[shinratdr]

> What makes you think you won't get a doorlock that gets stuck in an open/close loop and just oscillates, allowing a burglar to just stick their shoulder against the door and wait for the bolt to retract?

Door locks are security theater anyways. If someone really wants to rob you, it's not difficult to get into a house.

> Are you going to remember to check after every firmware update? Are you even going to know if a firmware update is issued?

No, for the same reason I don't check if my computer requires my specific password every time I log in. I'm not that paranoid.'

> Will it still be magical if you get declared a legacy customer and your door is programmed to unlock and stay unlocked?

That has never happened. Even in the example you cite, they caved and offered users a full refund.

> Myself, I'd prefer a door lock that locks only when locked, and unlocks only when the correct key is inserted into it. I've /certainly/ seen one too many crazy software errors to believe in a stove that has the ability to turn itself on and off.

Go for it. While you're at it, make sure you don't get a car that has a remote start or an unlocking keyfob, or a safe that unlocks with a code. Wouldn't want that scary technology near your locks.

[Sir_Substance]

>Door locks are security theater anyways. If someone really wants to rob you, it's not difficult to get into a house.

That doesn't compute. If that's the case, then why pay for a smart doorlock? Just stop locking your door.

>That has never happened. Even in the example you cite, they caved and offered users a full refund.

They caved in and offered a full refund /for the hub/, which is the minority cost. No refunds on the compatible bulbs, thermostats, etc that it was made to work with.

>While you're at it, make sure you don't get a car that has a remote start or an unlocking keyfob, or a safe that unlocks with a code.

You're trying to be sarcastic and paint me as a luddite, but you don't know the domain you're opining about. You really /don't/ want a car with a remote start mate, they're already well broken and have been for years: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/style/keeping-your-car-sa...

[shinratdr]

> That doesn't compute. If that's the case, then why pay for a smart doorlock? Just stop locking your door.

Your insurance company might feel otherwise. Security theatre serves a purpose, but acting like a deadbolt is some amazing security measure is ridiculous.

> They caved in and offered a full refund /for the hub/, which is the minority cost. No refunds on the compatible bulbs, thermostats, etc that it was made to work with.

Which is why standards are good. Buy ZigBee bulbs and compatible items. Lack of standardization is common in all new industries. Taking one token example and using it to paint the entire concept as bad is also ridiculous.

> You're trying to be sarcastic and paint me as a luddite, but you don't know the domain you're opining about. You really /don't/ want a car with a remote start mate, they're already well broken and have been for years.

I'm well familiar with the issues with remote start. I'm also familiar with the ability that spark plug has to thwart a traditional key.

Once again, if you want to steal a car it's not hard. This is what I'm talking about. For some reason people insist on holding digital locks to this ridiculous standard, when we all know that 99% of consumer locks are intended to "keep honest people honest" and not to actually thwart a real criminal.

Digital/IoT locks meet and exceed that standard IMO. You're letting perfect be the enemy of good, and it does come off as luddite FUD. "I'm scared of this change and what it could do, so better to just stick with the devil I know."