Is it smart to go smart?

Smart houses are not just on the way, they are already here. Voice activation is reaching critical user base, and many devices in the home are already “smart”, although perhaps not in the sense one thinks when uttering the phrase smart home. After all, what does an X-Box or Playstation contribute to the household besides playing games or acting as the media hub?

Beyond these however, come the truly smart appliances – coffee makers that can respond to commands from your central voice hub. Toasters that know just when (and how) you like your toast. Convection ovens that monitor not just temperature and timing, but actually “smell” ingredients using sophisticated chemo-sensory. Theoretically, all to free you, the mundane human, to do – whatever is left for humans to do.

All have an issue that plagues any connection technology – privacy. Where once our awareness pointed toward hackers stealing passwords and then accounts, now it is quickly becoming apparent the real threat is by design. Yet, for all of the creepy data mining, targeted marketing, and if nothing else clogging up our home bandwidth these devices are guilty of, it seems the biggest issue for now is they just do not do their job of making life easier. At least Ms. Kashmir Hill thinks so (1).

I’m going to warn you against a smart home because living in it is annoying as hell.

All respect to Ms. Hill, but I could not disagree more. I once shared her opinion, and voiced it vehemently at the Future of Design Conference, Boston 2013. In the opening forum, Ms. Luria Petrucci spoke of a vast new field – the internet of things. Various examples were given, but one outstanding to yours truly was the smart ladle. As described, the smart ladle would relay temperature to a dedicated smart phone app – allowing the user to… know the temperature of their soup. I found this stupid beyond measure, and an outrageous waste of R&D that could have produced any number of things. Exactly what was smart about a connected soup ladle when any common thermometer from the last century would do the same job faster and more reliably?

When it was time for questions, I voiced my concerns, proud of being the one voice not impressed by whiz-bang tech that did nothing beyond wasting time and money. Ms. Petrucci changed my mind with one word: “Market”. It is a simple word, but it is the ultimate factor in deciding what technology stays and what goes. Consider:

1. New technologies have one common factor – they are expensive for early adopters. Not only expensive to purchase, but to maintain, operate, and install. This expense further compounds when inevitable subsequent (incompatible) iterations from the originator or competitors reach critical market saturation.
2. It follows that most of the less eager, less wealthy, or simply more apathetic public tends to wait for these market forces to realize, before then buying in themselves. If an internet-connected device proves to have only novel value, the market will eliminate it.
3. Following the expense of money is the expense of consequence. Smart houses are a potentially dangerous technology. In a similar vein to smart phones, the public may begin blissfully unaware of the privacy concerns. Eventually however, the public will educate itself by proxy just as it has with phone and computer devices. Once this happens will use of smart home technologies falter? If smart phone use is an indicator, statistical data says no. According to Pew Research Center, over 97% of the population owns a smart cellular device (2).

 

Even so, the factors of expense and consequence will combine to form a potent three tier Market regulation (caution, value, and backlash), one of the four primary regulatory forces according to Lawrence Lessig Code 2.0 (3).

Conclusion? The spoon ladle might sound silly (because it is), but the concept is sound. Develop a device, take it to market, and let the buyers determine its validity.

Ms. Hill made the same mistake I did – viewing a singularity out of context. In her case, an over-saturated house equipped not for life, but an experiment. In the quest to gather data on the data devices gather, she inundated her household with technology for its own sake. This is a recipe for failure regardless of the venture. It is not unlike blaming a hammer for sore fingers or flimsy houses.

Judging solely from the most basic of smart appliance statistics (14%, projected to 22% over the next four years) (4) the public at large has already decided that smart houses are neither annoying nor impractical. I have only the bare minimum of “smart” appliances in my own home. However, judging by the simple 1-2-3 of if it sells, and keeps selling after the novelty has worn off, I am still inclined to think Ms. Hill is jumping the gun on her conclusion.

1. Hill, K. (2018, February 07). The House That Spied on Me. Retrieved from https://gizmodo.com/the-house-that-spied-on-me-1822429852
2. Mobile Fact Sheet. (2018, February 05). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
3. Grimmelmann, J. (n.d.). Internet law: Cases and problems. 41 – Code 2.0
4. Smart Appliances – United States | Statista Market Forecast. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/outlook/389/109/smart-appliances/united-states#