"There is probably
no act, for instance, which does good to anyone without doing harm to someone
else, and vice versa." (Sir W.D. Ross) The case I’m going to touch base on
is in regards to a business disabling other merging company’s product and how
it will affect job roles and consumer base products. Nest a division within
Google is a home automation producer of programmable,
self-learning, sensor-driven, Wi-Fi enabled thermostats, smoke detectors, and
other security system which started up in 2010. They teamed up Revolv who
specialized in a smart proprietary hub
that offers consumers control to lights, thermostat,
speakers, smart-plugs, shades, sensors and etc.; you are basically connecting
everyday objects with the cloud and smart phone in your home. You are basically connecting everyday smart
home devices with the cloud and smart phone. The two companies’ merged for
Revolv’s talent rather than its products or users. The new team is to help work
on improving API (application program interface) which will have to do with a set
of routines, protocols, and tools for building some new software applications
for the autonomous home. The new partnership comes with great value to some but
what about the others which are the consumers who help bring fourth this idea
buy having confidence in the maker by purchasing the hub. As of May 15, 2016 Revolv service will no
longer be available; as far as the app will not open and the hub device will
not work after being sold as a lifetime
subscription. Google/Alphabet could afford to support these
devices throughout their entire useful lives. Cloud backup companies that sell
data protection plans to consumers always include verbiage that deny said users
the right to recognize any value from said data in the event the service loses
or destroys their backups. The security issues raised through poor IoT devices
is large and getting larger, and that’s before we get to the privacy
implications.
This is where Ross’
theory prima facia (Latin term) which means consideration when deciding which
duty should be acted upon and how the greatest good can apply towards a ones
best interest written in The Right and the Good. There are seven duties that
apply to this methodology which are Fidelity, Reparation, Gratitude, Non-maleficence,
Justice, Self-improvement and Beneficence. I feel that W.D. Ross’s theory
applies to the Nest disabling Revolv hub by making themselves better with
self-improvement which is what Nest is looking to broaden their own future in
autonomous product line. The real problem is that Nest’s decision sends a
pretty clear message that you just can’t rely on IoT (“Internet of Things”)
things. The shortsighted decision to pull the plug on the Revolv hub won’t
inspire confidence in other products for future consumers whom familiar with
how this company does business with its consumers. Beneficence is the theory
for improving the condition of others like IoT which is the constant renewed
innovator that is supposed to help us be more energy sufficient by saving
electricity, water supplies, expand the healthcare field, make our homes and
cars safer. In one aspect we are a nation of disposable electronics the fight
is for technical perfection and seamless production. W.D. Ross referred to these duties as
guidelines like justice he felt there should be a fair distribution of pleasure
or happiness but depending on the situation who should this duty really apply
towards. So Revolv’s original warranty on hardware was one year, which Nest has
honored and all warranties have now expired. Revolv services will cease while
product data will be erased on May 15, 2016 and till this present day the countdown
is still on for home owners. Revolv was always a start-up, and it didn’t reach the
top scale like most start-ups do, so some of its assets were acquired by a big
company. The impending of Revolv shutting down was handled not too tastefully,
but it now appears the offenders will refund the purchase price of the hub, or
provide some other remedy to the aggrieved parties.
2.) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/05/revolv-devices-bricked-google-nest-smart-home
The moral behind this
is to consider a home-technology professional to recommend products to oversee
your installation and integration; they may be aware of internet loss and
product obsolescence from supplier product experience. Also the issue is that
giving these gadgets more autonomy could make it harder for companies to get
people to pay monthly fees that turn devices into ongoing revenue streams. But
with that being said smart products should be able to work remotely in the
event their cloud services go away entirely. So now we currently live in the
day an age of disposable technology to where smart-phones and tablets are repurchased
for new up to date items, and still we expect our old devices to be still usable
as a backup.
No comments:
Post a Comment