Internet connected devices are a mistake. Not only is there non-existent security updates for the device, it means there is a timer on the life of the functions of the device. If a device cannot function offline, you will have a gimped (or completely dead) product soon.
functions like scheduling a charge will no longer work
Case and point. Why did the device ever need the internet to run a clock? It didn’t, but because it was ‘smart’, now it can’t operate a basic time function.
It’s all relative. My cheap Chinese spyware SmartLife devices are free to report the hours I turn my lights on back to China as they please, but they sit on a segmented VLAN with per client isolation.
If they ever EOL’d them, I’ve got more than my money’s worth, and yes, some of them can be flashed, but I’d probably just buy another well established cheap Chinese competitor.
But I agree, the above is not the use case and situation for every IoT device out there, and there are plenty of devices that I would never consider an internet/SaaS dependent version of e.g. medium to large home appliances.
‘Eh, I’d have to argue that even open firmware devices are a mistake unless they’re really standardized and extremely popular, which aren’t things you can necessarily know when its early in its life cycle.
Open source things either get a cult following, or get that one lone dev that thanklessly keeps it going and then decides to give up and become a sheep farmer… or both.
Also the internet is the primary attack vector for most devices. I don’t have to worry about someone hacking my devices that just do their job and don’t have internet connectivity.
That being said though, the internet-based devices in the article are simply becoming non-internet-based devices, so my suggestion is kinda a moot point.
Internet connected devices are a mistake. Not only is there non-existent security updates for the device, it means there is a timer on the life of the functions of the device. If a device cannot function offline, you will have a gimped (or completely dead) product soon.
Case and point. Why did the device ever need the internet to run a clock? It didn’t, but because it was ‘smart’, now it can’t operate a basic time function.
Case in point
Bone apple tea
This is why I prefer “smart” controls for dumb things. If the control gets bricked I can replace it or the thing will still work without it.
They say the home chargers will still work. It’s just the commercial chargers that won’t.
It’s all relative. My cheap Chinese spyware SmartLife devices are free to report the hours I turn my lights on back to China as they please, but they sit on a segmented VLAN with per client isolation.
If they ever EOL’d them, I’ve got more than my money’s worth, and yes, some of them can be flashed, but I’d probably just buy another well established cheap Chinese competitor.
But I agree, the above is not the use case and situation for every IoT device out there, and there are plenty of devices that I would never consider an internet/SaaS dependent version of e.g. medium to large home appliances.
Slight correction, internet connected devices without an open firmware are a misstake.
‘Eh, I’d have to argue that even open firmware devices are a mistake unless they’re really standardized and extremely popular, which aren’t things you can necessarily know when its early in its life cycle.
Open source things either get a cult following, or get that one lone dev that thanklessly keeps it going and then decides to give up and become a sheep farmer… or both.
Also the internet is the primary attack vector for most devices. I don’t have to worry about someone hacking my devices that just do their job and don’t have internet connectivity.
That being said though, the internet-based devices in the article are simply becoming non-internet-based devices, so my suggestion is kinda a moot point.