Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Internet Google

Eric Schmidt: Our Perception of the Internet Will Fade 228

Esra Erimez writes: Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt on Thursday predicted a change in how we perceive the internet. Schmidt says, "There will be so many IP addresses, so many devices, sensors, things that you are wearing, things that you are interacting with that you won't even sense it. It will be part of your presence all the time. Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Schmidt: Our Perception of the Internet Will Fade

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:54AM (#48883745)

    Or, without your permission, they are interacting with you.

    • by JMJimmy ( 2036122 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:06AM (#48883903)

      Or, without your permission, they are interacting with you.

      This. Something major like this will happen long before it gets to the point Eric suggests and governments worldwide will come down hard. Chinese "code security audits" will be just the start.

      • by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:11AM (#48883957)

        Happens right now. Google gets your permission to vacuum the contents of Gmail, liberate data from your Android phone, and then somehow, removing "personal identifiable information", liberates this data and sells it to others, who reassemble the information.

        Permission, I believe within this context, is another of Schmidt's reality distortions. The Internet of Crap will indeed require interactions, and they'll be two states for you to interact: by the facade of your permission, and by devices querying your to obtain metadata to interact with you and then send the results to some hadoop cluster in SeaLandia for, um, additional processing.

        • by TWX ( 665546 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:31AM (#48884151)
          And this isn't even accounting for the Internet of Broken Crap, or the Internet of Badly-Implemented Crap.

          Think it's annoying when that one door at work won't open because cheapass RFID controller has a channel burned out that's supposed to trigger the solenoid? Imagine when your coffee maker won't work because it doesn't detect that you've gotten up and into the shower, or the HVAC doesn't kick on for the room you've just entered because the house computer didn't detect occupancy, or the surround sound system malfunctions and thinks there's a party, so it turns on the music loudly at 3am, or the fridge's inventory list gets corrupted and it reorders everything that you have in an already full fridge...

          I expect the future to be more like Brazil than like Star Trek.
          • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:02AM (#48884407) Journal
            Home automation enthusiasts quickly discover that it's wise to always pick equipment that has a manual override, and does not depend on the master controller or even its own electronics. Light switches that function independently of the controller, locks that can still be opened with a key if necessary, etc. And even when no device is broken, the software still craps out or does something unexpected, or needs changes. Some people add an "I am dead" switch to set their HA setup to full manual mode, so that other members of the household can still turn on the lights or the coffee maker in case the system craps out and the expert happens to be away.
            • by houghi ( 78078 )

              Many years ago I went to "Home of the future" in Belgium. At that time they thought it was extremely advanced that you could send an SMS to open your port, prepare your bath and what not.

              Not only did they somehow need a triple server rack to do that (Windows NT was just out, for time reference), nothing actually worked.

              We had a hilarious time.
              The fact that we were able to disconnect all the linked drives from the PCs running this shit from the PCs that were standing around in some failed Kiosk mode was an a

            • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:20PM (#48885087) Journal

              The biggest problem with home automation is 'life happens', eventually you want to put things into a state that was never originally anticipated.

              Maybe the computer thinks, windows are open = turn off HVAC, or switch to fan only etc. Trouble is grandma stopped by and burned her Christmas cookies, smells terrible in the house, you want the windows open but you want to also leave the heat on, so you don't freeze.

              Now you have to go override some "smart" system some where. It all ends up being just as much work as turning things on and off by hand was in the first place.

              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Interlocks like that should be reserved for life-safety conditions.

                For example, your furnace starts spewing CO into your basement rather than sending it up the flue. Your basement should have a CO sensor with an external contact (not just an alarm), and that external contact should control a basement exhaust fan. (Alternatively, you could just turn on all of the bathroom exhaust fans in the house. It will work just as well. You'll save on installation of the basement exhaust fan, but the wiring is more diff

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

                Seems like using the manual override once in a blue moon to ventilate and stay warm would be less effort than using it every day for regular climate control. That's why most people have a programmable central heating system in western Europe, with override buttons for the rare occasions they are needed.

          • by some old guy ( 674482 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:30AM (#48884661)

            "I expect the future to be more like Brazil than like Star Trek."

            You, sir, win teh internets for today!!

            • You, sir, win teh internets for today!!

              I hope he doesn't drop it and break it, because I'm planning a long session of pr0n later toni... I mean gaming. Yeah, that's it - gaming.

          • by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:03PM (#48884941) Homepage
            I think you've summed it up rather nicely. Brazil, yes.

            I've had one of my smoke alarms(the are brand new, and are wired to the house current) go off in the middle of the night. Scared the bejeezus out of me. I ran around at 3am looking for a fire that wasn't there, nor was there smoke... I am still wary of those things.

            Events like that are just the tip of the iceberg if we give control of our homes over to nonsensical "smart" IoT devices. Bad updates, security issues, constant rebooting, replacements on backorder from a factory in China that is down because of an earthquake, botnets constantly banging on the door to take control, etc;
            • You are afraid of smart devices because of bad experiences with dumb devices?

              • by radl33t ( 900691 )
                That pretty much sums up third of the skepticism on slashdot. Another third comes fantasizing imaginary scenarios. And the last third is because each slashdotters experience and education render them the smartest person in the world, able to speak authoritatively on any topic of their choosing,
          • Imagine when your coffee maker won't work because it doesn't detect that you've gotten up and into the shower.

            That's still less annoying than when your ED-209 doesn't hear that you dropped your gun on the floor and is authorized to use physical force.

        • I completely agree. What hasn't happened is someone in politics being publicly humiliated by information that big data has collected. It'll happen and it'll be the fault of someone like Google. That will change things.

          • I vaguely remember that during the nomination of Judge Bork to the SCOTUS, his video rental habits revelation spawned a law that forbids such things, but the details are eluding me.

            But that's the US, and not the rest of the world, and is likely to be done eventually. The data is voluminous, the motives evil.

          • As much as I would like to agree with you on that point, the way I see it is, anything compromising that Big Data grabs from some influential/powerful person will be removed just as quickly, unless of course, the Big Data in question is more powerful than said influential/powerful person, then they either "play ball" with Big Data or pay the price, aka extortion.

            I think we all inherently understand that this is the real power behind all the tracking, etc;, so that in the future those holding the dirt on
    • I can see why this would be mentioned as a focus, but I can see this being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

      It's one thing to at least require an agreement to let your privacy be violated in return for X functionality (sadly because there is no other option from how companies have designed it), but it's another to just do this outright.

    • Or, without your permission, they are interacting with you.

      And not only in Soviet Russia!

  • by monkeyzoo ( 3985097 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:55AM (#48883761)

    Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room.

    Wow. Does he realize how completely out of touch with reality that sounds? He says *imagine* when in the future, with [my] technology, you will be able to "interact with the things going on in the room."

    NEWS FLASH! I can now, Eric Schmidt. And anyone can. All you have to do it turn off your cell phone and begin interacting!

  • by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:56AM (#48883765)

    What happens when two people enter the room, and they have different preferences?

    Spouses already fight about the thermostat; who's preference is "the house" going to pick?

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:00AM (#48883827)
    The advertising and government snoop won't really ASK for permission. It will be a Hobson's choice. Refuse to give permission and your devices stop working or you wind up on a watch list or worse.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      You can tell he's not even thinking about permission as something that could be absent: "And with your permission and all of that" is as irreverent as it can be. He mentions permission only to shoot down any attempt at bringing the topic up in earnest.

  • Yawn ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:02AM (#48883845) Homepage

    Yawn, whatever there, Eric ... more bullshit futurism about how the wealthy will live.

    I don't think people really want the internet of things, and every time someone says "ZOMG, look at teh future" I mostly think they're talking out of their ass.

    It makes a great sales pitch, but generally futurists are snake oil salesman and marketers claiming their pet technology will change the world, but which would require zillions of dollars and some massive fundamental changes to everything around us.

    And the rest of us will have plain old lamps and sofa which aren't telling everything to Google about our daily lives.

    The petty ramblings of billionaire technologists really is mostly drivel.

    • Futurists tend to be right about technology but far too optimistic about the economy, causing their technically accurate predictions to fall flat on their faces.

      Likewise, IoT is simply too expensive to take off any time soon. These devices need to be in the single-digit prices to make sense to the average joe, and they're currently in the triple-digits.

      • Re:Yawn ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:04AM (#48884429) Homepage

        That's kind of my point ... most of the stuff I see from futurists assumes we have the resources and luxury to start everything from scratch to build the thing of the future.

        The city of the future where everything glows, is connected, and is awesome? Yeah, right, we'll start all of our cities from scratch just for your magic technology. More accurately, you have the slums where this isn't, and the shiny new stuff where the rich live.

        Same for this. Does he really think people are going to replace every damned thing in their lives so that it can be automated and interconnected? I'm sorry, but only a moron believes that. If I want to "interact" with my lamp I can walk over to the damned thing.

        The entire article is pipe-dreams from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others about how they're going to usher in a marvelous new future and make use of our data.

        I'm afraid my answer to those entities is "go fuck yourself", because having "clear, pragmatic, market-based regulation" is code for "how can corporate douchebags guarantee access to our data for their own ends and profits while ensuring they don't have pesky laws which limit what they can do".

        I'm afraid these entities are the last ones I'd entrust with my data, or to be driving the conversation about the limitations which need to be placed on them.

        So, as I've said all along ... Internet of Things is designed to benefit the corporations who think it's great, is predicated on us all paying tons of money to buy crap which has this enabled, with the implicit assumption this is what the rest of us want, and that somehow this actually benefits us.

        And, as usual, I find myself thinking I don't think this benefits me at all. It's just more apps and cell phones, and pointless tracking and analytics to allow asshole billionaires like Schmidt to buy another fucking yacht.

        • The biggest concern here?
          Who will install/manage/update/troubleshoot an army of IoT(crap) devices in someones house?


          Sure, some duechebag home automation company, or even Google, but there you have it, in addition to the initial cost, you will have a monthly fee for support, ugrades, etc;
          More bills for the average American who lives paycheck to paycheck. You know, the people who eat crap food just so they can continue to pay for cable tv and internet...
          Who does Schmidt think he is talking to
      • These devices need to be in the single-digit prices to make sense to the average joe, and they're currently in the triple-digits.

        Even then, I'm not sure they make a whole lot of sense. I mean Wifi LED lightbulbs are not all that much more expensive than normal LED lightbulbs of comparable power. Apart from the first 20 minutes of screwing around dimming and undimming it and changing the colour from the sofa, I honestly can't see that I'd really care about having them. I mean that sort of thing doesn't fulf

        • "I mean that sort of thing doesn't fulfil any use case." My electrical panel is in the basement. I'm adding a home theater in a bonus room in the attic. Since it wasn't dedicated as a home theater when the house was built; the builder wired it the cheapest way possible. Every light on the floor is controlled with a single switch. Now I've got a choice between two options: pull a permit, rip out drywall on three floors, buy a couple hundred dollars worth of switches and electrical wire, go through the i
          • Well, OK, but that's pretty unusual. I like everyone else I know personally has light switches in individual rooms. Also in the UK a 3A lighting spur wouldn't require additional inspection.

          • by swb ( 14022 )

            Your bigger problem isn't going to be lighting which could be rewired without tearing up the whole house but that any receptacles up there are probably on shared circuits with the rooms below, so when someone trips a breaker below the fucking AV setup goes dark too.

            Your easiest solution is to just add a subpanel up there and power the room off the subpanel.

      • Most futurists are actually usually wrong about how technology goes. I'd love to see this mythical futurist that you speak of.

      • by radl33t ( 900691 )
        Expensive? you can get any radio technology and an ARM chip for $5. Nest is sub $20 hardware. You wouldn't ever notice the incremental cost of they put it into any appliance or device costing $50 or more.
    • Yawn, whatever there, Eric ... more bullshit futurism about how the wealthy will live.

      Nah, assuming the whole thing doesn't collapse into one big shitstorm before then, eventually everyone will live like this because it will be stupid cheap. Sure, a Philips Hue starter set may cost a Benjamin, but perfectly good IR-controlled lights (not as good, mind you, but good enough to be useful) are available for five bucks. Now, do the math and figure out that in ten years, or maybe fifteen, we'll have networked color-changing LED lights for five bucks a pop. They don't even need bidirectional commun

      • Re:Yawn ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:26AM (#48884623) Homepage

        You know, I'm long since past the point where I fetishize technology. In fact, it often bores me to death, because it seems like it's technology for the sake of technology and doesn't add value to my life -- just clutter.

        I don't carry a smart phone ... well, I do, but it hasn't got a data plan. It gets used to send text messages mostly. It has wifi, but it's mostly off.

        I don't see personal value in controlling my lights from my smart phone -- or, for that matter, lights which change color. And definitely not color changing lights which are networked and talking to my smart phone.

        Color changing networked lights connected to my smart phone learning my habits and schedule, reporting that upstream to google and doing who knows what else that it's not telling me about and signalling to my fridge that the butter should be softened because I might be home soon ... well, I'm afraid you've lost me at that point.

        In fact, I find the prospect downright creepy.

        Sorry, but I don't see my mission in life as owning every conceivable piece of technology and integrating it so tightly into my life that a power outage is going to leave me in the fetal position in the corner as I suddenly am disconnected from the world and can't turn on the lights.

        So, I'll sit on my front porch shaking my first at you guys and your doo-dads and focus on things which don't end up with me having a chip implanted up my ass which lets the toilet seat know to start pre-warming because the frequency of sphincter contractions indicates an impending poo, and tells google to give me ads for toilet paper because I'm running low.

        I'm afraid I simply don't care enough to play that silly game. :-P

        Not get off my damned lawn!!

      • Yeah, it all sounds pie-in-the-sky future-y until it's present-y.

        I have an app on my phone that gives me up-to-the-minute weather radar. I don't look outside to see if it's going to rain on my walk back to my car anymore (besides, my office is interior. I'd have to walk alllllll the way past the cube farm to get to a window...). Better still, I live in an area prone to tornados. The app has push notifications, and when there's a tornado warning in my area it gives me the "emergency broadcast" crackle. That

      • Re:Yawn ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:58PM (#48885473) Homepage

        Why wouldn't you want to be able to be informed as to what everything in your house is doing

        Are you fucking kidding me? Really?
        People don't give two shits about that sort of thing.
        People(consumers...) want things that are RELIABLE and CONVENIENT. They don't care how many loads a week they've done in their dishwasher or that they can remotely change their lights in the downstairs bathroom to purple...
        Repeat after me: RELIABLE and CONVENIENT.
        That is what people want in appliances, etc;

        Anyone who deals with the hassles of home wifi and configuring home routers, etc, in addition to the usual pc/table/phone issues, upgrade and configuration hassles knows the IoT is a CF waiting to happen.

      • "Why wouldn't they?" Most are non-OCD.
    • It's not even a great sales pitch, I have zero interest in what my toaster has to say.

    • by dave420 ( 699308 )

      The toys of the rich become the tools of the poor, when given enough time. Yes, the rich will get all this stuff soon, but eventually, if successful, they will become so cheap everyone will have (or be able to have, should they wish) one.

      Anyone who is enthusiastic about something might overemphasise its abilities, especially if they are trying to sell it. If you know that you won't get quite so offended or surprised by these pitches not precisely panning out in the long run, saving us from having to read

    • I'm sure you said the same thing about cell phones in the 80s. Internet in the 90s. etc...

      • Well, the in 80s I was mostly in elementary/middle school. In the 90s I was working in the tech industry. But I've been using the internet long enough to have used bang path addressing and UUCP and the like.

        I don't simply dismiss all technology out of hand -- I actually do look at to see if it adds any benefit to my life.

        And, in this case, I conclude the Internet of Things is crap, and Eric Schmidt is full of shit -- everything he says is the delusional ramblings of a billionaire who expects to make money

    • I think you're going to wake up one morning and realize the internet-of-things revolution happened quietly around you. Either that or you're going to get dragged kicking and screaming into an internet-of-things world much like the textile workers of the early 1800s who opposed industrialization.

      For the most part, the necessary tech artifacts you're talking about already exist. You can already order a mesh-routed, IPv6 aware radio IC for pretty cheap (6LoWPAN [], example part by TI []). It's been 4 years since
      • Argument failure on my part. After reading subsequent posts you made clarifying your position, no, I don't see any advantage for the common consumer to go out and replace all their old things with new ones. Someone like me might like that I can use my phone to one-click reconfigure my tv and receiver to play video games or select a movie on netflix and have the tv switch inputs to whatever and just start playing it--heck I can do this now, but IoT should make it much easier. Granted there are a crapload of
        • Bad phrasing on your part. There is no incremental cost of enabling IoT on a device. There is replacing said device. I'm past 60. I still have my grandmother's waffle iron and it works fine, cotton wrapped cord and all. Many, many things have lifespans that will make the IoT very difficult to integrate into a current someone's life without great expense and waste and so they simply won't. The "ubiquitous" IoT will be late this century at best.
  • You have to take everyone's perspective into account. He wants all the info he can get, for free.
  • ...with your permission and all of that...

    It does not appear that the internet providers are all that concerned about obtaining the users' permission to track them.

    Coming from a google exec, the statement is laughable, and ominous.

  • by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:11AM (#48883959)

    And with your permission and all of that

    Could you be more of an asshole?

    First off, when did Google start asking permission BEFORE it just did privacy invading shit?

    Second, how many times have you (Schmidt) basically said you didn't give a fuck about peoples privacy or their wishes and that you were going to get your way eventually anyway?

    Lets be realistic here Schmidt, you don't mean a word of what you just said. What you mean is that you want devices in every room analyzing everything everyone does in an attempt to figure out how to sell them to advertisers for a higher rate. THAT IS WHAT YOU MEAN.

  • Let's fix the basics first before going to these expensive and complicated cyberworldz additions. At the end of the day, most people would be happy if their landlord just adjusted the basic heating and ventilation to work properly.
  • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:24AM (#48884087)

    And we will have all the data, he continued. People who read 1984 know that people WANTED the way it happened. They GAVE away their privacy to big brother.
    Just as we are now giving it away to Google.

    Unfortunately it is like giving away your virginity. You can't get it back. What is worse is that you don't have a real option. Others are giving it away in your name.

  • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:26AM (#48884105) Homepage

    Who asked for this?
    The industry eagerness to bug and track everything is universal. Why? The first answer is always: money. The second, and most accurately stated: power. Knowing where everyone is, and what they are doing, is power. But that power is not for schmucks.
    Pity we didn't have this universal eagerness to limit population growth, or control suburban land conversion, or to colonize free space with habitats. But power over others? No fucking limits.
    Power, by the way, means Occupies are impossible to pull off. Protests. Contrary political movements, ultimately. Other words, any challenge to seated power is gonna be nearly impossible.
    Hell, in England, they're already starting dossiers on kintergarteners. Just monitor what they read and do all their lives, and soon there won't be a population that even thinks of rebellion of any sort. Or could talk about it without systems monitoring and integrating the information for future suppression. And yes, I'm aware that that sounds "paranoid". But once again, I'm not predicting, I'm telling you what's already happened.
    To take this back to the point of the article, there is no WAY that this eagerly sought supersaturated net of bugs - and that's what they are - will not be used for surveillance and control. I really don't need to know what is in my refrigerator that much.

  • by wcrowe ( 94389 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:27AM (#48884113)

    I can already interact with things in the room. When I want the lamp to come on, I walk over and turn a little knob. When I want the TV to come on, I press a button on a remote. Behold! The future is now!

  • by Bob_Who ( 926234 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:29AM (#48884135) Homepage Journal

    Soon you'll have to Google him.

  • No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AntEater ( 16627 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:41AM (#48884229) Homepage

    I've been in the tech world since the 80s and I'm not finding this vision of the future enticing at all. Now fully in middle age, I'm starting to regret the days and years of my life that have been wasted staring into a monitor or playing with the next gadget. I'm not convinced that having the internet seamlessly integrated into my life would be a desirable thing. I'm discovering that there's more pleasure and contentment in the reality that exists outside of the world of pervasive connectivity. I don't want to be constantly "interacting" with devices, nor do I want Mr. Schmid's company to have more opportunities to analyze my behavior and target me with more marketing messages.

    Embrace the analog world.

    • Because once you pass the half way point, you realize you need to start eliminating the trivial and the bullshit big time, as there is little time left.

      • by AntEater ( 16627 )

        while that may sound a little bleak, it's true. It's also true when you're in your 20's, you just don't realize it yet.

    • I split the difference I want my world to work for me. I do not want others to see me as data to be sold and traded. To that end my home automation is local, it sources data externally for weather forecasts and the like. I want the lights to come up and light the room to my preferred levels when I walk into a room. For my music choice to follow me about. For my door to unlock when I get home. I want to track my power usage with a good amount of detail, already finding that there is value in this data

  • Whenever someone tries to predict the direction technology will take, they always miss the not-as-obvious-at-the-time revolution in technology that makes society take a sharp turn. In the 70's, a prediction wouldn't have included personal computers in everyone's home. In the 80's, it wouldn't have predicted the Internet. The 90's wouldn't have predicted the rise of smartphones or social media. Of course, all of these developments seem obvious in hindsight.

    My guess is that something will come out that wi

  • by gnujoshua ( 540710 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:01AM (#48884395) Homepage
    Benjamin Mako Hill [] has discussed invisible technology [] and ubiquitous computing. Hill observes that "The reason most people don't understand the power of technology is that they don't realize technology exists." Put another way, it is easy to not notice (or even forget about) matters of power, control, and autonomy that come along with any technology that is, "quite explicitly, mitigating and mediating our lives", when we aren't even noticing the technology we are interacting with and relying upon in the first place. In this talk he quotes, Marc Wiesner, who was a director of Computer Science at Xerox PARC and wrote a paper seen as the birth of "Ubiquitous Computing" that made a call for invisible computing, stating:

    "A good tool is an invisible tool. By invisible, I mean that the tool does not intrude on your consciousness; you focus on the task, not the tool. Eyeglasses are a good tool -- you look at the world, not the eyeglasses. The blind man tapping the cane feels the street, not the cane. Of course, tools are not invisible in themselves, but as part of a context of use. With enough practice we can make many apparently difficult things disappear: my fingers know vi editing commands that my conscious mind has long forgotten. But good tools enhance invisibility."

    Hill points out that one of the times we actually do notice technology is when it breaks. He also has a rather clever blog, Revealing Errors [], in which he and other contributors "reveal errors that reveal technologies" so as to learn how they affect our lives.

  • by robmv ( 855035 )

    And the future of humanity will be to be Borgs, always connected to the global network, without individuality and everything public, people is not resisting this change enough, and not is not futile. Not a nice future.

  • Rooms full of stuff that yell "Eat Me!" and "Drink Me!".

    But I doubt that you'll be shrinking from any of those.

  • "Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room." Interacting with things going on in a room? It's hard to imagine.
  • In the future you will die.

  • by netsavior ( 627338 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:23AM (#48884589)
    My kids range in age from 5 to 9. This is already how they see the world.

    Their first hint that the internet is a thing that you have to think about was when they got wifi devices and tried to use them in the car as we drove away from the house.

    Before they made that realization, it was just something that things did. Part of the expected infrastructure of existence.
  • This is an article from 1998. Scott McNealy liked to show off his Java ring at that time and talk about how it would be used to allow someone to walk into a hotel room and have sensors detect the person and their wishes such as music and mood lighting and it would also store your crypto keys on it. It will be interesting to see if people are read to wear tech as new devices enter the market. []

    picture []
  • by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:51AM (#48884823) Homepage
    I enjoy having control over my house when arriving home at night. I enjoy having control over my vehicles. If there is one HUGE and glaring issue with all this IoT nonsense, it is the loss of control.

    Control over our own residence, etc is to be given over to Google or whoever. Really? Could this be any more wrong. Wrong on so many levels and in so many ways that I need not explain them all. Common sense shows us what a CF this idea really is.

    I don't want a smart home.
    I don't want a smart car.

    And with your permission and all of that,

    What a joke...

    As others have pointed out, "all of that" will be having this nonsense foisted on us without any real choice.

    I don't want to have to pay for this, to monitor it, to have to constantly upgrade it, etc;
    Look at the sad state of security with home routers, wifi, etc.
    Do we want to have our oven, fridge and toilet be connected to the internet?

  • Look Eric, the internet, like electricity, will fade into the back of people's minds and everyone takes it for granted. Until . . . it fails. When the electricity is out for only a couple of hours, you become keenly aware of how much you depend upon it.

    Comcast pledges to keep the internet at the forefront of people's minds.
  • Marshall McLuhan was talking about this stuff in the late 60s when talking about how we lose perception of our context. “We don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't the fish.” I highly recommend "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man"
    People have a hard time understanding the methodology of the probe v.s. the argument but if you can wrap your head around it, it is a breathtaking vision.
    It even talks about online news feeds like Slashdot..again in the 60s.

    There is another book

  • []

    He was asked if Google received detailed information from Chrome users that other browsers do not receive and, if it did, whether there was a danger that federal authorities would track said data.

    "If you're concerned, for whatever reason, you do not wish to be tracked by federal and state authorities, my strong recommendation is to use incognito mode, and that's what people do,"

  • by Ken_g6 ( 775014 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:33PM (#48885219) Homepage

    And all the things in the room start attacking you! Or spamming you with ads. Or demand a ransom in Bitcoins before they let you leave.

  • by eepok ( 545733 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @01:00PM (#48885505) Homepage

    It's really great that someone can get press for shooting rainbows out his behind (yes, you too, Elon).

    The reality is that this is still science fiction-- and may forever be. If we were to make a genuine internet of things, the use amount of plastics, rare metals, and toxic batteries would need to be absolutely immense. Like, apocalyptically immense.

    This fantasy world that Schmidt presents is one of extravagant waste and irrationally exuberant spending that it can only be done for one reason-- PR for new or continuing tech. He's probably just out pounding the drum for Android-based smartphones and their "potential" to be used as life-control devices.

  • by OldSport ( 2677879 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @01:57PM (#48886191)

    Hahaha, you can just hear the disdain and scorn in his voice. He might as well have just said "and all of that other privacy bullshit"

  • and taking quite some bullshit. Oh well, news at 11.

  • Pervasive Networking will become like electricity and only be noticed when it is absent.

  • A lot of the things they are proposing I don't really need. I don't need my dishwasher or laundry machine to tweet me when they are done. Why? Because I run them in the middle of the night when the electricity is cheaper. I don't care when they finish. Besides if I did care they have this feature called a beep or chime. The Nest had a bit of attraction to me until I found out that all of the information was being sent to a central server. Surely processors are powerful enough that the predictions cou

  • All those devices requiring updates, acting flaky (bugs), and hackable. Nice - yeah, that's the future that I want. NOT.
  • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @05:20PM (#48888253)

    I am continually amazed that every time Schmidt talks about the internet, he says something that is simultaneously very creepy and very scary.

    Sorry, Schmidt, there is literally no way in hell that I'm going to allow all these devices in my home to talk to the internet. The risks are simply far too high, from corporate and governmental surveillance all the way through the risk of being hacked, and there is almost no benefit in exchange.

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.