>
actually useful... however, is that there isn't an incentive for utilityI hope this is something we start recognizing more broadly. Even the 'scary' features of these things could be useful and preserve privacy.
I can think of a half-dozen IoT, voice control, or "Smart Home" features I would really like to have. But in practice, not only am I unwilling to make the privacy tradeoff, the existing solutions are made noticeably lower-quality by their monetization and data gathering. As a basic example, IoT products should (obviously!) work offline for all functionality that doesn't actually need an internet connection. But even a Chromecast won't function on a local network unless it's allowed to call home constantly. People sell lightswitches that cease functioning without a nonstop internet connection. That's insane.
Worse, my ideal use cases would all involve heavy integration between devices. When that's available at all, it's based on attempts at ecosystem lock-in. Not only does that give one company extensive data, it destroys any market competition or ability to choose the products and features I want. Even the crudest tools for integrating for this stuff don't work. IFTTT is "user friendly", but half the supported components can't be used as triggers/inputs without joining their developer program.
The monetization and privacy issues with this stuff aren't just a cost for the service, the way TV ads are. They actively destroy value. I would pay a massive premium for no-data-gathered hardware with robust APIs, but without wiring my own devices from scratch, I can't.