38
Why the Ultrarich Are Unplugging from "Smart Homes"
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
38 points (97.5% liked)
Hacker News
1268 readers
994 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
The problem has nothing to do with a rejection of the tech. It has everything to do with vulture capitalism and regulatory failure. It's the same reason why most average people haven't committed to smart homes; nobody wants to use a dozen apps — a dozen walled gardens — to control their devices, lose manual control of core functionality, or commit to spending hundreds/thousands of dollars on a company or system that could be abandoned within years (or a products usable lifespan).
This is a prime example of corporate greed shooting itself in the foot. If an open standard like matter was established (and committed to) from the start (10-15 years ago), the industry would be hundreds/thousands of percent larger. Now it will be an uphill battle, as most people interested in the tech have been burned by the greed.
I think that both things are at play here - what you said about regulatory failure, and rejection of the tech. And they're interconnected.
A more complex system (with more parts and/or more complex parts) will have more points of failure, and failures will be harder to fix. And while a lot of this additional complexity is caused by that greed that you're talking about, some is intrinsic - for example if you want lights that turn on/off from a cell phone, you need some sensor in the lightbulb, that wouldn't exist otherwise, and that sensor can and will break.
Sure, but if it wasn't for vulture capitalism trying to cut every cent possible, it'd be a minor increase in cost to make these systems degrade gracefully. Then at worst it'd still function as the equivalent 'dumb' device.
Without capitalism the increase in cost would be smaller for sure, but depending on the item it would be still meaningful. For example, the dining table from the article still needs a hydraulic system to go up and down, that isn't exactly cheap.
Instead I feel like the biggest harm of capitalism is shoving the tech even where it doesn't make sense to have it, and then telling people they need it. You don't need a smart toilet when a simple button does the trick.