AI folly

I like chocolate. I like Rich Tea biscuits

Exactly. You can't just glom AI onto a product and expect it to be "better". You have to consider what you are providing, at the end of the day.

Expect to see even more of this as vendors try to sort out how to capitalize on AI -- poorly!

But, using that as an excuse to pitch products ("On sale, now, at...") sends the wrong message to the consumer: "You're not helping me but, rather, trying to exploit me" (How do I know that you haven't been selling my consumption data to the very people who want to sell me products??)

Devices that talk to the outside world should always be suspect in regards to what they may be leaking about you and how they might be influenced by those folks -- who, likely, have THEIR interests at heart!]

I think and hope here is a trend towards simple things with simple controls. We don't need phone apps to turn on the lights or flush the toilet.

Now that makes excellent sense.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

IMO, those are not technical failures. Rather, they show how current economy works. Remember, goal of a businesses is to make money. Delivering working product is just cost of doing business. And as business improve, there is tendency to cut costs.

Software (especially in USA due to DCMA) is very attractive as a means to lock down customers into using specific product. Of course, software is also a cost effective way to deliver various features (useful or not). So manufacturers want many features in software. And there is long tradition in software developement to cut cost on testing: just let customers test your product.

The products in the article clearly represent things that businesses want to sell. Some people will buy them because features look attractive to then. Other will buy once there are no alternatives.

The comments aren't focused on whether they "work" or not. But, rather, the consequences of their potential adoption.

A camera in a doorbell, connected to a server owned by a third party, can technically perform as intended. But, now adds privacy and security issues where they didn't, before.

Ditto "nanny cams", voice assistants, etc.

All can "work" remarkably well. But, have serious costs that the user may not be aware of.

Note that the reviewers are not commenting on the ability of a product to make money. Rather, their assessment of the downsides of the products from the consumer/societal perspective.

Bottled water is a wonderful way to make money -- selling tap water in convenient, disposable plastic containers. But, that doesn't mean it's an idea that folks should champion.

I didn't see any comments regarding how well/poorly the products performed. Rather, the unseen consequences of their "specifications" (ignoring execution).

You *know* that law enforcement agencies contact "camera servers" to obtain video that they use for their purposes, often without the knowledge of the provider of that video.

If manufacturer A makes privacy "guarantees" today, will they be honored, tomorrow? Or, will the "fine print" of a future firmware update change those terms knowing most users won't notice what they've agreed to? If the company is sold, will the new owner be bound by the terms from the previous owner?

In the US, there is no current legislation protecting your privacy in these devices -- even if the result of the intermediary being maliciously hacked and YOUR data stolen. I.e., there is no downside to the manufacturer with regard to that aspect. Yet, the manufacturer can monetize that data as he sees fit.

And, others will NOT buy them because they don't welcome the features and their attendant price increases.

What does the manufacturer do when/if that becomes a real concern? A new model with those features removed??

Many of these companies see stock market money as the thing to be made, not profits. 'Line go up' == success. The CEO will exit before investors discover that lines also go down. The investors are also piling in on a 'line go up' basis, rather than a sober reflection on the potential market, revenues, profit, costs, etc.

It seems like the companies are skipping the 'doing things customers want' stage and moving straight to the 'make $$$$' stage, which is possible when there are ever more gullible investors to throw money at them (or you can skew the market enough such that index funds etc will roboinvest in them).

Theo

Don Y wrote: |--------------------------------------------------------------| |"Bottled water is a wonderful way to make money -- selling tap| |water in convenient, disposable plastic containers. But, | |that doesn't mean it's an idea that folks should champion." | |--------------------------------------------------------------|

A radio broadcast during 2025 alleged that a scientist recently discovered evidence that plastic bottles cause a health problem.

(S.

Possibly. But Feeping Creaturism costs money. Every development dollar spent on features that don't improve sales is a dollar diverted from {Advertising, Research, Development, Stock Buy Backs, etc.}

One has to wonder if the "Marketing" folks actually understand their markets or if they are just reacting to the latest fads.

Our refrigerator has three evaporators and an autofill water pitcher, accessible through-the-door. Both are definite "wins" in terms of utility. I have no idea how anyone could think there was a need for WiFi or BT! What value-added, that?

But reality eventually catches up in terms of profit/loss statements. Investors move on to the next "scammer", unceremoniously abandoning their "investment" in your firm.

I think these things (WiFi in appliances, AI, "Family Hubs", etc.) boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology and its "value added". Like chocolate covered pistachios (NOT pistachio NUT MEATS but actual pistachios -- the nuts you INTEND to pry open with your fingertips but can only do so after you have LICKED off the chocolate).

It will be interesting to see if "AI" becomes a term to be avoided as job losses attributable to AI become more prominent.

In message <slrn10m1ehc.3j0.${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-i@vm46. home.jusme.com>, Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com>

writes

The biscuit is merely a substrate to carry the chocklit .

Well, that is a feature, not a bug. Business wants to get private data.

Yes, exactly.

Yes, business bets they they will be able to monetize data that they collect.

I am affraid that this will not be a real concern to manufactures. At worst they will charge premium for devices without data collection capabilities. And do not forget power of state and insurers: today insurers offer lower premium for cars that report to them various driving events, that may be vastly expanded. Similarly, state can mandate use of equipement that collect data about you.

I think that majority of people that undertand those issues are against such developement. But a lot of people do not understand. And powerful forces in USA work to make sure that popular dissatisfaction does not lead to any meaningful oposition.

That's a matter of perspective :>

Being able to read my encrypted messages would likely be a feature from the perspective of whomever is trying to do so; but, a BUG from my perspective!

But, that works until folks experience a downside of that practice. Its only a matter of time before there is a serious, UNHIDEABLE security breach that causes people to rethink how much of that data they are silently allowing to leak.

Imagine someone hacking Amazon's servers and causing EVERY Alexa to start uttering profanities.

Or, turn on every oven that has its C&C at the manufacturer's site instead of "locally controlled".

Unless people avoid those products and manufacturers NOT engaging in those practices emerge to capture that market.

That's a tougher nut to crack -- at least if you KNOWINGLY disclose that to be your intent in such a mandate. With enough motivation, people will find other ways to get the "services" they want without the "costs" imposed.

My ISP *could* track my traffic.

But, would be helpless to see what I do with an unregistered phone accessing the internet from some other "open" location. Does my doctor's office know who I am when I connect to their WiFi and "accept their usage terms"? They could possibly determine which phone/wireless device was used -- but, could you tie that to me??

Yes, but all you need -- in this day of influencers -- is for someone with a large following to take up an issue and drag their followers (sheep) along with them.