https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...ain-disconnected-from-internet-makers-lament/
Appliance makers sad that 50% of customers won’t connect smart appliances

More broadly, smart home (or Internet of Things, or IoT) devices are too often built with an "acquire, upload, whatever" mindset. Take the test models from iRobot/Roomba (up for potential acquisition by Amazon) that uploaded images of someone on the toilet to the cloud. Or any of the dozens of devices detailed in an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers study, a Northeastern/Imperial College survey, or the Mozilla Foundation's "Privacy Not Included" list. The problems are so widespread and varied that the White House has called for universal IoT security labeling.

Appliance makers are eager for buyers to connect their smart devices, but at least some may think they've done the smart thing by letting them work offline.

 

https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/13/lg_smart_life_solutions_strategy/
LG to offer subscriptions for appliances and televisions

 

https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/13/lg_smart_life_solutions_strategy/
LG to offer subscriptions for appliances and televisions

I doubt their business model is going to last ...

 

This is very reminiscent of John Deere. But in many ways it's a back to the future thing.

In the beginning of mainframe computing, hardware wasn't owned, it was licensed. And it was cheaper for IBM (and Amdahl) to install a full complement of RAM in every machine, and have a technician enable it bank wise depending on the contract.

The "soft" version of this, enabling existing capabilities but software "upgrades" or probably just pay-to-reconfigure schemes may just work because the average person has no idea how any of it works.

I am not entirely against the idea of subscription-based software because although it can be abused, it can also be done right, and in a way that benefits both the consumer and the developer.

In the non-subscription model, there is an incentive for the developer to produce major upgrades they can charge for as often as they can manage. Particularly for smaller developers that don't have the luxury of large capital reserves or an income stream from continued high volume sales of existing versions to new customers.

On the other hand, if they can get a monthly payment, or an annual one, they get some cash flow. So long as this represents value to the customer, I endorse it, provisionally.

There are good and bad ways to do this:

The ideal version is one where you are essentially buying maintenance. That is, you own, forever, whatever last paid version you have installed. But, you pay a subscription for some period of dot updates, and either get major ones or a discount on them as well. The developer must also provide any security related updates for as long as such things are being produced, contract or not.

I have several important pieces of software that have a version of this scheme and it's been good.

The very bad version is you are locked into a proprietary cloud-based system that simply becomes inaccessible to you if you stop paying. I have only a couple of examples of this. I am currently in the process of detangling myself from Evernote, for example, because although it has a lot of good things about it, the payment and storage model is not one of them.

It's not so easy to give it up because it has proprietary formats and stores the information, but I am slowly migrating to Craft Docs and will eventually be free of Evernote.

Paying developers in a way that lets them keep developing is to my advantage. This would even be true for a similar maintenance contract for appliance firmware if it followed the ideal model. But, if it is back to the IBM RAM model, paying to configure hardware, in this case, I literally own, that's terrible and I won't buy such things.

At least in IBM's case, it was about deciding on the value of certain configurations. You didn't buy hardware that you couldn't use without a license (see: John Deere), you licensed a certain functionality and IBM delivered it.

One last thought: we use T-Mobile, and one of my sons (five of six adult children are still on our mobile plan, this seems to be the thing nowadays...) chose to pay extra for their "Jump" plan which is a sort of perpetual phone lease. For a fixed monthly cost you can upgrade your phone, free, with a certain frequency. This means he can have the latest and greatest iPhone pretty much at all times. I don't like this, I want to own my phone, but I can see where this is possibly a good thing for many people.

If Samsung or anyone else had a version of this, somehow, for appliances (much harder to manage) where I would get new appliances as the new models came out, it might be worth investigating. After all, if I pay $1000 for a washing machine that will be obsolete in 3 years (from a technology perspective) then paying $350 a year for a new washer every so many months might be a good deal.

Somehow, talking about this feels very gloomy...

 

Under the better late than never heading.
https://www.hackster.io/news/the-cs...etter-security-more-transparency-42c5b3a6bfd9
The CSA's IoT Device Security Specification Promises Better Security, More Transparency
New specification and product mark look to restore consumer confidence in the security of IoT products and services worldwide.

That security is sometimes an afterthought in the rush to get an Internet of Things product to market is no secret: an oft-repeated saw has it that the "S" in "IoT" stands for "Security." The CSA's new specification, then, aims to deliver confidence that an IoT product or service meets a set criteria for security — including unique identities for each device with no hard-coded passwords, a method for storing sensitive data securely, secure software updates through a set support period, and public documentation that must include the length of said support period.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/watch-out-for-this-blue-badge-on-the-next-smart-home-device-you-buy
Watch Out for This Blue Badge on the Next Smart Home Device You Buy

This voluntary program, however, leaves some decisions up to developers. For example, it doesn’t specify a minimum duration for a security support period and classifies automatic software updates as a “should” item instead of a “shall” task. And they can choose whether to have CSA conduct the required testing or do that themselves.

 

IOT as AI has made houses smart and driven govts mad.