Smart homes are still broken and surprisingly interoperability is not an issue. The problem is that when it comes to connected devices, consumers are buying hardware that acts like software. And unlike hardware, which fails in fairly predictable and established ways, software fails in opaque and surprising ways. This disconnect is difficult to categorize. It can sometimes feel like you don't actually own or rely on the connected devices. And if we want things to improve for consumers, both manufacturers and regulators need to step up.
When you buy a connected light bulb, you expect it to behave like a light bulb. When it breaks, I think it will break just like a regular light bulb would. If you drop it, the glass may break. Maybe the LED is burnt out.
However, connected devices break down in a completely different way. For example, if the smart home controller you use to manage a light bulb stops communicating with that light bulb, it will break. Or it could fail when the light bulb company goes out of business and stops providing software support. Or, as is the case with Philips Hue, you recently changed your policy to require users to create an account to use your Philips Hue bulbs, but you no longer follow the new terms introduced by the company that manufactured the lights. If you decide you don't want it, the light bulb will break. valve.
Another example is the smart speaker Echo. We asked Alexa to “Trigger her dance party,” and the music and lights turned on in her living room and kitchen. This started a problem last month when Alexa stopped supporting his IFTTT integration. Thanks to the manufacturer of my garage door opener's decision to cut off API access to everyone, my garage door isn't immune to failure either.
Physics and contract law
Recently, a smart home broke down because an executive somewhere decided to change the terms of a business agreement that governs how connected devices communicate with each other. These types of contract disputes are common in the digital world. Witness the recent battle over access to television programming during the U.S. Open while Disney battles with Charter over cable rates.
But in the physical world, we are used to products breaking down according to the laws of physics and chemistry, rather than contract law.
As more devices can connect to the Internet and fewer devices are sold without an Internet connection, the question of how to maintain functionality even when business contracts change becomes more important. In many cases, the loss of functionality is the nuisance, rather than the loss of functionality of the product as a whole, making it even more difficult to understand how to preserve the buyer's right to obtain a product that works as expected. Become.
But you should try it. While a purchaser of Samsung's Family Hub refrigerator was originally able to use the Google Calendar feature to manage his day on the appliance, Google changed its calendar API and Samsung updated the refrigerator's software. It's not right that it took months to complete and lost its functionality. Explain the changes. Also, I bought the Chamberlain myQ garage he opener because it could connect to the Google Home app, but after Google changed the way it handled his API and Chamberlain decided it didn't support that change, the connection dropped. It's also not right to realize that you're going to be treated like that.
Chamberlain has a history of ending partnerships and integrations that were advertised alongside smart garage door openers, impacting functionality for users who already own them.Photo by Jennifer Pattison Tuohy/The Verge
Although not dramatic, in such use cases the device is broken. And you never know what will break next.
So what can you do about this? There are several things manufacturers can do. For example, you can increase user expectations by treating a connected device like a subscription rather than his one-time purchase. Alternatively, manufacturers can pre-arrange payments and contracts with partners to ensure that the product will work for a certain period of time after the user purchases it. Another common cry whenever a smart device stops working or is deprecated by a software update is that all of these products work locally, without having to connect to a remote server somewhere. There is a need.
Keeping everything on your local network is certainly an option for people who run certain types of networks or want to set up their own servers, but it's not for everyone. As Matter is adopted across the industry, we may see some improvements here as new devices that can provide basic functionality locally are introduced into homes. However, consumers need solutions that meet most consumers' needs for most connected products. Think of this as establishing a baseline of good device operation. This requires updating laws and regulations.
There are three potential policy options that currently exist or are being considered. The option currently available is for the Federal Trade Commission to use its authority to intervene. The second option relies on the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming cybersecurity labeling program to create robust minimum warranty support obligations for consumer IoT devices. The final option is some type of federal Right-to-Repair law that deals with software and hardware.
Will the FTC save us?
The FTC's great power in preventing connected devices from breaking down in unexpected ways stems from its ability to deter unfair and deceptive acts and practices. This is the stick the FTC used to investigate Google in 2016 when it announced it was shutting down Revolv hub just 18 months after Google acquired the device maker.
For buyers who spent $300 on a smart home hub, Google discontinuing the product would mean a complete loss of their investment. The FTC agreed and allowed Google to shut down Revolv hardware, while issuing a blog post with several questions for manufacturers to consider when developing smart products. Unfortunately, seven years later, most companies still don't have public answers to these questions.
In 2016, the FTC published a blog post asking manufacturers to answer a series of questions when designing connected devices. In 2023, the answers for many products are still unknown.
The FTC's question is:
Do you sell devices, services, or both? What do you tell consumers you're selling? Do they rent or subscribe, or do they own and sell devices? Are you buying something that you can trust for the life of the device? Does a reasonable consumer expect to be able to continue using it? If you drive away, will the device still be fully functional? Do consumers expect their devices to have a “use by” date? What consumers would reasonably expect based on their experience with similar devices? What did you tell the consumer at the outset? Or, if not, what would the consumer expect? What security should you provide over the life of the device? What about?
Generally, the FTC considers three things when considering whether to pursue a company. Is the behavior causing harm? Is it inevitable? And is that outweighed by offsetting benefits to consumers and competition?
This is where this particular policy falls short. Is it harmful if a software calendar stops working on your refrigerator? Why sell a $50 garage door opener in February that says “Works with Google” on the box, then discontinue that feature a few months later? Is it a deception? What if in the future, manufacturers of garage door openers remove the label from their packaging, as Ring has done for years with his HomeKit, but never do it while promising such interoperability? What happens if you don't admit it?
Or, in the case of Signify, a company that rolls out Philips Hue branded lighting and home security accessories, is it deceptive to sell a product to consumers and then ask them to provide new information to keep the product years later? . work? Is it unfair to hold product buyers hostage to find their email addresses?
While these countless examples are vexing to the FTC, few rise to the level of being worth the FTC's time or attention. But for owners of smart home technology, this is a death in a thousand. Because their products work in ways that destroy the functionality of your home or demand more than they are willing to provide.
And given whether harmful or unfair practices are unavoidable, consumers are choosing to buy smart products and believe that they could otherwise avoid such uncertainties. Some might argue. Warning Empter still applies.
Rethinking the right to repair
Therefore, the FTC may no longer be the best option for consumers. But the Right to Repair movement may offer hope. Most current right-to-repair laws focus on hardware, ensuring that buyers of connected devices have access to physical tools and diagnostic software to repair their products.
But Kyle Wiens, iFixit CEO and right-to-repair advocate, says software will likely be the focus of future right-to-repair efforts. He points out that companies stop providing security updates after a certain point, leading to product end-of-life, and that companies tie hardware and software together so that buyers can't replace the hardware without risking a pair of software parts. It points out problems with rings, etc. Your device may become corrupted after a new software update.
“In the future, there will probably be a fundamental right to disconnect from the internet no matter what you buy,” Wiens says. The idea is that even if a manufacturer stops supporting security updates or shuts down a device, all connected devices retain some core functionality. While this may be useful for use cases like Revolv and Hue lights, most of the value of connecting something to the internet is being able to establish relationships with other devices and web services.
Currently, three states have enacted hardware-centric right-to-repair laws, but there is no federal law addressing how software can be used to prevent repairs or surprise users when a software contract is broken. That would be helpful.
Paste the paper with the label on it
And finally, the FCC is working to create a cyber label for consumer connected devices focused on ensuring the safety of these products. The FCC is currently in the midst of a rulemaking process that is considering what labels should look like, what they mean, and how consumers interact with them.
As part of that process, the FCC required that a supported minimum lifespan be listed as part of the label. This minimum support period guarantees security updates for connected devices for a period of time.
There is a lot of value in forcing manufacturers to disclose to consumers how unstable their connected devices are.
If this support period also includes a guarantee that the device's initial API connectivity (unless the participating company dies) and its functionality will remain intact, the user will be able to connect the calendar for at least several years after purchasing the refrigerator. We can guarantee that you can. . It's hard to justify adding software warranties to cybersecurity labeling programs, but there's a lot of value in forcing manufacturers to disclose to consumers how unstable the functionality of connected devices is. .
Having a legal obligation to share how long a device will remain secure, or how long a manufacturer is willing to invest in cloud services and engineering time to keep the device performing as expected, is an important part of today's connected device market. This is an important element that is missing. And this is not just an issue that harms consumers who buy smart products. It limits the market.
Right now, we just don't know if we have the political will to protect smart device buyers. However, we believe that manufacturers are recognizing the value of adding connectivity to automobiles, appliances, and smart home products. So we need to start thinking about how internet connectivity changes what we buy, and not just how it works, but also how it breaks. For many consumers, without a set of rules to increase the reliability of connected devices, it probably makes sense to stick with a stupid product.