it was to pull over at a
rest stop and power cycle my truck (turn off, then back on again :facepalm: ).
That is maddening. As a software developer I understand that bugs happen, but
as a consumer I just can't tolerate that kind of stuff in my vehicle.

Without question tech has brought us nice things, but with complexity comes
bugs (both security-related and non), and with bugs comes software updates
(which themselves sometimes introduce bugs in something that was working fine
before). Internet-connected things can also be a nightmare for security and
privacy. Truly, sometimes the "dumb" version is much better (and _way_ cheaper
too).

~~~
askvictor
Similar problem in an aeroplane, the Boeing 787 would fail if it had been
powered on continuously for 248 days:
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/01/us-
aviation...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/01/us-aviation-
authority-boeing-787-dreamliner-bug-could-cause-loss-of-control)

You don't really think it would be necessary to turn off your plane then turn
it back on again, but here we are.

~~~
araes
And I thought the car analogy was bad. Imagine hearing that excuse at 30,000
ft. (or being the pilot and having to give it) as all the lights in the cabin
go off and the actuators stop working (would the turbines stop firing?) "Have
you tried restarting it? Maybe boot it in safe mode." Loved the bit at the end
'Operators will perform periodic power cycling at scheduled intervals until
incorporating a software update.'

Sad that this story's "thought experiment"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16393740](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16393740)
from 8 days ago may be the future, not a joke. Sorry you couldn't drive to
work, we're pushing an update to your car by the middle of the week.

~~~
busterarm
Don't joke. On my first trip flying anywhere ever, on the first leg of the
return trip, an AA flight from Austin to St. Louis, we had to abort takeoff
while the front wheel was up because all of the on-board computer systems died
simultaneously.

I've never been in more of a white-knuckle situation in my life, including the
time a tire blew while landing at IAD. We then sat on tarmac for close to 3
more hours while they replaced the computers and we took off again in the same
plane.

------
meuk
I would say that _usually_ the dumb stuff is better. People are sometimes
surprised (since I work in IT) that I am against putting too many
functionality in stuff.

First example: in my experience, there is nothing better than a blackboard for
explaining a subject. I have never seen a blackboard that does not work. I
also have never had a smooth experience with a smartboard (for starters, it
has to boot and the projector has to be on and connected which just takes some
minutes), and I have rarely had a good experience with whiteboards (usually
the markers just don't work well, and there's no way to see that beforehand,
so you end up trying a lot of them).

It also irritates me intensely how often it is assumed that you're _always_
connected to the internet. Games nowadays not only have mandatory updates, but
also require you to be connected. I used to play games once a week with a
friend, and the experience just sucked. Call of Duty almost always had a
multiple gigabyte update waiting for us, so that we had to wait half an hour
to play (even though we didn't play online). It has happened multiple times
that the internet didn't work, and we just had to find something else to do.

Then, smart TV's have some of the same problems too. I have had some new
experiences since my roommate bought a 4k monstrosity with ambilight (which
only purpose seems to be that ensure that no-one can concentrate on something
else when the TV is on). I have never had to wait multiple minutes to turn the
TV on before. I have never had a TV crash on me before. I have never been
confused by a remote control before (the remote control has a button with a
triangle symbol to go to all apps, and some other buttons with symbols I have
never seen before, and there are two different places with apps - some of them
are the same while others can only be found in one place). The TV also boots
with the sound very loud, and I have to wait until the TV is fully booted
until the sound can be adjusted. Which in practice means that I can't watch TV
after my roommate goes asleep at 9:30.

~~~
ImaCake
We recently purchased a TV and chose one based on the lack of any Smart TV
functionality. It boots in 5 seconds and doesn't try and join botnets. The
future is stupid.

~~~
marcosdumay
I recently brought my first smart TV. I tried to avoid it, but the cheapest
not smart alternative was more than twice the price.

But you know, except for a "do you want to update now" nagging that made it
unusable for the first 2 hours after I plugged it on the net, and a immediate
"please accept this EULA so we can display ads" that I declined, the smart
features have been nice since then.

I am still wary of a future "we are shutting down our servers, this TV will be
no more", but not of much more.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Which features are available that you find useful? I'm surprised any are
turned on if you declined the EULA.

~~~
marcosdumay
I decline a EULA. Basically the one offering ads. I don't think it's necessary
for anything actually useful.

It's very nice to connect to the TV by Bluetooth. It's nice to plug stuff
there and browse the web too, but does not make all that difference because
there's a Kodi machine just under it (right now I'm not sure I will keep the
computer).

------
vanderZwan
I'm going to verbatim copy a conversation I had on twitter a few weeks ago[0],
because it seems particularly relevant, and I want to credit whomever is
behind the algoglitches twitter account with coming up with the term "formerly
fixable objects":

@JobvdZwan: _My mother called me the other day asking why I "installed Bing".
Because she does not grasp that software can modify itself, it did not occur
to her that Firefox itself switched after an auto-update. In this light it
makes sense that family members blame you for "breaking" their computer if you
helped them out months or years before: if you fix, say, a door, it will not
spontaneously change after that. But fixing a computer is not like fixing a
door._

@algoglitches: _Interestingly doors will probably be computers a few years
from now
cf[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/you-a...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/you-
are-already-living-inside-a-computer/539193/) . We will refer to them as
"formerly fixable objects" and they will produce their own glitches._

@JobvdZwan: _Did you just make up the term "formerly fixable objects"? Because
that should be a term._

[0]
[https://twitter.com/JobvdZwan/status/962328161429151745](https://twitter.com/JobvdZwan/status/962328161429151745)

------
kendallpark
Soft touch "buttons" vs regular mechanical buttons.

Soft touch buttons are the bane of my existence. With most buttons, there's no
feedback as to whether or not the button has been pressed. It's also difficult
to develop muscle memory so you can you use the buttons without looking. For
this reason I can't stand typing on an iPad's screen keyboard. Also the reason
turning on a modern TV involves me dragging my fingers all over the bottom
hoping I hit the power button.

The extreme of this is newer Macbook touchbar. Vim is a nightmare to use. Did
I even press ESC? Can't tell.

Another great example: [http://www.homecrux.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/GE%E2%80%...](http://www.homecrux.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/GE%E2%80%99s-Smart-Sous-Vide-Probe-and-Touch-
sensitive-Induction-Cooktops_5.jpg)

~~~
starsinspace
After Apple ruined the podcasts app in iOS 11, I switched back to my old way
of listening to podcasts: download on the computer and listen on a Sansa Clip+
player (with Rockbox on it).

Especially the first few days were pure delight. A player with.. hardware
buttons! I can skip tracks, jump back and forth, pause, everything without
even looking at the thing! Several years of using touchscreen-smartphones for
this had me totally forget how it is to use an MP3 player with physical
buttons. Really, I didn't expect at all how much I'd love it. I've now gotten
used to it again and going back to anything touchscreen-based is not an option
at all anymore. And on top of that the joy of knowing that there's no ad-
company tracking how/when/where I'm listening.

~~~
orbitur
My only experience with the Clip+ was as a runner, but I switched away from my
phone because I was terrified of breaking it. But the downsides of the Clip+
drove me back to my phone and a good, hard case for it.

\- had to hook it up to my Windows computer and download songs instead of just
making a playlist on Apple Music or queueing up podcasts in Overcast

\- if the sun was out, I had to hold the Clip right against my eyeballs to
make anything out

\- no 30 second skips, no chapter selection

And honestly, I'm not sure why you'd give up on the phone altogether without
researching other podcast apps. Overcast is the best.

~~~
starsinspace
Note that I'm using the Clip+ with the Rockbox [0] replacement firmware, which
adds features such as configurable skip lengths, etc. Without Rockbox, the
thing isn't nearly as good :-)

> And honestly, I'm not sure why you'd give up on the phone altogether without
> researching other podcast apps. Overcast is the best.

I looked at them, didn't find a single trustworthy one. Overcast is a good
example of that: it's often recommended, but it wants me to make an account,
which is completely superfluous and probably just a way for them to collect
data about my podcast habits. No thanks. I only want podcasts, I don't want a
cloud service to go with it.

[0] [https://www.rockbox.org/](https://www.rockbox.org/)

~~~
orbitur
Just FYI, the creator of Overcast is a notorious anti-advertising and pro-
privacy curmudgeon, and he even wrote Skeptic's FAQ for people put off by the
account thing:
[https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq](https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq)

It's very much worth it.

------
truculation
Yes I would like a Starship Enterprise-style computer in my house. Who
wouldn't? But it has to be the the ad-free version that works _for me_. It
won't monitor the activities of my family and then sell the anonymized data to
selected third parties. Then supply the de-anonymized data to government
agencies and school boards at the drop of a hat for 'safe-guarding' or 'anti-
terrorism' purposes.

In the meantime I recognise that there's some health value to getting up
periodically to flick switches.

~~~
bambax
> _Yes I would like a Starship Enterprise-style computer in my house. Who
> wouldn 't?_

I wouldn't. What's the point exactly? Take smart lights, what are they for??
When I enter the room I switch lights on, when I leave the room I switch
lights off.

I'm not sure when I would need to switch lights on while already in the room.
I never stay in the same room for so long that the sun sets while I'm still
there not moving.

At night in the bedroom there are switches near the bed (attached to the wall,
which can't get lost, contrary to a remote, and don't need sound, contrary to
voice control).

My point is, we tend to accept technology even when it doesn't solve any
problem we are actually having.

~~~
maxerickson
What if it were inexpensive, kept the physical controls and actually worked
well?

I'm not in any rush to automate lights, but there are lots of people that
would appreciate things like an "arrival mode" for their lighting, where
lights switched on when they arrived at the house. Not really a big deal, but
say you have poor night vision and reduced mobility.

~~~
bambax
Agree for reduced mobility, but re:poor night vision, I can do most things in
my home in pitch darkness, as well as open the door from the outside:
selecting the proper key from the key ring in my pocket, "feeling" the keyhole
and inserting the key without looking at anything. Whenever I change the key
cylinder I verify I can still do it with the new key.

This used to fascinate my wife. Now it just upsets her, she thinks I'm showing
off to the kids. I'm not; I'm training for when the sun dies.

~~~
pwg
I can do the same. Although the 'open' or 'lock up' door in total darkness
skill never fascinated my wife, ever. I always got the "just turn on a
light..." whine instead.

------
rcthompson
I think the advantage of "dumb" devices is that you can fully understand how
they work, at least at a level of abstraction that covers all possible
functionality you care about. For smart devices, you can't fully understand
how all of them work, so you have to trust that they understand correctly what
you want them to do and are actually attempting to do it. Or if you can't
trust it, you have to spend time and effort verifying it. And you also have to
trust (or verify) that they're not doing stupid/malicious things like punching
holes in your firewall or leaking your personal data.

In short, you can simply _use_ a dumb device, but you have to _manage_ a smart
device, and that requires much more mental bandwidth.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
This is definitely how I view the "dumb" vs "smart" automation. Complex things
are hard to reason about, and as much as you might claim they "just work"
that's only true until they suddenly don't, and then you can't fix them
easily. Simple things are easy to reason about. They may not always work, but
at least when they don't it should be pretty obvious why. I bring this up a
lot in my "why the Linux Desktop sucks" rants, but it sadly applies to a whole
lot of technology. So many complex systems introduced to solve non-problems or
problems created by the complexity in the first place.

It's enough that sometimes I want to just give up computing and live in a
cave.

------
th0ma5
I have done some neat hobby automation projects, and I have some thoughts:

1\. With some more work it wouldn't be so, but when the power goes out it is
like rebooting Jurassic Park to get my sound system back the way I like.

2\. The proprietary power grab is worse than any video format war or chat
program territory battle. I've tried to DIY as much as I can, but Google Home
is a no go for DIY. I can emulate on/off Phillips Hue stuff for Alexa Scenes
but for Google Home you have to go through the net.

3\. I can't ask Alexa to do anything when the (rare) internet is out, but I
can control everything fine with my phone or IR. Most automation projects seem
to require outside the firewall stuff.

4\. Would be cool if I could come up with a port knocking thing for Alexa
Skills to talk back to the LAN with some kind of reliable security and
encryption... But Skills seem to be only available to call out insecurely or
to a running EC2 instance say but I don't have a free tier account being an
early adopter of EC2.

5\. In general, the products I will buy are ideally LAN only. Maybe that's
unrealistic like a non smart TV?

------
KamiCrit
My favourite "smart" dumb device has got to be single sensor electronics. The
automatic hallway light to be exact. It's a piece of plastic with a photocell
and a LED.

So long as it has power (but a battery backup would be simple enough) it never
fails to turn on "if this, then that". Daylight savings, changing seasons,
solar eclipse.

It's never a device I have to think about.

And at home depot they sell $80 IoT light bulbs demanding a property app.

------
oldcynic
...and what no one giving us this "progress" ever seems to realise is how
often it is slower.

For instance our Whirlpool microwave - touch sensitive digital and achieving 5
or 10 minutes takes much longer and more clicks than our old one (no 5 min
button, but the Panasonic's touch keypad didn't much like damp hands). Setting
power or grill is especially unfriendly and rarely succeeds at first attempt.
First microwave had a rotary control, now the preserve of absolute bottom of
range rubbish, time setting _always_ took one touch and under a second.

I find it's affecting my choices of cars though. Touch sensitive "improvement"
of anything basic (heater or fan for instance) is a big negative mark for me
as chances are I could formerly achieve it without taking eyes from road, but
now I need to _look,_ and you don't want everything on the steering wheel!

~~~
gambiting
About the microwave: it seems to be purely American thing. Here in the UK even
high-end very expensive microwaves have rotating knobs for setting the time
and power. I've seen those monstrosities with a million buttons on the front
but they are certainly rare.

~~~
exodust
Likewise when shopping for a new hi-fi receiver, the most important feature I
wanted was a physical volume control knob.

~~~
oldcynic
Grr. The old Denon bookshelf hi-fi had an analogue pot with slow motor tied to
remote control, and infinite fine adjustment when using knob directly. After
it died we just bought the current equivalent without exercising enough
distrust.

The volume is now digital, so we have a choice between "too loud" or "too
quiet". Turning the knob gives the same too coarse steps. No motor is
required, saving Denon a few pennies and costing them a customer next time
around.

The FM tuner (much better quality than DAB hereabouts), uses the digital stage
somehow anyway, so analogue transmissions gain about a half second delay. As
we often have the same radio station going in more than one room, this can be
_really_ annoying.

------
titzer
There are varying levels of cynicism with which to view the smart home stuff.

On the plus side, smart home automation is great for those with mobility
issues or disabilities, the elderly. It also could save a lot of energy
globally.

On the other hand, a lot of things just don't need to be smart, and making
them smart often means that they are not directly servicable by owners. When
something breaks, you need a whole stack of knowledge about software to figure
out where it went wrong. A lot of us here might have that knowledge, but even
then it's a giant hassle. It seems insane that in the future it might require
arcane knowledge of Python, bash, and Linux to get your lights on. That's some
kind of fail.

The most cynical view, which I sometimes dare myself to consider, is that all
of this smart home/internet of things is just another bubble where hardware
manufacturers are pushing their chips into literally everything because they
have to keep making more money...somehow.

In the latter case, well. Civilization doesn't need more hucksters, even if
they are selling little black squares of silicon this time around.

------
meuk
Maybe a large part of why hardware buttons work so much better than software
buttons is that they just _are_ there. They do not pop up whenever you enter a
new screen, and usually, you can't miss them (as in 'oh, I didn't realize that
bar was clickable'). They are also much more restrictive than software UI's -
so the designer really has to put in effort since you can't replace the
hardware interface by putting out an update.

I can't resist to draw a parallel with programming. In the early days, where
binaries consisted of carefully handcrafted code, they were in the range of
kilobytes. Nowadays programs are in the range of megabytes to gigabytes due to
all the libraries that are statically included (and possibly duplicated). When
I install Xilinx ISE (no support for anything above windows 7) or Visual
Studio (both 2015 and 2017, because both have features that the other one does
not contain), I have already used more space on my SSD than I'd like.

------
Kuiper
I am a big fan of the Kindle 4. (2012) It's wonderful. I use mine practically
every day. It has these huge things on the side called "buttons" that you can
use to turn the pages. They have a tactile feel when pressed, and accidental
button presses are never a problem. It's symmetrical, so you can hold it in
either your right or left hand.

It's the last Kindle made before someone got the bright idea that people would
rather have a touch screen instead of buttons. Because apparently, when I'm
reading a book, the thing I want to do is use my thumb to cover up the screen
(you know, the thing that is displaying the text that I'm reading), and hold
the device in a very specific way such that I can press the page when I need
to while avoiding accidental touches before I've reached the end of the page.

Recently, they decided to re-introduce the majestic "button" feature into some
of the newer Kindle models. You can get it if you opt for the premium deluxe
"Kindle Oasis" which for some reason has an asymmetrical bezel and costs $250.
(The Kindle 4 originally retailed for $80, which is where pricing for current
Kindle models also starts.)

I love my Kindle 4. I use it every day and take it with me everywhere, and
whenever I misplace it and need to buy a replacement, I find myself going to
ebay to look for a used version of the old model so I can have a device with
buttons.

~~~
Spacemolte
Oh yes, that was my biggest worry when i bought the paperwhite - If i would
miss those buttons too much. Even now after a year, if I could get the
paperwhite with buttons, I would. It just works, you don't have to move your
finger to change the page.

It's not much I have to move my fingers to change page on the paperwhite, but
it's still so much more than should be necessary, the old model just fit like
a glove.

(I would still get the paperwhite even with no buttons, and it has not been as
annoying regarding accidental page changes as I had initially feared. And i
really love the background lighting)

------
joering2
One of such example is when they offered us a "Smart Cup" on our Cruise (Royal
Caribbeans). It has built-in chip so it know who it belongs to.

So you go to drink fountain, puts your cup in, LCD display nicely says your
name (wow) and then you click which drink you wants and the cup fills in,
while the display tells you from now on it remembers your favorite drink.
Can't be better huh?

Five minutes later I go for a refil: "Sorry but you drank a cup less than 45
minutes ago. Please come back in 39 minutes".

I came back, but to the front desk to get a refund. Instead, I replaced it
with more expensive regular cup that you could go to cafeteria and get refils
of pretty much anything you want to as often as you wanted to.

~~~
kerkeslager
This highlights one problem with smart devices. This device truly was smart,
but it wasn't smart _for you_. It was smart for the cruise line, at your
expense.

------
bradgessler
A bit dumber than a “smart device”: the new AppleTV remote is a tiny touchpad
that communicates with the box via Bluetooth. The problem is when this thing
ends up in a cushion or gets squished under a pillow it pauses, stops, or
starts rewinding the video. Compare that to a cheaper IR remote where it
simply can’t communicate with the unit in those situations. Turns out line of
sight is a feature for a TV remote.

~~~
humanrebar
> Turns out line of sight is a feature for a TV remote.

It can be, but for bad TVs you have to do "remote tai chi" to get LoS between
the remote and the TV sensor from wide angles or when there are people or
things in the way. I wouldn't call digital signalling _better_ , but there are
some benefits.

~~~
kaybe
Often that means you have to replace the remote batteries.

------
nitwit005
"One of the most common uses of Amazon’s Echo is to set a kitchen timer."

Truly worth the money. I suspect the greatest value of these things is that
they seem like nice gifts. The same thing seems true of the cheaper drones.

~~~
sgillen
I think the greatest value is probably in the speaker itself, most of the
other features do just feel like fluff. Though personally I prefer a more
“dumb” speaker I can control with my phone.

------
raverbashing
Most of the "smart IoT stuff" is built by (cheap) engineers and decision
makers with no sense of IT security and reliability engineering

Also the infrastructure in a major city is usually much more reliable than
someone living in the suburbs (especially in non-1st world countries). And I'm
not even talking about internet, but electricity as well

See the Tesla remote unlock fiasco, people think it's a good idea to lock
their car using a device which needs a recharge every day (and could break,
has a higher chance of getting robbed than a key, etc), and needs access to
cell towers to unlock the car? Compare this to other manufacturers where the
mechanical keys will work even if the battery in the remote dies

See the bluetooth locks fiasco, you're putting a cheap and unreliable device
between you and your house? Do people realize how stupid is that?!

------
hliyan
I've always preferred tactile/mechanical controls (buttons, knobs, sliders) to
the touch screens we have today. And I always trust mechanical systems over
fly-by-wire systems. For example, I'm very uncomfortable with things like the
Tesla's slide-out door handles, electronic locks in hotel room doors, touch
buttons in elevators and GPS navigation systems in aircraft.

Smart tends to mean complex, and complex usually means more things to fail.
Some things only need shafts, pulleys and gearwheels -- there is no need to
bring a microprocessor into the picture...

~~~
Piskvorrr
Bad news: GPS in airplanes is the least complicated piece of kit, and most
commercial aviation is _literally_ fly-by-wire.

~~~
mrep
I can't find the plane/article but I remember reading about a military jet
that is practically always in an unstable flight pattern and computers
constantly adjust it to make it so the pilots can fly it normally.

~~~
hliyan
I recall the main computer of the F-22 core dumping when it crossed the
international dateline. And an earlier version of the F-16 flight control
computer flipping the plane upside down when it crossed the equator in a
simulation...

------
veli_joza
There are two issues at play here. The first is that soft buttons, gesture
recognitions and 'smart' UIs are applied tastelessly to give impression of
futuristic product. UI design is very hard and I hope that best patterns will
prevail over time. There are also many good examples of transition to digital
UI and I like to think things are getting better.

The second issue is, in order to operate UI, you have to form a mental model
(simulation) of it in your mind, in order to execute your intention. In analog
days the controls were limited by space and cost, so UIs were simple to use.
In digital age same UI surface can be used for different actions depending on
context. It creates additional burden on user to hold this context in his
mind, to know about all possible contexts and how to move between them. If you
are surrounded with many such devices, all with different usage patterns, you
will curse their designers often. I wish every digital interface would also
have friendly API for remote control so I could build my own simplified
interface for existing devices.

------
shams93
This is why I have been getting superior results working with a $100 tascam
digital 4 track compared to what I used to get from logic pro. For music being
able to use knobs with eyes closed to record is actually huge to me the GUI is
actually a problem for music for my work.

~~~
0x00000000
There are few worse design decisions than rotary encoders on a software synth

~~~
starsinspace
In almost all music software these days, the knobs are actually linear faders
in disguise. Displaying them as knobs simply have the advantage of taking up
less screen space.

------
nathan_long
"Smart" is 100% a marketing term. "Networked" would be more accurate in most
cases.

Do you want a "smart" coffee pot? Oh yes, you smart person, of course you do!
Do you want a networked coffee pot? No, because that would be dumb. All the
fun of rebooting and hackers, but you still have to physically touch it to
make and pour coffee.

The _really_ dumb part of many of these devices is coupling. A truly "smart
tv" would be a good screen + wires + a computerized device, so you can switch
out screen or computer at will. Gluing them together guarantees crappiness and
waste.

------
monna
Most of this is just marketing. Companies realizing that they can sell some
tech gizmo by slapping a "smart" label on it. Technology isn't inherently
"smart", but the _application_ of technology can be smart. When done right it
works as an amplifier to our abilities, like all tools do. I you're merely
interested in tech for it's own sake, better to get a raspbery pi or arduino
and make your own crazy shit, it doesn't need to be useful.

------
sly010
I despise gadgets too-smart-to-function-normally as much as anyone, but here
is a counter example:

For a long time now, cars have a well integrated set of bells and whistles all
connected via fairly reliable communication protocols (like CAN and such) and
for the most part they just work. I never had the parking break not engage or
cruse control drift. (I am not talking about the touchscreens and apple and
android integrations as the article mentions it, those are closer to the
'smart' trend).

What if we didn't insist on retrofitting existing 110V systems and imagined a
house with a modern power bus?

What if we stopped focusing on selling things in the <$100 range and sold
entire systems that are designed to work well together?

What if we stopped insisting on unreliable radio communication and just used
good'ol wires. The lower power thing is only good for sensors anyway. Anything
else will need power.

Obviously this is not an option for existing homes maybe not even new homes,
but what about hotels and office buildings?

I am just wondering (hoping) if this whole mess is not the fault of technology
per say but the fault of the business minds and todays hype culture.

Can we use technology to make things better, not just smarter? I would be into
that.

Edit: formatting

~~~
marcosdumay
> I never had the parking break not engage or cruse control drift.

Well, at least around here those things are required to have an old style
steel wires fail-safe. And I know that because I have needed the fail-safe
once.

But about selling living-place automation as a package, it is basically the
say everybody was doing it since the 80's. The <$100 things are basically a
reaction from consumers against the huge packages inability to keep working
after deployed for a few years (due to planed obsolescence) and the plain bad
deal of depending on a single packager.

------
jurassic
I love how my paper and pens never try to force me into paying them $5/month
forever.

~~~
FroshKiller
Where did you find a notebook that never runs out of blank pages and a pen
that never needs ink?

------
yters
We don't realize how complex a lot of the simple things are.

~~~
sgillen
This is true, I’m not sure the article is saying that the “dumb” versions
aren’t complex to make/manufacture/use. Just that sometimes they are more
reliable to use in practice.

------
amelius
I think a lot of us engineers are solving non-problems. We make life only
marginally better for a lot of people (if we're lucky). To me it seems that a
relatively simple job like e.g. highschool teacher has more impact and
provides more meaning than what we are doing. Anyway, at least I feel better
than those engineers who are trying to make people click ads more.

------
gpapilion
I had an August smart lock for a while. I used it primarily while running so I
didn’t have to carry keys.

The whole process of unlocking the door was way more painful than a key. I
switched back to a regular lock.

~~~
darkmighty
I find this [type of] lock quite usable, and much more convenient thne keys:

[https://www.amazon.com/Schlage-
FE575-CAM-619-ACC/dp/B001RFDB...](https://www.amazon.com/Schlage-
FE575-CAM-619-ACC/dp/B001RFDB6C)

Digital so I don't need keys, but still keeping it as simple as possible. Most
have a power backup so you can power it from a 9V battery externally. I still
wish it wasn't necessary to change batteries, but it's not too inconvenient
given they last a couple years, timewise well worth not dealing with keys.

~~~
Someone1234
We have two of those, as good as they are I wouldn't trust them on an external
door[0]. The locking mechanism has to be fairly light weight due to being
driven by an actuator and a battery operated one at that, which means instead
of a deadbolt-like configuration it is a traditional spring Latch, which could
make it susceptible to bumping or even a strong rare earth magnet. Plus the
key is pretty simple.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X038GMKwHNw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X038GMKwHNw)

------
tworc
Physical books are the ultimate dumb tool: No need to charge; no
notifications; can take notes if you like; and fantastic life span if well
looked after.

~~~
thebigspacefuck
In defense of e-readers, I can carry an Infinite Jest sized book to the store
with me in my pocket and start reading it while my SO is trying on clothes. I
can download a new book from the library without having to check which branch
has the copy I'm looking for and going there. I can preview a book without
looking up which store near me has it, driving to the book store, and finding
a place to sit to start reading through the first chapters. The battery life
is fairly long as well so charging is usually not an issue. I still have
several copies of physical books and still go to the library or the book store
on occasion, but the experience of reading on an e-reader is superior in my
opinion. The text size can be adjusted to my preference. I can read in low
lighting without needing the light to be just right. I grew up reading in bed
and now I don't have to lay on my side to make sure the paper is facing the
light or deal with the annoyance of being too early or late into the book to
where the pages aren't supportive of my hand. With physical books, thin or
slippery paper can be an annoyance, but the e-reader is always the same size
and experience. Of course, I didn't used to think about such things, I just
read away, but once I got started on the e-reader, it's hard to go back. The
one exception is a textbook or books where you need to flip back and forth a
lot.

------
nijynot
I don't agree with almost all of it. If you compare a normal wristwatch with
Apple watch w.r.t time keeping only, you're not comparing it fairly. The Apple
watch can just do so much more than a normal watch can, and it's programmable,
you can add things with time. Same can be said for the alarm clock and what
not. Why no compare a smartphone to the analog alarm? That'd what most people
use I think, and they instead pick some gadget alarm clock which not many use
I'd say.

A big difference is that a smartphone and Apple watch is a device that can a
do what a 100 "dumb stuff" can do. It's a all-in-one device and that's very
valuable.

Their last point on touch screens in cars is very weak. With a touch screen,
you can change the UI anytime. It's flexible with infinite buttons. A normal
one with real buttons sure are more tactile, but when you ship it, it's set in
stone with limited button and functionality.

~~~
JasonFruit
I believe that's their point: while each smart device can usurp the function
of dozens of single-purpose devices, for any single function the smart device
makes tradeoffs that the single-purpose one can avoid. So, while it's cool
that the Apple watch can check your email, tell your body temperature, and
give you directions, it's less good _as a watch_ than a cheap, dumb ol' watch.

It's a question of whether the tradeoffs are worth it to you. Clearly to you,
they are, but for the author and me, they aren't.

~~~
acdha
Also, you now have the usual software management failures. My Apple Watch 2 is
about 7 months old. Every function on it works worse than when I bought it:
e.g. Siri has gone from activating 80% of the time to about 30%.

No other industry gets away with such routine negligence of core job
functions.

~~~
Retra
That's because people don't buy these things for their functionality, but for
the functionality they imagine they _could_ have. Not coincidentally, that is
also how they are marketed. People are always sitting on a park benches on
their smooth-screened laptops with absolutely no glare and a huge grin on
their face.

------
l0b0
Smart meters. Since working in IoT on a "dumb" meter I figure the killer
feature isn't automatic temperature and power regulation, it's knowledge. Once
you know where and when you are using lots of power you can easily figure out
a solution that fits _your_ situation, rather than endlessly coddling an
intrusive system.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
[https://openenergymonitor.org/](https://openenergymonitor.org/) based on
raspberry pi

------
spikej
One of my favourite examples: resetting the router using a timer instead of
scripting it

[https://www.howtogeek.com/289178/how-to-automatically-
reboot...](https://www.howtogeek.com/289178/how-to-automatically-reboot-your-
router-on-a-schedule-the-easy-way/)

~~~
pwg
Had a DSL modem years ago that had this issue (periodically it would simply
quit interacting with the DSLAM, resulting in no internet until it got power
cycled).

My solution was exactly this (although without googling for a solution). A 24
hour light timer, set to power cycle the modem sometime in the middle of the
night. Since it usually took several days before the modem got hung, a nightly
power cycle meant that things were working properly at other times.

------
firasd
I think real ubiquitous computing will require a different technological
approach. These Wi-Fi enabled devices that you can access with an app on your
phone are clearly not working out too well. I look forward to tech like smart
contact lenses, that google jacquard project, and other interfaces... what if
instead of telling Alexa to turn on the lights, you could turn your lights on
and off by gesturing (think like mouse gestures--you move your wrist down and
left in the air, and a bracelet or sleeve knows what you gestured). Or even
better, just thinking.

So we're a few hardware inventions away (not to mention, truly enjoyable
product inventions away) from knowing what 'Smart Things' really are...

~~~
pishpash
IoT is built on a cruddy stack. Nobody in their sane mind would design it like
that from scratch. The problem is technology is much more pervasive compared
with earlier eras, and without careful future proofing you end up stuck in a
lot of unfortunate designs that cannot be gotten out of, and more and more is
thrown into the pit making it worse and worse.

------
intopieces
I can come up with an equal number of cases where the “dumb stuff” doesn’t
work the way I want it to.

1.) A dumb watch can’t tell me where my next meeting is being held. Am I
really going to go back to balancing my laptop on my knee to check that?

2.) A dumb alarm clock can’t even play white noise that I use to go to sleep.
Its display can’t be customized for when my taste in Time face changes.

I could go on, but sufficed to say that the UX teams of these blockbuster
products have already done this work. It’s why people buy the damn products.
Hipster Ludditism is still Ludditism and it gets boring really fast.

~~~
adangert
why not use your phone? Navigating watch ui's are horrendous. Plus you don't
have to charge another device every night.

~~~
intopieces
The Apple Watch displays the location of my next meeting beneath the time. The
UI interaction is identical to a typical watch.

------
hudibras
On the one hand, the analog watch they show to compare with the Apple Watch is
an Omega Speedmaster, the first watch on the moon. Shows that you can do great
things with just gears and springs.

On the other hand, it does cost $3,000...

~~~
Jtsummers
On the third hand, it'll still be running after 50 years and fully compatible
with all standard issue eyeballs. Amortized cost of $60/year. Will the Apple
Watch still be running in 50 years? At around $300/watch right now, each one
needs to last at least 5 years to remain price competitive.

~~~
kerkeslager
In 50 years, will it still fit my sense of style? Will I manage to avoid
misplacing it or getting lost for 50 years?

I'm not saying I want a Smart Watch (getting _even more_ distracted? No
thanks). What I'm saying is that lasting power in a device isn't just about
continuing to function.

~~~
Jtsummers
Fair, but that particular style has apparently already made it 50 years. It's
got lasting power at least with a decent sized (or well funded) segment of the
market.

It's also an object you can give to children and grandchildren. I have a
number of objects like these. I would have zero interest in passing on my 2017
Apple Watch 3 in 20 years.

There's something to be said, IMO, for things that will last generations and
not just years.

~~~
icebraining
I got a watch from my grandfather. It was completely wasted on me.

------
ReinholdNiebuhr
Sort of related but not exactly.. and I'm sorry if this is controversial... I
just prefer my gas car over my electric car. My gas car is older, the cd play
doesn't work however the radio does. I could replace it. I just don't care
enough and prefer the randomness of the radio. My electric has mp3, satellite
radio etc. Don't know if its nostalgia or what I've just grew up using but
yea.. I hate my electric car.

~~~
brookside
I like elemental cars without bloated features as well, but most new cars both
ICE and electric have screens and the like. I don't think this is unique to
EVs.

~~~
ReinholdNiebuhr
Fair. But that's not totally why I dislike my electric car (Nissan). I mention
the modern stuff just to highlight the car has significantly better
entertainment systems. The nissan compared to the gas (a porsche) is an unfair
fight. However I haven't been impressed with tesla when test driving them as
well. It's the drive, idk. I know tesla is trying to solve that but so far I
haven't been impressed.

------
subpixel
This reminds me of multi-room sound systems, which are as bad today as they
were decades ago. They're a technological solution to a problem that only
marketing can convince you exists. And only once you pay thousands of dollars
to enable the same sounds to by piped all over your house do you realize how
unpleasant that experience is.

------
ggm
I use the tablet to show recipes.. but it causes grief that its blackscreen at
just the point I dont want to have to touch a device to wake it up.

The nice thing about paper is, you don't have to wake it up to look at that
ingredients list.

~~~
danieldk
Some recipe apps (such as Paprika) prevent display sleep. I have found that
more convenient than some books that always want to close.

~~~
kerkeslager
Decent cookbooks have put thought into the binding so this doesn't happen. I'm
not sure there's a clear winner here.

~~~
danieldk
Since I am a vegetarian, the range of cookbooks is a bit more limited. I have
some nice vegetarian cookbooks with binding that closes the book.

------
virgilp
I get his point and to some extent[1] I agree, but it seems a lot of his
examples are caused by his technology choices. I can run Waze in my car with
no issues (just use an Android phone); I don't use smartwatches for other
reasons (I don't wear a watch, period); but when I did, it was always-on
(years ago!).

[1] I agree that old technologies are always superior in some aspects to new
technologies. But, crucially, they are inferior in others, that sometimes turn
out to be more important. When that is the case, the new technology will
typically gradually become better in all aspects (i.e. with time the inferior
aspects get fix; but yes it may take a while)

------
gwbas1c
I'm building my house now, and I have plans for wall switches to control
outlets behind the TV.

I mostly buy AV equipment that can be controlled by turning the power on/off.

------
intrasight
That Sharp alarm clock is the very one waking me up every morning. Nice and
loud. And I like the "tick-tick".

------
savrajsingh
To do lists are still better on paper, too

------
tnr23
seriously guys? why is this being discussed? just get normal switches and try
to use the saved time to develop a product which provides actual value to the
world.

~~~
4ad
Because smart stuff is here to stay and make our lives miserable. I don't know
if smart bulbs will ever become popular, but you can't buy a dumb TV today
anymore. I don't even know if there ever was a 4k dumb TV.

------
pishpash
Dumb stuff have always been better. Most of the smart things are useless.

------
Torai
I love how "techie" people needs nurturing to realize what makes sense and
what not. So 2 years later, they realize what other people know the moment
they hear about some product.

Something Silicon Valley engineers do. They invent silly things just cause
they know how to code bluetooth communications. Like a water bottle that
measures how much you are drinking during the day for example.

But hey, it's not their fault. It's hacker news fault. Didn't you spend years
telling them "Ideas are worth zero. Execution is king". Now you have highly
productive dumb people you helped creating.

 _I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid,
and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever
and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and
lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine
duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest
leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the
composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is
stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility
because he will always cause only mischief._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-
Equord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord)

~~~
Joeri
A phone with a touch screen instead of physical buttons was a dumb idea until
it was executed well.

Smart devices aren’t a bad idea, they just haven’t been executed well enough.

~~~
pjc50
They're still bad _phones_ \- you can't answer or dial them without looking.
It's just that they're far more useful as tiny internet tablets and people
have in many cases gradually moved to text chat over voice.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
"you can't answer or dial them without looking."

... How often did you dial something without looking before? You probably had
a handful of numbers memorized. Otherwise, you needed to look up the number in
a phone book or address book. Perhaps you memorized numbers for speed dial?

Now you can dial by talking to you phone if you'd like, so long as you have
the person's number in your phone's computer. You can often dial a company
directly from their page or from the phonebook... which is online.

And finally: Of course people have gradually moved to text. Voice is often not
needed, and I would rather not stop everything to talk to most people.

~~~
icebraining
_Now you can dial by talking to you phone if you 'd like_

The Nokia 3310, from 2000, already had voice dialing. And while the
recognition may not have been as good (I frankly can't remember), it certainly
didn't take the time that my current cheap Android takes to even start
listening.

~~~
Ma8ee
It worked good enough. I pressed a button and said Pizza and it immediately
called my local pizzeria. For some reason I’ve never got that to work smoothly
with Siri.

------
throwawazqq
Same for spellcheck, learn to spell and just turn it off. I also highly doubt
I will ever pay money for a driverless car.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
Even if you know "how to spell" it is easy to not notice when you've
misspelled something. Also, there isn't really such a thing as just "knowing
how to spell", it's an open-ended skill. And some people just don't have the
mind to remember the precise spelling of every single random word.

I also don't know what driverless cars have to do with this. For one thing, it
is possible that you might not have the option in another 25 years in some
locations. For another, this actually is an extremely Luddite attitude, given
the objectively horrify safety of cars which we've managed to psychologically
lock away in modern culture. Not to mention the massive secondary benefits:
you get to recover massive amounts of time dedicated to staring at a road, and
being sober.

~~~
simion314
>given the objectively horrify safety of cars which we've managed to
psychologically lock away in modern culture.

Ab out the car safety, I see your point mentioned every time selfdriving cars
are mentioned but we could remove the bad drivers from the road today without
having to wait 20 years or more until all or most cars are self driven. My
solution would be to have mandatory systems to check the driver for alcohol or
drugs and a system to check for the driver attention plus the collision
detections and other driver assisting technology. I know there is a privacy
problem but I think is not larger then the selfdriving cars one or we can
adopt this technologies in countries with less bad governments.

My point we can improve car safety today if we want and not wait for
selfdriving cars.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
>My solution would be to have mandatory systems to check the driver for
alcohol or drugs

I mean, I don't even know where to begin.

First, good luck getting the 200 million drivers that don't ever have this
problem to agree to dealing with this system every single time they start
their car. Not gonna happen.

Second, have you actually stopped to think about how this would actually work?
BAC is already a pretty vague and inconsistent check of impairment, but it is
literally the best available from any category. There are no sobriety tests
for other substances. And there definitely are not ones that could be
compacted and used on-demand in vehicles.

> a system to check for the driver attention plus the collision detections and
> other driver assisting technology.

So instead of just letting software do everything, instead you think we should
stop at a stage where the human is redundant and honestly a weakness in the
system, just so that we can feel like we are doing something when driving? Why
not just let the software do the last 10% of the work and free up 100% of your
driving time? This just sounds like pure stubbornness, not an actually
effective system.

And finally, it completely negates the enormous advantages of an automated
driving network. Barring rare and extreme events like multi-lane closures,
traffic exists entirely and exclusively because of fundamental issues in human
habits and judgement. There would be no traffic if computers were automating
freeways. Ever.

~~~
simion314
You did not understand my point,

1 I am ok with good self driving cars that are better then the average human

2 I am suggesting that forcing this systems on people is as problematic as
forcing them to buy an AI car, so say from tomorrow in your city you have 2
choices : buy and install the system I suggested or buy a new car with self
driving AI, why is second option easier to force on people?

3 My point is that if you want that in 30 years to force all cars in some
regions to be 100% AI driven so forbid people the right to drive there, then
why not also force that device I suggested today, you get the benefits today
and in 30 years you can force no humans driver at all.

4 My problem is that the problem with car crashes has more then 1 solution, so
if we want to solve it today we need to look at something else not only at
self driving cars,

