Google Says Android Things is Finally Ready For Smart Devices (theverge.com) 34
Ahead of its developer conference I/O, Google said Monday Android Things, a platform for smart devices that the company announced in 2016, is ready for shipping with consumer devices. From a report: Android Things is hitting its 1.0 release today after launching to developers at the end of 2016. Google says the first devices -- which include speakers from LG and iHome, and smart displays from LG, Lenovo, and JBL -- will be released over the next several months. Android Things is a development platform that's meant to make it easier for hardware companies to start building a gadget. It lets Google handle some of the software and intelligence features, while allowing hardware companies to code for it using the Android tools they're likely already familiar with. It's not clear exactly how much easier this makes things, but it probably simplifies development particularly for gadgets that are going to end up with Google Assistant features or Cast capabilities in them.
Re: (Score:1)
One of the supposed benefits of this is that Google would handle security updates, which is less of a security nightmare than most IoT devices which never get updates ever.
On the other hand, running a bloated Android based OS with its horrendous Java API's on low-powered-ish hardware does indeed sound like a nightmare.
Not every device needs to be online certainly, but "smart" usually implies it. I doubt they'd even make a 20 questions ball that doesn't connect to the internet and send all your answers to Go
Re: (Score:2)
If you currently have a smart switch you get security updates for 0 seconds, let alone 1 year.
Re: (Score:2)
People are sick and tired of having Google up their asses all day. They don't need even more intrusion into their homes.
Further, no, "smart" does not imply "online". What it implies is that it communicates with your own LOCAL devices.
In most cases, there is absolutely no reason for them to "call home".
I want devices I can set up in my LAN, which DO NOT try to access sites outside my LAN (i.e., do not require "signup" on some k
Re: (Score:3)
This is a security nightmare. I beg of anyone at Google with an ounce of sanity, to realize, not every device needs to be online.
The problem is that everyone's going to be putting their stupid doorbells and fishtank thermometers online anyway. Hopefully, putting this flavor of Android on them will be easier than whatever other bastardized alternative they're using that grants full access to the network.
Plus, Google gets the data. That's a win for Google, and a somewhat-lesser of two evils for consumers.
So I actually would beg the exact opposite of OP; please, Google. Do this and do this well; let security for IoT be handed compet
Re: (Score:3)
No, a win for consumers would allow direct connection, encrypted by public/private keys generated on devices, possibly mediated by Google.
Google won't get any data, but will handle updates and connection mediation.
Re: Do not want (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NO need for devices to "call home" to the manufacturer or other third party.
Local access ONLY.
And then ability to tunnel in to your LAN from outside, via a secure connection, to access them from wherever you are.
All these things are not only possible, but have been done. It is the product manufacturers who don't want to supply these things.
Re: (Score:2)
If the system is only available to your LAN, and you can only get access to your LAN via a secure tunnel, then none of that crap is even remotely necessary.
Google need have ANY part in it. Once the device is in my hand, I should be able to set it up on my LAN without ANY access to third parties. And to tunnel into my LAN remotely, if I want, based on my own tunneling setup. Again, no need for third parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do not want (Score:4, Informative)
I'm actually building and Android Things device for work.
You have a great deal of control over what data Google gets. The system is designed around devices rather than users, so you don't need to provide it with any personal data directly. There is no telemetry by default, although you can enable some of you want to.
It can connect to Google for updates to the OS and your apps. This is also optional. For most people it's a major benefit because Google will supply security updates, unlike the vendor.
Google profits by having android compatibile devices in the marketplace. Otherwise they would have to give that market to Apple and just accept the loss. Last time I checked the advertising API wasn't even available, and wouldn't make much sense on a headless system anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
If we could only figure out how to make smart people instead of smart devices.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want IoT devices then you're not the market, so.... congratulations?
The direct market for this is all of the "smart" device manufacturers, giving them an easily updated platform without having to do so themselves. Currently very few IoT/smart devices are updated ever.
This is google's fix to an existing problem, not something they've come up with in isolation.
Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I can list dozens of stupid or over-done current IT fads. I'm trying to learn to stop complaining and instead make money off of suckers who don't do their homework. But, I'm having a hard shutting down my Internal Vulcan and letting the Internal Ferengi run things. I have to take a cold shower every night.
Re: (Score:2)
To the GP, I believe in most cases that "IoT" stands for "Internet of Toys".
Re: (Score:1)
Ignorance is bliss. Flow-goers seem happier.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would ever buy cat litter online?
Why would you put a speaker in a lightbulb socket?
Why would people want to send all their data to a private company and let that company manage all their houseparties?
What would a 'smart fridge' even do? ...
The answer is "because we, the consumers, want it, and are willing to pay for it". No more, no less. There are many hundreds of dumb products which give value to their market segment. There are many hundreds of smart products which die a miserable death. Just admi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I own a "standup, battery-powered, electric vacuum cleaner". I use it more-or-less daily, and use it multiple times on many days. It is in the market category of "electric broom", and, in many instances, it is inferior to a broom. In other instances, it is superior.
I am in the middle of buying a set of metal gymnastic rings to replace my perfectly functional plastic ones, which have stood outside my house for many years.
I am far from a consumer, and generally part of the "Buy If For Life" and "Early Reti
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect many already do [wired.com]. Most appliances already have a Turing Complete computer chip in them. Culprits in a factory can stick a small radio transceiver (and maybe a microphone) into a capacitor etc. and that chip now has wi-fi access and remote programmability.
Sometimes the device is already a radio. I once tapped a certain spot in the guts of a bare-basic cassette tape player with a screwdriver, and heard a nearby radio sta
What’s the over/under for Google to abandon (Score:2)
That’s all we need, another billion vulnerable devices after three years.
wife: “Why do we need a new refrigerator?”
me: “Google doesn’t release security updates for it anymore and it was hacked.”
wife: “Just disconnect from the Internet.”
me: “Too late. We can’t open the door unless we pay the ransom. Plus, malware has set the compressor to overload in 72 hours if we don’t pay.”
wife: “See, what did I tell you?! You didn’t need
Re: (Score:2)