You likely don't own any of the software you run (unless you wrote it yourself), but you likely do own the device (depending somewhat on where you live and where you bought it). You just may own a...
The reality is when you buy a device that requires proprietary software to run, you don’t own it. The money you hand over is an entry fee, nothing more.
You likely don't own any of the software you run (unless you wrote it yourself), but you likely do own the device (depending somewhat on where you live and where you bought it). You just may own a bricked/useless device whose firmware prevents you from servicing/repairing it yourself. Locking hardware access/features behind DRM or access control is basically the same thing the right-to-repair movement has been fighting against for many years now. Some governments are starting to wise-up to this with legislation that prohibits the most user-hostile forms of DRM.
Beyond DRM, though, a problematic trend, as this article alludes to, but doesn't actually spell out explicitly, is internet-connected devices that default to receiving over-the-air updates that change the functionality of the device after purchase, that the operator didn't explicitly ask for. This "smartification" of electronic devices is, indeed, problematic. Does a television need to run software? Of course. Should that software ever need to be updated through the useful life of the hardware it shipped with? Before the internet, TVs shipped with firmware and basic software that let the operator change its settings without the need for any software updates whatsoever. Hell, TVs had no way to connect to the internet at all! Was the interface very basic? Sure. Was it sufficient? Absolutely.
You can't buy a new TV today that doesn't run oodles of software on some ARM SoC that runs an OS with a networking stack and expects to always be connected to the internet. I went through this a couple years ago and you can't buy a television with good hardware specifications that isn't also "smart". I ended up getting an LG model as it shipped with a version of WebOS that lets you opt out of the advertising, tracking, and auto-update features. TVs from Samsung, Sony, etc. were not so considerate.
For me, the real easy answer to this problem was to just not connect my TV to the internet.
You can't buy a new TV today that doesn't run oodles of software on some ARM SoC that runs an OS with a networking stack and expects to always be connected to the internet. I went through this a couple years ago and you can't buy a television with good hardware specifications that isn't also "smart". I ended up getting an LG model as it shipped with a version of WebOS that lets you opt out of the advertising, tracking, and auto-update features. TVs from Samsung, Sony, etc. were not so considerate.
For me, the real easy answer to this problem was to just not connect my TV to the internet.
Be careful with this. HDMI devices can forward their internet connections over HDMI to other devices and some do this without telling the user. One user on HackerNews reported that (I think) his...
Be careful with this. HDMI devices can forward their internet connections over HDMI to other devices and some do this without telling the user. One user on HackerNews reported that (I think) his Xbox was connecting his TV to the network over HDMI without him realizing it.
That's good to know. It just really surprised me. It may not have been an Xbox, that's just what I thought I remembered. I tried to look it up, but their search wasn't coming up with any results...
That's good to know. It just really surprised me. It may not have been an Xbox, that's just what I thought I remembered. I tried to look it up, but their search wasn't coming up with any results with the terms I used, unfortunately. I'll see if I can clarify what device it actually was.
EDIT: I think it was this discussion. It looks like they were speculating about a Roku or similar device potentially implementing it, but didn't actually say it does.
Many internet-of-things devices (even cars) have their own cellular modems that you can't easily disable. Sure, if it just prompts you for your WiFi credentials, and you deny it (and it is not so...
Many internet-of-things devices (even cars) have their own cellular modems that you can't easily disable. Sure, if it just prompts you for your WiFi credentials, and you deny it (and it is not so user-hostile that the software lets you proceed after that point), then that's an option. But, it already isn't an option in some cases.
I've only seen this on IoT devices that have actual features driven by it (i.e. cars). I've never heard of a TV shipping with one. It doesn't make financial sense when only tiny amounts of...
I've only seen this on IoT devices that have actual features driven by it (i.e. cars). I've never heard of a TV shipping with one.
It doesn't make financial sense when only tiny amounts of advertising revenue are involved. You have to pay for the extra hardware, and you have to pay the cell carriers for the data.
These practices are all about maximizing profit. When 98% of your customers are just going to plug their TV into the internet, why spend so much more money and effort trying to capture usage data for that last 2%?
It's maddeningly difficult to find out what sorts of "smart" appliances actually have as far as hardware and I/O. I know many commercial refrigerators/freezers already are using embedded LTE...
It's maddeningly difficult to find out what sorts of "smart" appliances actually have as far as hardware and I/O. I know many commercial refrigerators/freezers already are using embedded LTE modems. I'm sure it's coming to consumer IoT devices as soon as the costs come down.
The link you provide is to a product page for a line of embedded modems but I don't see where it says what fridges/freezers use them.. Wireless devices that operate on these frequencies have to...
The link you provide is to a product page for a line of embedded modems but I don't see where it says what fridges/freezers use them..
Wireless devices that operate on these frequencies have to get a lot of extra certification from the FCC. If a manufacturer isn't disclosing this functionality then they are likely to find themselves in pretty hot water. It should be pretty easy to find the FCC ID of any device look it up online. Here is this year's iPad Pro and it's WiFi Only Version.
They don't list their customers (edit: but they do list some of the applications for these embedded modems), but I know in commercial fridges/freezers (say the ones used to store biological...
I don't see where it says what fridges/freezers use them..
They don't list their customers (edit: but they do list some of the applications for these embedded modems), but I know in commercial fridges/freezers (say the ones used to store biological samples in a laboratory, or ones used to store food in a restaurant), these are becoming standard. They are set up to provide notifications in case the temperature drops below some threshold and it will automatically send an alert to someone.
If a manufacturer isn't disclosing this functionality then they are likely to find themselves in pretty hot water.
Oh, I'm sure they have gone through the regulatory rigamarole. I'm not saying any appliance makers are pushing this technology surreptitiously. I'm just saying the trend is manufacturers making appliances unecessarily complicated and internet-connected.
It's 2021 and you don't own most of the gadgets you buy. How many devices do you own that have just stopped being usable or useful because they depend on a service that no longer exists?
It's 2021 and you don't own most of the gadgets you buy. How many devices do you own that have just stopped being usable or useful because they depend on a service that no longer exists?
I think that's the bigger worry, at least for the moment. As one very prominent example, Google has discontinued ("killed") several of their products, and they have shown that they are willing to...
How many devices do you own that have just stopped being usable or useful because they depend on a service that no longer exists?
I think that's the bigger worry, at least for the moment.
As one very prominent example, Google has discontinued ("killed") several of their products, and they have shown that they are willing to do so even against the backlash of people who are happy with the service. Even Google-powered hardware is not exempt from this. Source
My continuous glucose monitoring system has sensors that the system uses to sense/scan blood glucose via interstitial fluid. The sensors are normally limited to 14 days of use, after which they expire. Prior to June 2021, there were third-party apps that could restart the sensor, and they showed no appreciable change in accuracy.
I'm quite sure there are other examples that I've missed, but I can't think of them right now.
My dad has diabetes and we were looking at different sensors for him to monitor his glucose levels and I told him to get just a basic one and keep a note in his phone with the numbers. There are...
My dad has diabetes and we were looking at different sensors for him to monitor his glucose levels and I told him to get just a basic one and keep a note in his phone with the numbers. There are all sorts of app based ones but I told him it was silly to spend $200 on a device that would be useless if the company disappeared or discontinued it.
I recently my smart home equipment from Apple's Home platform to Home Assistant for this reason. I've been slowly moving away from cloud based equipment and toward locally hosted devices (currently only my security system and door locks are cloud based). But even then, they're just a software update away from being useless.
I never cease to be amazed at how many people are willing to sign up to an unknown website and agree to have their personal health data uploaded to it without any understanding of what will happen...
My dad has diabetes and we were looking at different sensors for him to monitor his glucose levels and I told him to get just a basic one and keep a note in his phone with the numbers. There are all sorts of app based ones but I told him it was silly to spend $200 on a device that would be useless if the company disappeared or discontinued it.
I never cease to be amazed at how many people are willing to sign up to an unknown website and agree to have their personal health data uploaded to it without any understanding of what will happen to it. Why the $#% would I want to share my blood pressure with the internet? What would that get me? I could see sharing it with my doctor, or a specific family member who's helping me manage my symptoms, but there's no reason it needs to go on a server owned by a company that will sell it to the highest bidder.
You likely don't own any of the software you run (unless you wrote it yourself), but you likely do own the device (depending somewhat on where you live and where you bought it). You just may own a bricked/useless device whose firmware prevents you from servicing/repairing it yourself. Locking hardware access/features behind DRM or access control is basically the same thing the right-to-repair movement has been fighting against for many years now. Some governments are starting to wise-up to this with legislation that prohibits the most user-hostile forms of DRM.
Beyond DRM, though, a problematic trend, as this article alludes to, but doesn't actually spell out explicitly, is internet-connected devices that default to receiving over-the-air updates that change the functionality of the device after purchase, that the operator didn't explicitly ask for. This "smartification" of electronic devices is, indeed, problematic. Does a television need to run software? Of course. Should that software ever need to be updated through the useful life of the hardware it shipped with? Before the internet, TVs shipped with firmware and basic software that let the operator change its settings without the need for any software updates whatsoever. Hell, TVs had no way to connect to the internet at all! Was the interface very basic? Sure. Was it sufficient? Absolutely.
You can't buy a new TV today that doesn't run oodles of software on some ARM SoC that runs an OS with a networking stack and expects to always be connected to the internet. I went through this a couple years ago and you can't buy a television with good hardware specifications that isn't also "smart". I ended up getting an LG model as it shipped with a version of WebOS that lets you opt out of the advertising, tracking, and auto-update features. TVs from Samsung, Sony, etc. were not so considerate.
For me, the real easy answer to this problem was to just not connect my TV to the internet.
Be careful with this. HDMI devices can forward their internet connections over HDMI to other devices and some do this without telling the user. One user on HackerNews reported that (I think) his Xbox was connecting his TV to the network over HDMI without him realizing it.
Devices that support HEC are exceedingly rare. I'm struggling to find any evidence that the Xbox supports it.
That's good to know. It just really surprised me. It may not have been an Xbox, that's just what I thought I remembered. I tried to look it up, but their search wasn't coming up with any results with the terms I used, unfortunately. I'll see if I can clarify what device it actually was.
EDIT: I think it was this discussion. It looks like they were speculating about a Roku or similar device potentially implementing it, but didn't actually say it does.
Many internet-of-things devices (even cars) have their own cellular modems that you can't easily disable. Sure, if it just prompts you for your WiFi credentials, and you deny it (and it is not so user-hostile that the software lets you proceed after that point), then that's an option. But, it already isn't an option in some cases.
I've only seen this on IoT devices that have actual features driven by it (i.e. cars). I've never heard of a TV shipping with one.
It doesn't make financial sense when only tiny amounts of advertising revenue are involved. You have to pay for the extra hardware, and you have to pay the cell carriers for the data.
These practices are all about maximizing profit. When 98% of your customers are just going to plug their TV into the internet, why spend so much more money and effort trying to capture usage data for that last 2%?
It's maddeningly difficult to find out what sorts of "smart" appliances actually have as far as hardware and I/O. I know many commercial refrigerators/freezers already are using embedded LTE modems. I'm sure it's coming to consumer IoT devices as soon as the costs come down.
The link you provide is to a product page for a line of embedded modems but I don't see where it says what fridges/freezers use them..
Wireless devices that operate on these frequencies have to get a lot of extra certification from the FCC. If a manufacturer isn't disclosing this functionality then they are likely to find themselves in pretty hot water. It should be pretty easy to find the FCC ID of any device look it up online. Here is this year's iPad Pro and it's WiFi Only Version.
They don't list their customers (edit: but they do list some of the applications for these embedded modems), but I know in commercial fridges/freezers (say the ones used to store biological samples in a laboratory, or ones used to store food in a restaurant), these are becoming standard. They are set up to provide notifications in case the temperature drops below some threshold and it will automatically send an alert to someone.
Oh, I'm sure they have gone through the regulatory rigamarole. I'm not saying any appliance makers are pushing this technology surreptitiously. I'm just saying the trend is manufacturers making appliances unecessarily complicated and internet-connected.
It's 2021 and you don't own most of the gadgets you buy. How many devices do you own that have just stopped being usable or useful because they depend on a service that no longer exists?
I think that's the bigger worry, at least for the moment.
As one very prominent example, Google has discontinued ("killed") several of their products, and they have shown that they are willing to do so even against the backlash of people who are happy with the service. Even Google-powered hardware is not exempt from this. Source
My continuous glucose monitoring system has sensors that the system uses to sense/scan blood glucose via interstitial fluid. The sensors are normally limited to 14 days of use, after which they expire. Prior to June 2021, there were third-party apps that could restart the sensor, and they showed no appreciable change in accuracy.
I'm quite sure there are other examples that I've missed, but I can't think of them right now.
My dad has diabetes and we were looking at different sensors for him to monitor his glucose levels and I told him to get just a basic one and keep a note in his phone with the numbers. There are all sorts of app based ones but I told him it was silly to spend $200 on a device that would be useless if the company disappeared or discontinued it.
I recently my smart home equipment from Apple's Home platform to Home Assistant for this reason. I've been slowly moving away from cloud based equipment and toward locally hosted devices (currently only my security system and door locks are cloud based). But even then, they're just a software update away from being useless.
I never cease to be amazed at how many people are willing to sign up to an unknown website and agree to have their personal health data uploaded to it without any understanding of what will happen to it. Why the $#% would I want to share my blood pressure with the internet? What would that get me? I could see sharing it with my doctor, or a specific family member who's helping me manage my symptoms, but there's no reason it needs to go on a server owned by a company that will sell it to the highest bidder.