The Internet of bricks
The Revolv "M1" home-automation hub was one of many products designed to bring home control to the Internet. It is able to control lights, heating, and more, all driven by smartphone-based applications. The product was sufficiently successful to catch the eye of the business-development folks at Nest, who acquired the company; Nest was acquired in turn by Google, and is now a separate company under the "Alphabet" umbrella.
The acquisition of Revolv seemed to be driven primarily as a shopping expedition for engineering talent. Revolv's engineers were quickly moved over to Nest products, with little of interest happening with their own product line. But, as can be seen on the cheery note on the revolv.com front page, the distraction of Revolv's engineers goes beyond neglect of their older products:
Purchasers of Revolv hubs, who might have been under the mistaken impression that they owned their devices, may be less than incredibly excited to learn that, in just over one month, they will be left with inactive electronic waste. They may have deployed these devices in distant homes that will be difficult to get to in time, or they may have just had the devices to play around with. Either way, it is understandable that they would feel like they have been unfairly dealt with.
One might be tempted to point out that abruptly shutting down programs and services is becoming a standard Google technique. The "MyTracks" Android app was once allegedly open source; Google has pulled the source off the net and pronounced that, as of April 30, it will simply cease to work. It is one thing to decide to stop providing a free network service; it's another to vandalize an app (or a device) that should be fully capable of running on its own. But, in any case, this problem goes beyond Google (or, more correctly, Alphabet).
Much of the Revolv system is built on free software; the company's (still available) open-source licenses page suggests that the whole thing is based on Ångström Linux. If Revolv customers actually owned their devices, they would be able to keep that base system running themselves, even if the (presumably) proprietary higher-level software was remotely disabled. But, on a locked-down system, the freedom that comes from using free software has been taken away. Customers are in possession of a box that runs Linux and has home-automation capabilities, but those capabilities are no longer available to them. Free software has not prevented the bricking of this device. Similarly, the release of MyTracks as free software has not kept it from being remotely disabled.
The real problem with both Revolv and MyTracks is arguably the network-service component. But neither should need that component to be able to perform most of its functions. The Revolv hub should be able to carry out its basic functions without recourse to any sort of Internet service at all; how else is it going to work if the network connection is down? About the only thing that might be at all challenging is remote control from an app that is not on the local network. On a free device, there would be a way to replace that service, but that is not the situation here.
The situation with MyTracks is similar; there is no need for a network service to collect location data. Displaying it uses the same mapping APIs many other apps use. There is no reason why it had to be remotely shut down. Truly free software would not support that sort of antifeature, but, when one runs proprietary software, that level of control is lost. The surprise, perhaps, was that MyTracks, as found in the "Google Play Store," was still a proprietary product, even if it was allegedly free software.
What can we learn from this experience? We didn't really need reminders that proprietary software can act against the interests of its users, but we have one here anyway. Maybe, someday, there will have been enough cases of bad behavior in proprietary software to create a market for consumer devices that are fully open, but that day does not appear to be coming soon. Until then, people with the necessary skills can often create their own systems, but that is not an option for the bulk of people who do not have the skills, the time, or the interest to do that.
Given that devices running proprietary software can so easily go dark (or turn actively malicious), it would seem that a great deal of caution toward "Internet of things" gadgetry is warranted. Toys are fun, but perhaps one's cookware or toothbrush do not need to be connected to the net at this time. For any such device, one should ponder what would happen if it abruptly ceased functioning, or all data that it is able to report were to end up in hostile hands. Do not assume that the presence of free software makes a device more free, trustworthy, or supportable.
It would not be surprising if Alphabet/Nest were to back down, temporarily
at least, on the Revolv shutdown; this is the kind of thing that attracts
class-action lawsuit lawyers in the US. But this action is a clear example
of what it means to lack control over devices that you have purchased; when
that control lies elsewhere, others will inevitably abuse it. We know what
is needed to build a network full of devices that we can at least hope to
trust — openness and freedom — but we have not yet succeeded in making
that point outside of a
narrow technical community. Unfortunately, it may take a number of
high-profile incidents before the world understands.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 3:54 UTC (Thu)
by gnu (guest, #65)
[Link] (4 responses)
It didn't completely render the device useless in my case, though for all practical purposes, yes, because watching YouTube on TV was my only use with the device, especially while my daughter was younger and wanted to watch the cartoons. Google decided to change their APIs and Apple decided not to implement in on older AppleTVs, so again, a textbook case of a network service, that one does not control, rendering the device useless. In my case, the device wasn't running Free Software too, so I was totally out of luck.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 13:12 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Apr 14, 2016 9:11 UTC (Thu)
by Zolko (guest, #99166)
[Link]
I also have the Sonos app on an android phone, which I duly updated in another location, and now the Sonos system refuses completely to function with the Android app, not even in degraded mode.
So this is not about the Internet or proprietary stuff, it's an american business practice. No need to say, I won't buy anything anymore from US companies, at least nothing that has "Internet" in it. These are completely useless requirements apart from blackmailing clients into perpetual payment.
Posted Apr 14, 2016 16:36 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Cheers,
Posted Apr 14, 2016 16:50 UTC (Thu)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Here's the cluster: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ps3-air-force-usaf-playstatio...
Posted Apr 7, 2016 5:26 UTC (Thu)
by cas (guest, #52554)
[Link] (36 responses)
The solution to this is regulation, legislation, and most importantly at all criminal charges of trespass, vandalism, and sabotage, and theft for the companies involved **and** the responsible individuals within those companies (the managers who made the decision, not the workers required to carry them out).
and yes, i do mean **criminal** charges. this is not just a matter for civil law. google is planning to sabotage property belonging to other people, deprive them of the ability to use the products they paid for. If anyone did that to google's property, they'd be subject to criminal charges. google should be too.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 9:15 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link] (34 responses)
If such legislation were enacted, the trivial solution for $MEGACORP would simply be to include an EULA-type agreement with their hardware that states that you don't own it, but rather that you are paying for x years of service. It would be similar to how cellular phone contracts work in many countries---you don't own the phone, it's given to you as a courtesy when you pay for the service.
Given that such a high proportion of IoT devices seem to be special-purpose computers designed to deliver a service, and not much use without the service---I wouldn't be surprised to see a cellular phone-type market being used with these devices, once they gain some traction.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 9:39 UTC (Thu)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Apr 7, 2016 10:02 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link] (14 responses)
Thinking of these things as *devices* is misleading. The important bit of the IoT abbreviation is the I, not the T. If manufacturers notice that they can market their Things as *services*---such that the physical device is incidental, merely a way to deliver the service---they they will surely get away with it. They might be so kind as to give you a new Thing every two years---as long as you keep paying your contract---similar to cellphones.
Many ISPs in the UK supply you with a locked-down router that is hard-configured to use the ISP's DNS servers, etc. and is thus useless if you switch providers. Others give you a general-purpose router but then stipulate that you must either return it to them or buy it from them if you cancel your contract. This is the sort of perspective that I'm talking about---where the physical object is considered by the service provider to be merely a way of delivering service, and should not be useful to you if you no longer wish to use the service.
It took me a while to understand this, because I obviously know that smartphones and IoT devices are general-purpose computers. But manufacturers will stop at nothing to ensure that the general public *do not understand this*. The ideal world for them is where an $X box is a thing which is only capable of delivering the $X service, and so it won't seem at all inappropriate for $XCORP to own the box---what on earth else could it be used for? Why on earth would I want a $X 1.0 box when $XCORP has discontinued the $X 1.0 service and is now offering the new shiny $X 1.1 service?
Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:15 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
This story is repeated again and again and again. First with phones (yes-yes, for more than a century people haven't owned then phone and had no means to buy phone from anyone else except AT&T - remember acoustic couplers?), then cellular phones, now IoT. First server side and client side components are tightly tied together, then, slowly, they are decoupled more and more and in the end server and client become totally separate entities. IoT here is a bit perverted since initially people were convinced that they are buying "things" and service would come for free (haha: who would pay for it? TANSTAAFL, you know), but the idea still stays: as long as server and client are tied together they would come as package deal.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 15:22 UTC (Thu)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Apr 7, 2016 16:51 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link] (8 responses)
Agreed, but
> The phone is not useful without the network. The router or the IP TV set-top box is not (that) useful without the network.
s/the network/a network/g
If your implication is that it is fair for some devices (but not others) to be tied to a service---I disagree with both of your examples.
You should be able to switch your phone/router/Nest to use a different carrier/ISP/home automation service. For example, in many countries, one can easily use a different cellular carrier by changing the SIM card in one's mobile phone. But in the USA, you cannot do this, because phones use CDMA, which (as I understand) ties the phone to one particular carrier.
It would be wonderful if somebody could create the OpenNest service that owners of Nest devices could switch to, either if their devices are bricked, or even if OpenNest is better than the built-in offering. This would foster competition, and reduce obsolescence: this is a very important point that Dianne made above. Of course, this won't/can't happen.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 3:46 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (7 responses)
Actually, AT&T and T-mobile are GSM and the phones are able to move between them. Verison and Sprint use CDMA, at least mostly. I've heard that at least one of them is now offering GSM/SIM based service.
The biggest issue has historically been the phone service contract that included and hid the cost of the phone. Thanks to T-Mobile, that has changed over the last 5 years or so and now phones are a separate purchase (with financing available) from every carrier.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 18:39 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 9, 2016 1:19 UTC (Sat)
by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
[Link] (4 responses)
It is the other way around, almost. The phone is locked to the carrier. The phone will reject any SIM that doesn't have the correct country/carrier prefix.
Posted Apr 9, 2016 2:59 UTC (Sat)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 9, 2016 10:06 UTC (Sat)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (1 responses)
The point of the exercise is to prevent people from getting a cheap subsidised phone from carrier A and then (more or less immediately) moving to carrier B. Since carrier A uses your monthly fees to recoup the cost of the phone (think of it as an installment plan) it is in their interest to keep you on the books at least until you have paid off the subsidy. If you do want to move to carrier B before the minimum duration of your contract is up and want to keep the phone, carrier A graciously lets you buy out your contract with them in a single payment in order to remove the “net lock” on your phone.
If you provide your own phone when you become a customer of carrier A to begin with, then that phone will naturally not be net-locked to carrier A because carrier A has no subsidy to recoup, so the issue doesn't arise.
Posted Apr 14, 2016 10:33 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Which is why, in the UK at least, it's presented to the customer as "a single monthly payment", but internally they account for it as two separate parts, the network service contract and the Hire Purchase contract. You can't cancel the former without paying off the latter.
And it was normal practice - I don't know if that's changed - to continue collecting the "single monthly payment" at the original rate even after the HP part had expired ... :-( Actually, I think they now usually pro-actively offer you a new phone a few months before the old HP expires, and roll the lot over into a new one ...
Cheers,
Posted Apr 10, 2016 5:13 UTC (Sun)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
Posted Apr 10, 2016 5:12 UTC (Sun)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
Verison and Sprint are the last bastions of the old way of doing business, but even they have changed recently. I don't use either of them, but I know that my friends who do are now getting phones with SIM cards in them, so I think they are slowly migrating their networks over.
Posted Apr 14, 2016 10:28 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
I'm not aware of any such routers ... not that things might have changed since I last got a router, but EVERY ISP router that I've dug into has a *default* ISP-supplied config, that can be easily changed using the standard manufacturer software.
And as far as that sort of behaviour goes with phones - I believe it is illegal in the EU. I've never had a locked phone from my supplier, unlocking is easy, and the phone company is, afaik, LEGALLY OBLIGED to provide an unlock code on request at the end of a contract.
However, given the way most people use their phones today - a full charge will last a day, a battery will last 1000 cycles, and - ahem iphones I'm looking at you - the battery is not a user-replaceable item (even where it is, most people won't bother), then it's no surprise the majority of people renew their contract to get a new phone every couple of years.
What we need - and hopefully will soon get - is legislation like in the car industry that says spare parts *must* be available (at a reasonable price) for at least 10 years after the car ceases production...
If the regs simply say that support must be available, hopefully manufacturers will suddenly realise that outsourcing this to the likes of RedHat, SuSE or Canonical makes a lot of sense ... :-)
Cheers,
Posted Apr 14, 2016 15:35 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link] (1 responses)
http://aaisp.net/broadband-support.html
But they supplied a very basic router (no wifi, one LAN output) on the assumption that I would already have my own switches etc., and it didn't come with any documentation. That was years ago, and they do now have a broadband package specifically for "home" users, so this may have changed.
The Tesco one was the same, you couldn't configure anything, so it was unable to run a server for multiplayer video games (for example). I've not had more experience than that, but I assume that the complete inability to configure anything is the reason why my entire neighbourhood runs wireless networks called LINKSYS-34FB9C5.
Yes, unlocking phones is trivial in the UK (many corner stores do it for a nominal fee), although phones are locked by default. But this isn't true in other locations around the globe, and indeed in many countries there is only one or two telecoms providers anyway, so they're able to strong-arm their customers however they like.
Posted Apr 15, 2016 20:14 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
What they do say is that if they send you a router, you have to pay for it if you leave within a certain time (a year or two?) after getting it. This seems reasonable enough to me: the router did cost them money, after all.
(Note: VDSL routers before BT went to a wires-only policy were locked down, but this was *BT's* policy, not A&A's.)
Posted Apr 7, 2016 14:11 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (17 responses)
Wait until auto manufacturers catch on to this idea.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 14:28 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link] (16 responses)
I could see that going one of two ways:
I'm really hoping that self-driving cars disincentivise individuals from buying and owning cars, and instead use some kind of hybrid taxi/bus system: you tell the service where you are and where you're going, and the service provider calculates the optimal route for a self-driving minibus to take in order to maximise the number of passengers who want to take a similar route at the same time. It would be the best of both worlds of taxis and buses: the economy of buses, without the wastage of empty buses, and with the availability of taxis.
This is "cars as a service", but without any conceit: you KNOW it is a service, and you are not under the impression that you own anything.
The other way it could turn out is that even more people buy cars to own, and manufacturers sell the cars at a very cheap price in order to get people hooked on the service (which of course must be paid for). There are so many service add-ons which might come with a car, and which you might expect that you "own", but which might be turned off at any time from the cloud:
- Traffic prediction which is "better" than the competition
People WILL expect these services to be *part* of the car, and they WILL get angry when somebody at megacorp switches them off permanently.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 15:08 UTC (Thu)
by renox (guest, #23785)
[Link] (12 responses)
Right, a taxi/bus system is going to be very easy to use for me when I want to go to a park with my three babies, very practical <shake head>.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 15:21 UTC (Thu)
by jmspeex (subscriber, #51639)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Apr 7, 2016 22:15 UTC (Thu)
by renox (guest, #23785)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 0:37 UTC (Fri)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 5:32 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (7 responses)
No worries though. The job done by one drivered van with three baby seats can also be done by three driverless cars with one baby seat each. For in-town trips anyway.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 5:33 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2016 11:04 UTC (Thu)
by callegar (guest, #16148)
[Link]
Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:54 UTC (Fri)
by renox (guest, #23785)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:07 UTC (Fri)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link]
But a self-driving taxi fleet does offer so many opportunities for parents! Do you have any idea how expensive it is to buy a push-chair, then sell it and buy a two-seater pushchair when you have a second child. Buy a bigger car, then buy another one when your child takes up skiing or playing the double-bass. Plus the hassle of baby chairs as pointed out above.
Not having to own any of this stuff would save so much money. Need a car with three baby chairs? Call one out, just for you. It'll be more expensive than using a bus, but much less than owning exactly the right type of vehicle for epsilon years and then selling it at a loss.
Big companies can afford to own one of every esoteric type of car due to economies of scale. When you stop needing it, the next parent/kayaker/big-game hunter/regular commuter/whatever can use it.
Posted Apr 8, 2016 17:11 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:28 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:54 UTC (Fri)
by renox (guest, #23785)
[Link]
.. a assumption not currently valid in my case (<2 year old twins) but which won't be the case for a very long time.
That said, for taxis (automated or not) I would be very nervous not having baby seats, even if the driver is perfect, the other drivers aren't perfect so..
Posted Apr 14, 2016 1:29 UTC (Thu)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link]
Posted Apr 7, 2016 18:34 UTC (Thu)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (2 responses)
Even in the US where car ownership is a big deal, I think people will adjust, if the price is right, say $50-$100/mo, which is substantially less than owning, licensing, maintaining and fueling a private car.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 19:06 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link] (1 responses)
I would imagine that you'd need both in the USA. As an example: people who live around Cambridge, UK are highly discouraged from driving inside Cambridge even if they live in the surrounding countryside (because Cambridge streets are narrow and congested). There are large car parks on the outskirts of the town, with adjacent bicycle racks and bus stops, and inconvenient diversions for private cars inside the town. So people drive from their rural homes to the outskirts, and then ditch the car and ride a bike or bus into town.
I would imagine a similar setup would work quite well for self-driving cars: you drive yourself from your rural home to the outskirts of the big city, where self-driving buses await to take you to your workplace downtown.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 19:19 UTC (Thu)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
[1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/archives/m...
Posted Apr 14, 2016 9:21 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
In the long run, I do expect the market to solve it; right now, people treat the "free service" part of an IoT gadget as a positive for that gadget - it increases the perceived value as compared to a paid service or a service you run yourself.
As the market gets more sophisticated, the risk of shutdown becomes something you price into the device; a $0.05 networked lightbulb that'll stop working when Google give up on the service is a very different value proposition to a $50 networked lightbulb that'll stop working when Google give up on the service, and both have to compete with the $5 dumb lightbulb and the $100 networked bulb where the service is fully documented so that you can run your own servers using purely Free Software if you care. If the "free" service from Google is seen as a NPV cost of $100 ($5 to replace with a dumb bulb, $95 to make up for the loss of networked bulb features), then it stops competing with the Free Software bulb at $100, even if the bulb from Google is free.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 15:01 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (3 responses)
The trend towards making electronic equipment disposable is a disaster. Electronics contain all kinds of nasty things from arsenic to heavy metals and companies really should be making them last as long as possible. But they just externalize the environmental costs; under that economic model, it makes sense to produce throwaway products.
Posted Apr 7, 2016 18:32 UTC (Thu)
by alvieboy (guest, #51617)
[Link]
Alvie
Posted Apr 14, 2016 8:58 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (1 responses)
That's what ROHS 2002/95/EC and WEEE 2002/96/EC are about within the EU; the former obliges manufacturers to minimise their use of nasty things, the latter obliges manufacturers and distributors to collect any waste equipment that they sold for recycling, and puts an obligation on them to prove that they did not sell it if they don't want to collect it. It also puts financial penalties in place if you don't recycle enough of the equipment you collect.
WEEE in particular is a neat bit of law; it's recursive, so the manufacturers and distributors of the components you use have the same obligations towards the pieces they sold you as you do towards your customers. Thus, if you design your kit to disassemble easily, your suppliers have to collect the components they sold you for recycling, and you are left with your unique parts to deal with - if you (say) produce a tablet using a PCB of your own manufacture, a casing of your own manufacture, and components from suppliers, you can desolder all the parts you soldered to the PCB (and return them), return any modules you bought (e.g. a screen), and just have the PCB and casing to handle yourself. The buck stops at the edge of the EU; if you import from outside the EU, you don't get the recursion, but you do have the obligation to recycle.
Hence, over time, it encourages design for recycling - don't build a disposable phone that has to go in landfill when it breaks (because you're obliged to collect it from the municipal waste it ends up in, and then recycle it), instead design one that you can recycle.
Posted Apr 14, 2016 10:44 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
So the consumer sees it all very transparently - the old freezer broke, it gets taken away by the people who supply the new one - no need to worry even if the shop has anything to do with the old manufacturer - it's the shop's problem.
Cheers,
Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:35 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
I wonder to what extent people were misled. Did people really buy this thinking they were getting the legal right to control their houses forever? For even 2 years? Or did they know their rights were tied to the whims of Resolv and just took a risk?
Posted Apr 9, 2016 16:59 UTC (Sat)
by joey (guest, #328)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 13, 2016 7:05 UTC (Wed)
by shane (subscriber, #3335)
[Link]
I think your point still stands, because the centralized gateway is still necessary in the general case, since vendors can assume IPv4 works for everyone's phones and tablets and so on, but they cannot yet assume that IPv6 is supported everywhere.
Even if they could, vendor lock-in is a GOAL of vendors. Centralized service is a big plus when they go to potential investors....
Posted Apr 10, 2016 18:58 UTC (Sun)
by iam.TJ (guest, #56644)
[Link]
3. Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc.
Sub-section 2 says:
(2) This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data; or
(d) to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.
Anything similar in the U.S.A. ?
Posted Apr 19, 2016 3:02 UTC (Tue)
by lxoliva (guest, #40702)
[Link]
I also object to the statement "Free software has not prevented the bricking of this device". If the users were denied the essential freedoms over the software installed on the device, then it was NOT Free Software for them, even if other copies could have been, even if they got the source code and the source code was Free Software. That's one of the fundamental differences between Free Software and Open Source: software that's no longer Free Software because it was locked down still meets the weaker Open Source Definition. It has nothing to do with whether it is under a copyleft license either; the same applies to lax-permissively-licensed software installed on a device without freedoms for the user. But it goes to show why the anti-Tivoization provisions in GPLv3 are key to protect users' freedom, and why it's so unfortunate that the kernel Linux rejected that protection.
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
Wol
The Internet of bricks
Report on OtherOS support and the cluster: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/how-removing-ps3-li...
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
At least, that is my experience. Here in .au you can purchase an unlock code from the carrier to unlock you phone - it gets cheaper as time goes by and I think has to be free after 5 years or something. I've done that a couple of times.
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
Wol
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
Wol
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
- Inter-car communications with cars of the same or different brand, for better anticipation
- Access to a special "self-driving car only" lane on the highway, where cars are permitted to drive faster if they are safer
- Subscription to music/movies/whatever for the passengers
- GPS tracking in case your car is stolen
- ...
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
Plus the baby seats would have to be standardized: babies doesn't like change and parents doesn't like to learn a new fixation system each time they want to move.
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
If driverless cars work as reliably as mobile phones do, going around is going to get interesting.
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
The Internet of bricks
Disastrous for the enviroment
Disastrous for the enviroment
Not sure something similar exists in USA. I always thouhgt it did.
Disastrous for the enviroment
Disastrous for the enviroment
Wol
The Internet of bricks
Purchasers of Revolv hubs, who might have been under the mistaken impression that they owned their devices
The Internet of bricks
IPv6 and IoT
Computer Misuse Act
Revolt M1