| I think I understand where you are coming from, and I've thought similarly before. But billion-dollar companies have been made almost purely on "NAT punching". I've written the code, and it's more complex than it seems. And RE: your lightbulb example, I love it, because it I will now use it to illustrate how even seemingly simple devices require ongoing software maintenance. Is it using a wireless protocol compatible with other devices? Does it use encryption/authentication (e.g. to keep the neighborhood hacker kid from controlling my lights)? Does the setup process require interoperation with a changing set of personal devices (phones, etc)? All of these things could require software updates, see e.g. heartbleed. And if you have a software update system, it now needs maintenance as well... Not to mention if consumers want their hardware investment to continue paying dividends through new software features. That part should definitely be opt-in and open to competition. But those engineers you hire to maintain your software aren't commodities. They have shifting interests, bills to pay, and boot-up time to re-remember all of the old code. Costs will be lower to keep them employed and making continuous improvements once a product reaches sufficient scale. Competition would prove out which model is best, though, so no need to think too hard about it, we just need to improve antitrust/competition law. |
You've changed my mind a bit about the update capability - I suppose any wireless protocol necessitates a software update capability because it's exploitable remotely (e.g. from outside the house), and you'll never get it bug or vulnerability free the first time.
But this then calls into question the utility of consumer-level IoT as a whole. It's nice to be able to operate devices remotely from wherever you are, but this immediately creates a very large category of problems.
> Competition would prove out which model is best, though, so no need to think too hard about it.
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced of that, for several reasons. Information asymmetry - non-tech consumers can't evaluate these products, so vendors designing bad products have competitive advantage. Thanks to recurring revenue, service-backed devices can be at much lower price points than their service-independent counterparts, and most customers are very price-sensitive. Add in surveillance and data mining, and the price can be lowered even further. User-hostile business models have a distinct competitive advantage, because they offer immediate benefits but the costs are deferred. Therefore, I don't think competition alone is going to solve it.