What is /g/'s take on the Internet of Things?

Frivolous attempts to insert computers into random things that don't need them.
If anything was more obvious as a marketing ploy, it was this.

>>52243232
An even further realization of cyberpunk reality that we're already living in, where everything is listening to us and collecting our data for big companies to squeeze every last bit of profit out of us. I don't think it's just a fad either. The "internet" is going to be keep being shoehorned in to more and more things as time goes on.

File: ten out of ten journalism.png (940KB, 1138x844px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 1138x844px

>>52243232
>the verge

File: 1450680640703.jpg (142KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x720px

>>52243299
Youre dead right. There is nothing,no matter how ridiculous or unnecessary that capitalism wont exploit and hype in order to make a quick buck.


Just watch the sheeple jump at it though.

Just like they did with "social" media.

Some things sound kind of cool to hook up to the Internet, but some are retarded. All amount to being way too expensive.

Also, even my 9 year old brother could come up with the fact that this would make it piss easy for hackers to fuck your shit up. How come normalfags can't?

>>52243232
When the cloud hype began I thought: wow, this is definitely the most retarded thing I will see in my lifetime. Now, with the advent of IoT all bets are off.

I think there is value in it, particularly for extreme situations. I can see the military loading people with computers that track an monitor their status, perhaps hostpitals. Other places where peopel are in serious danger. Otherwise, there are many applications for it, and I feel that it is going to become more pervaseive as time goes on.

I worry about the increased tracking potential of it all though. Many of these Internet connected things report, guess where? To a central server owned and controled by a corporation. This not only makes it easier to monitor the communication, but simple for outside entities to exploit users.

I do not want a thermostat that sees whether people are in my house, if it also happens to tell anyone but whom I explicitly ask it to, that the house is empty.

These things should be set up to communicate to the user's own server. Probably it need not be something that big, Just to manage connected devices, and hanlde communications to the owner remotley.

I should not be calling google and telling them to preheat my oven, or asking what is in my refridgerator, I should be callig my house. Google should not know. If in order to receive the functionality, I must tell google what is there, then I do not want the functionality.

IoT don't have to be retarded
Some things definitely have use for it as it makes automated infrastructure a lot easier
The problem is usually with companies attempting stupid shit like smart jackets or other retarded shit like that which really ruins
Also smart homes definitely have a shot at not being retarded as long as you can control it yourself

>>52243741
Baaa Baaa

Insecure tracking devices.

>>52243876
>>52244296
Did you both forget that sensor networks and home automation are already a thing?

>>52244780
Did you forget that most new tech is just taking old ideas and rebranding them for mass consumption?

>>52244798
Yeah, that was implied already, thanks mr. autismo...

>>52243576
Link to article I wanna read this shit

>>52245121
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22I+don%27t+care+if+you+landed+a+spacecraft%22