My point being, the article lists perfectly good reasons for the app to exist, but you’ve made assumptions about it based solely on absolutely no data. What’s the point of linking an article about an unrelated app and company?
Also, as I recall, that 2nd case about the washing machine turned out to be faulty measurements on the router side.
The app doesn’t have to exist. Calibration can happen via other means.
You’re zeroing in on this one app’s supposed utility, missing the broader, well-documented pattern of issues with app-dependent, cloud-connected devices. The fundamental problem isn’t this specific app, but the systemic risks: data harvesting, planned obsolescence when servers shut down, and companies shifting terms post-purchase. Dismissing valid comparisons because the product category differs is a smokescreen. The concern isn’t an assumption based on nothing; it’s based on a consistent history of consumer-unfriendly practices across the IoT landscape.
Google Nest Secure: Bricked by server shutdown (announced for April 2024).
Revolv Smart Home Hub: Bricked by server shutdown after Nest acquisition (2016).
Vizio Smart TVs: Caught collecting and selling viewing data (settlement in 2017).
Sonos Older Speakers: Attempted forced obsolescence through a “recycle mode” (faced backlash around 2020).
iRobot (Roomba): Privacy concerns over mapping user homes and data sharing (surfaced significantly around 2017-2022, especially with Amazon acquisition talks).
Anki (Cozmo/Vector Robots): Company folded, impacting cloud server access for full functionality (2019).
Cloud-Based Pet Feeders: Multiple brands have had server outages causing failures (ongoing issue, specific examples like Petnet in 2016 & 2020).
Wink Smart Home Hubs: Imposed sudden mandatory subscription fees (2020).
Philips Hue Smart Lights: Increased account requirements and phased out older bridge support (various changes, e.g., original bridge support ended 2020).
My Cloud Home Drives (Western Digital):Local file access blocked during server outages (notable widespread outages in 2021 and 2023).
“Smart” Padlocks: Prone to software/hardware failures and security vulnerabilities discovered (ongoing, e.g., Tapplock issues reported around 2018-2019).
You literally have to establish cloud access first by registering an account or SSO then signing in before even using the app. Then you grant Bluetooth access. You can download the app and see right now.
At ANY point this company can collect your data or do any combination of things from the list I mentioned.
This is how every single IoT company works. This is the standard. You can even tell from the app that they used a shitty templating app that makes this app look the same compared to every other shitty IoT app.
That was my bloody point from the first comment? Without any indication, why make assumptions? I didn’t make any claims, I only pointed out the ridiculousness.
Well that’s a whole load of assumptions based on absolutely nothing…
First example in mind: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/i-wont-connect-my-dishwasher-your-stupid-cloud
And a 2nd one: https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/your-washing-machine-could-be-sending-37-gb-of-data-a-day
My point being, the article lists perfectly good reasons for the app to exist, but you’ve made assumptions about it based solely on absolutely no data. What’s the point of linking an article about an unrelated app and company?
Also, as I recall, that 2nd case about the washing machine turned out to be faulty measurements on the router side.
The app doesn’t have to exist. Calibration can happen via other means.
You’re zeroing in on this one app’s supposed utility, missing the broader, well-documented pattern of issues with app-dependent, cloud-connected devices. The fundamental problem isn’t this specific app, but the systemic risks: data harvesting, planned obsolescence when servers shut down, and companies shifting terms post-purchase. Dismissing valid comparisons because the product category differs is a smokescreen. The concern isn’t an assumption based on nothing; it’s based on a consistent history of consumer-unfriendly practices across the IoT landscape.
Skepticism isn’t an “assumption based on nothing”; it’s pattern recognition.
Nice list!
Is there any indication in the article that this is even cloud dependent?
You literally have to establish cloud access first by registering an account or SSO then signing in before even using the app. Then you grant Bluetooth access. You can download the app and see right now.
At ANY point this company can collect your data or do any combination of things from the list I mentioned.
Great, thank you. Some actual facts. Now I can agree with you.
This is how every single IoT company works. This is the standard. You can even tell from the app that they used a shitty templating app that makes this app look the same compared to every other shitty IoT app.
Is ther any indication that it is local only? Is the product exposed API documented?
That was my bloody point from the first comment? Without any indication, why make assumptions? I didn’t make any claims, I only pointed out the ridiculousness.
You asked why people are pissed off by apps, here is some reasons. I honestly couldn’t care less for that toy belt.
Calibration needs is not an excuse to give up on privacy.