The list is long. Philips Hue for mood lighting. An Aura digital frame to display pictures of my family and friends. Samsung’s Frame TV to show off my landscape photographs. Plus a HomePod in my office, SyngSpace speakers in my bedroom, a connected streaming amplifier, and a few other bits and bobs. It’s not quite the Sharper Image showroom, but you get the drift. 

And whenever I visit the standalone homes of my friends, I see a proliferation of security cameras, doorbells, nanny cams, and baby monitors, among other devices. That's in addition to the photo frames, speakers, and of course, cleaning robots. This wave of connected devices is clearly not ending anytime soon. The recently concluded CES even had companies showing up with connected personal robot assistants, such as the Retriever from Labrador Systems. Most of these devices are packed with sensors — cameras, microphones, and motion sensors, to name just a few. 

IoT, at least, from a consumer perspective, is the new and very personal computing. 

These IoT devices are in our homes, which means they are collecting highly personal data about us. And yet we know so little about them. We don’t know anything about their security, including how they collect, store, and transmit data. Nor do we know who has access to them. (Stacey stressed the need to deal with this in her piece, We should talk about consent in IoT.)

I recently started confronting these questions when I enrolled in a closed beta test for a service from a still-in-stealth startup that monitors networking traffic. I was shocked to see how much data was being transmitted by the IoT devices, and more importantly, how much of it was going to places that made no sense. 

It prompted me to go on an aggressive cleanse, to get rid of all but the most necessary devices (and those with acceptable network traffic patterns) on my home network. Notably, they were devices I'd bought on Amazon, or from other online markets whose provenance is questionable. And while I can’t categorically say that they were indulging in nefarious activities, after removing them from my network, the network traffic emanating from the remaining devices in my home started to make a lot more sense. 

Hoping to learn more, I subsequently found myself going down various rabbit holes on the Internet. There have been numerous reports of vulnerabilities, backdoors, and hacking attempts on these most personal devices, I learned. And the problems seem to be escalating. 

What’s even more troubling is that so many companies are selling the same underlying product made in the same factory under different brands. As consumers, we don’t know what we are getting, even when we pay for a brand-name product. In the home entertainment world, for example, there are big brands that are being forced to transition to connected digital devices. But because they don’t have software or underlying networking expertise, they end up depending on third parties, exposing themselves — and by extension, their customers — to potential hacks and vulnerabilities. 

If the tech world wants consumers to embrace very personal computing, it needs to invest in trust. When writing about this issue previously, I've argued for “terms of trust” over “terms of service.” And it is high time that companies start taking security seriously; otherwise, they will lose consumer trust. Not only do the products have to become simpler to use, but security should be put front and center. When something as basic as changing passwords is a chore for the user, it's time to make improvements. 

As a former journalist, I know that companies aren’t going to make changes all on their own; they need to be forced. Perhaps it is time media outlets started forcing their hands. I want to see product reviews that dig deeper, that look at product security, data privacy, and the simplicity (or lack thereof) of the user experience. The vast majority of devices and the apps that come with them should be judged not just by what they do, but how well they do it. That includes maintaining the sanctity of our personal spaces — and our data. 

When the personal computing revolution started, we were a naive and optimistic little clique of explorers and adventurers. Today, personal computing is for everyone, everywhere. We need to refocus and reimagine how we think about these highly personal computing products if we want the next era of computing to begin.

Om Malik is partner emeritus at True Ventures, an early-stage venture capital group based in Palo Alto, Calif.

As IoT continues to dominate our world, there’s an ever-increasing business need to connect the physical and digital ecosystems with a frictionless user experience.
 
Rightpoint believes the business opportunity lies in pairing a human-centric approach with cutting-edge connected device solution development, offering clients end-to-end IoT services, from concept to consumer. 
 
Learn more about how leading organizations like General Motors, Chamberlain, Sanofi and more are leveraging IoT to create more meaningful experiences.

By Kevin C. Tofel

President Biden this week added public support for the “right to repair” movement that’s picking up steam in the U.S. His commentary follows last year’s announcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that, in an effort to combat monopolistic repair tactics, the regulatory group would be restoring the right to repair devices. All of which is great. But true success will depend on the details.

Based on the Twitter replies to President Biden’s statement, I would estimate that about half the responders really don’t understand what the right to repair is. Many said they don’t have the time or skills to repair broken devices, for example. But that’s not what it's about. Rather, it's meant to allow users to repair their devices themselves, if possible, and get third parties to repair them if it's not. Essentially, companies can’t create products that are nearly impossible to fix (leading to replacement purchases being made earlier than necessary) or limit the information needed for repairs.

Indeed, limiting the information needed for repairs has been a hot topic of late. John Deere, for example, is facing two lawsuits because the plaintiffs believe they should be able to repair the farming equipment they purchased from the company.

Like many connected device makers, John Deere uses proprietary software to add the smarts to its tractors. As a result, farmers don’t have the information or access needed to repair their equipment themselves. Their only choice is to contact John Deere and wait for service, something that can quickly, and negatively, impact crops.

Not a farmer? Here’s another situation you might be able to relate to, which is thankfully the opposite scenario.

Suppose you break an iPhone display and there’s no right to repair it, Apple (and only Apple) can fix it. Apple would have a monopoly on repair services and prices of parts. That’s luckily not the case and is why you might see phone repair kiosks at your local shopping mall or in town. Often, these repair services are much cheaper than Apple doing the work, and it creates jobs. 

From an IoT perspective, the right to repair poses a significant challenge, for several reasons. The first is that consumers lack easy access to connectivity chipsets and radios as well as the boards needed to fix connected devices. Plus most people wouldn't know how to actually replace these components even if they could easily obtain them. The second is that they have limited access — or none at all — to the highly integrated software and cloud services needed to keep these devices working as intended. And finally, device companies can go out of business, leaving consumers with useless hardware and no recourse.

A framework for how the right to repair can work comes from my experience with now-defunct robot maker Anki.

In 2018, I bought a Vector robot made by Anki. This cute, connected little robot had integrated Alexa capabilities, multiple cloud-based functions, and a personality. Less than a year later, however, Anki went out of business, shutting down its cloud services and its software support. Which meant that all the little Vectors were going to be put out to pasture, as buyers had no way to keep their robots alive.

Along came a crowdfunded effort to save the day. A company by the name of Digital Dream Labs solicited enough relatively small donations to buy Anki’s intellectual property and immediately took over the servers needed to enable the robot to keep working.

But Digital Dream Labs didn’t stop there. It now offers Vector hardware sales, extended warranties, and even the ability for consumers to run their own local servers to keep Vector smart and agile. The company also offers reasonably priced monthly ($7) and yearly ($47) memberships that provide robot-related cloud services. 

Yes, one could argue that Digital Dream Labs has a monopoly on Vector repair and operating services. But that would overlook the SDK and local server options the company offers alongside its subscription service. Anyone could buy them and run their own Vector robot, with their own integrations (if they have the requisite knowledge), without ever having to rely on Digital Dream Labs.

This situation worked because the community and a company came together. It was practically a best-case scenario.

Such a Hail Mary is unlikely to emerge for customers of John Deere or other large enterprises. And while the right-to-repair effort would benefit from some type of escrow mandate for code and any related information needed to keep connected devices alive, there’s an inherent roadblock there, particularly for large companies: By open sourcing their code, they make the “secret sauce” of their connected devices and proprietary services available for all to see.

To illustrate the issue, here’s an overview of how John Deere’s connected tractors work:

“Sensors built into the equipment made by John Deere track soil moisture, equipment performance, and even the pressure with which seeds are pushed into the ground during planting. Wi-Fi or low-power wide area networks can be used to collect data and send it to a gateway that connects to the cellular network. Tractors connect directly to John Deere’s cloud using cellular modems.”

The company not only makes the tractors but integrates sensors into them during production. And it created its own software and algorithms to collect, monitor, and analyze important data. It’s a classic example of vendor lock-in. So how would a for-profit company maintain that advantage while also making its code available publicly?

Perhaps, in this case, we can turn to Apple again for an example of potential solutions. The company has authorized service vendors that have more information about Apple’s products and services than the public do. After all, how else would they know how to properly repair devices or get replacement parts?

Apple hasn’t open sourced anything, but it has made information available to authorized third parties. Deere and other big companies could do the same, but they probably don’t want to. After all, by controlling the information and material resources for repairs or replacements, they control the pricing. To combat anti-consumerism, a policy that requires a third-party network of repair technicians would be invaluable.

Oh, and in case anyone at the FTC is reading: Using the Vector outcome as the ideal scenario, please build in details requiring authorized third-party repair options that allow consumers the information and options they need to repair those connected devices. We would all be better for it.

This week’s show starts with a healthy portion of chips, with the main course being Nvidia’s reported acceptance that its deal to acquire ARM isn’t likely to happen. We then turn to the U.S. Commerce Department’s plans to combat the chip shortage crisis, new ML chips from Silicon Labs, Google’s first TinyML Coral microcontroller, and an Arduino-like RISC-V product. Feeling full from all of this chip ingestion we discuss how Peloton is trying to work out its excess inventory challenge. Two smart tracking companies raised some funding this week: Pebblebee on the consumer side and newly launched Tag-n-Trac for shipping and logistics. We then discuss how Thread turned the Wemo Stage controller from “meh” to “must-have” and share details of new Philips Hue fixtures.

Our guest this week is Oisin Hanrahan who is the CEO of Angi, the home services company formerly known as Angie’s List. He’s on the show to talk about startling data his company discovered late last year. According to Angi’s data, for the first time ever, smart home investments were in the top three home improvements made by homeowners. Hanrahan explains what homeowners are doing and why they are willing to invest in more technology. He also offers advice to device makers who want to attract the pro-installer business and makes recommendations on how pros think about the smart home. It’s a great interview.