Logitech Will Brick Its $100 Pop Smart Home Buttons on October 15 (arstechnica.com) 92
An anonymous reader shares a report: In another loss for early smart home adopters, Logitech has announced that it will brick all Pop switches on October 15.
In August of 2016, Logitech launched Pop switches, which provide quick access to a range of smart home actions, including third-party gadgets. For example, people could set their Pop buttons to launch Philips Hue or Insteon lighting presets, play a playlist from their Sonos speaker, or control Lutron smart blinds. Each button could store three actions, worked by identifying smart home devices on a shared Wi-Fi network, and was controllable via a dedicated Android or iOS app. The Pop Home Switch Starter Pack launched at $100, and individual Pop Add-on Home Switches debuted at $40 each.
A company spokesperson told Ars Technica that Logitech informed customers on September 29 that their Pop switches would soon become e-waste.
In August of 2016, Logitech launched Pop switches, which provide quick access to a range of smart home actions, including third-party gadgets. For example, people could set their Pop buttons to launch Philips Hue or Insteon lighting presets, play a playlist from their Sonos speaker, or control Lutron smart blinds. Each button could store three actions, worked by identifying smart home devices on a shared Wi-Fi network, and was controllable via a dedicated Android or iOS app. The Pop Home Switch Starter Pack launched at $100, and individual Pop Add-on Home Switches debuted at $40 each.
A company spokesperson told Ars Technica that Logitech informed customers on September 29 that their Pop switches would soon become e-waste.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy doesn't work if you buy things that last.
CONSUME (Score:5, Funny)
And if you don't consume, then you're communist scum!
Re:CONSUME (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CONSUME (Score:5, Insightful)
We need legislation that all equipment that is no longer supported be open sourced, and one last firmware update gives a vector to load your own firmware (or community) firmware you download.
Yes, and it needs to apply to absolutely everything, including computers, cell phones, etc. Having hardware locked to a single software vendor is barely tolerable while the manufacturer is supporting it, but absolutely should not be allowed once the manufacturer drops support.
But that's not really enough. Reverse engineering the hardware for nontrivial stuff is usually not worth the effort. The companies should be required to also do one of two things:
This serves two purposes. First, it makes it much easier for a third party to bring up a usable firmware build without having to figure out how to unsolder the CPU and install a jumper harness under it to expose the JTAG pins. Second, it greatly increases the amount of effort required to drop support for a device, which may be enough to make companies think twice about doing it, and also may make companies think twice about releasing a product without a reasonable long-term plan for how to support it indefinitely.
I get they have no economic interest in these buttons, but for fucks sake, if you aren't paying for it continuously, "the cloud" will stop working with it eventually. We need a way to make the device receive / send API calls locally. This should be legislated.
Devices that require the cloud should be banned, period. Any device sold should be required to provide a non-cloud-based alternative control path that never leaves your network. This falls under "minimum security requirements" even if you ignore the whole "the cloud server could go away" problem and the "I can't turn my lights on because the Internet is down, and I can't see to reboot my router because I can't turn the lights on" problem.
But that's a separate law.
"We no longer support your device. Here is the most recent firmware's source code, the certificates used to validate the update server, and a quick read me on how to get it to fetch a firmware from your local computer (web server with said certificate). Thanks for using our product!"
That only helps if it is actually possible to build the firmware, which isn't a given. Also, that's opening all users up to a lot of risk if it gets installed automatically, because if there are any security holes in the device, someone would then have the global signing key and could upload new firmware that permanently compromises every unpatched instance of that device all across the planet in a matter of days.
IMO, a much better process is something like this:
The use of an external mass storage device (rather than the device looking like a mass storage device) is strongly preferable for security reasons, because it would be much harder (and, if done correctly, impossible) to exploit remotely and install a malicious party's key onto the device, then trick it into downloading a new firmware bundle from some other server, etc.
At that point, the user would provide a new user signi
Re: (Score:2)
Provide complete source code for their firmware, along with the toolchain required to build it.
You are asking too much. If a company ceases to operate and lays off the engineers, they won't be able to do this, which is no simple task.
I would start with a requirement that such hardware be sold with a warning, similar to the health warnings on cigarettes, or California prop65 warning, informing consumers that this product may stop working at any time. The consumer should be aware of this risk before buying the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: CONSUME (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For all software, including embedded, the full source code shall be but into the national library of the country it is sold in - and it must be shown that it actually compile to the sold software.
Time to take your Meds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Reasonable? Working equipment you own suddenly stops working because it's tied to a company that can fuck you at will. That's reasonable? So where is the line? 9 years ... 8 years ... 5 years? This why I avoid EVERYTHING that requires a company's cloud to operate. These "reasonable" actions will always happen.
Re: (Score:1)
2 years per $100 seems about right.
Re: (Score:2)
I have over 600 smart home devices. About half of them are smart bulbs and smart switches.
Most cost far less than $50 new. I bought a bunch of them used for even less..
$50/year support fee per device would be completely unreasonable.
Fortunately, most of the 600 devices don't require cloud, and can operate in Home assistant locally on Wifi, without an ISP.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
That is where Home Assistant shines. You can create all manner of automations and it will work with most devices. So if there's a z-wave or zigbee lightswitch, you can use home assistant to get your input of choice to control it.
I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I'm pretty sure that if you have something that works for you, you don't want Logitech to brick it one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah +1 for Home Assistant. I wasn't familiar with these Pop buttons, but something similar is trivially easy with an ESP32 (and ESPHome), some bits of wire and a push button switch. Indeed, now I know there (was) a market for these sorts of things, maybe I'll spend some time making such a thing.
(FWIW, I have a zwave 'scene button', which has 5 buttons on it and is rechargeable (about the size of a car key fob). It's a great little thing, and works great with HA - I can't remember what it cost, but it sure
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use wireless buttons. I just use my phone. But I've been putting things in the house under control of HA bit by bit. The mini splits, the lights, the TV, lamps, door locks, EV charging and more are all controlled by HA. With a port forward and dynamic DNS, I can control this stuff wherever I am.
It's a 100 year old house. So updating the wires has to precede any z-wave plugs or lightswitches in any given room. I'm about 70% done so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're pretty solidly tied to the cloud. The "electricity" goes out and you're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
$50/year support fee per device would be completely unreasonable.
I think they were saying a reasonable minimum required cloud support period should be 2 years per $100 of the device's cost.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that's what I was saying. Thank you for confirming that I was being clear.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd solve that problem by not having such devices.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is a totally fine choice. But no need to troll those who use such devices and tell them it's reasonable to pay $50/year for support per lightbulb.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, yes. Because someone has an opinion you don't agree with, it must be "trolling". Got it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't seem right to me at all, given that the only reason these devices stop working is a matter of needless dependence.
There is no technical reason why these devices must be dependent on Logitech's servers. They can operate as smart home devices entirely on a local network. The cloud piece is a completely needless tether. I understand that Logitech doesn't want to be on the hook to pay the server maintenance costs for a device that isn't making them money. That's fine. They should be free to cut off the cloud-specific features. But the device should remain otherwise functional. In this case, the device is completely ruined, for no good reason.
That is not ok.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree.
Show your opposition by not buying such devices.
They're hardly required, being the first world, luxury devices that they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no reason this device needed the maker to continuously run a server for it.
That was a choice they made, for the sake of control.
That's the kind of design choice that was always bad and ought to go away.
Re: (Score:1)
It would "go away" if people stopped buying such devices.
For example....I was in a Costco fairly recently and was considering buying some fancy multicolor light thing that you could control with your phone. Cool. So I was reviewing the package and it mentioned that one needed to create an account online somewhere to use the product. Not cool. I decided not to buy the product.
Had I not discovered this until I got home, I would have returned the product.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason this device needed the maker to continuously run a server for it.
That was a choice they made, for the sake of control.
That's the kind of design choice that was always bad and ought to go away.
I agree, but the reality is that most people don't want to go through the rigmarole of setting up some kind smart hub, figuring out if the potential device is compatible with their hub: Zigbee? Z-Wave? Matter (and what flavor? Thread or WIFI)? Pairing the device: Can I scan a QR code? Do I have to figure out an archaic set of button presses to put it in pairing mode? Is there a security code I have to put into the hub? Then you might have to debug a flaky connection: Do I need to buy a new Z-Wave, Threa
Re: (Score:1)
No legislation is needed. /will/ add a lot of cost due to dumb decisions most companies make in design. Even if it doesn't, or to you it is "worth it", it is also a vector for many other bad things due to the decision on what/how to do things be
#1 STOP BUYING THINGS THAT ARE CLOUD CONNECTED. If enough people did that, it would change. But it won't, because people like expensive things.
#2 STOP TRYING TO INCREASE PRICES OF THINGS BY MANDATING VARIOUS THINGS LIKE requiring companies to open source/whatever. It
No it doesn't! (Re:Makes sense) (Score:2)
Agreed.
Now imagine my dismay when I've discovered furnaces now demand cloud access so that they push firmware updates without notification. Excuse me? My furnace keeps the pipes in my house from freezing and essentially destroying the building. There is no effing way that I'm going to let my furnace or its controller on the Internet. Like everything else that they've managed to make electric, this is a hugely regressive step and we really need our respective governments to step in and draw the line. Ditto t
Re: (Score:2)
First, unauthorized bread [goodreads.com]. Now, unauthorized buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not reasonable from an environmental standpoint. Also, if you have a large home, you might own many of these, and replacing them could be a sizeable unplanned expense.
Best to stay away from any device requiring cloud, but unfortunately that is not always possible for some device categories.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Do you know how long a regular switch on my house lasts? Neither do I. They just always work! They cost a lot less than $100!
I have a bunch of ancient X10 stuff that works every day. Doesn't work very well (can be flaky) or very fast, but still works. A lot of it branded Radio Shack. I just needed remote controls for some lights and fans, none of it computer operated, none of it "cloud" based, none of it with subscription crap. I can turn on some lights from my chair or from the wall and dim them t
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go [amazon.com]. Each button fires an event. How flexible it is depends on your hub. In HA you can make it run an arbitrary script that does whatever you want.
They make similar for Zigbee and Matter/Thread as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That is close. But I need 3 devices on/off and dim. This is what I am trying to replace:
https://thex10shop.com/product... [thex10shop.com]
Super thin, wireless, uses a CR2032 which lasts for several years. Press one of them for on/off, then use dim/bright to control level. Simple, works.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Introduced in 2016. That's 9 years ago. On a $100 expense. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Still being sold as of last year. That's one year ago, so not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Still being sold as of last year. That's one year ago, so not so much.
Seems unlikely that was official given that there are definitely posts dating back to 2021 claiming that it was effectively obsolete and much of the advertised functionality was broken and not intended to be fixed. Though it's impossible to find a definitive date of when the Pop Button was formerly discontinued, search results are a complete crapshoot given Logitech called this thing POP Button / Switch which has nothing to do with POP Key (a current product).
I suspect it was old shelf stock being sold past
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unusual for normal products I agree. But this isn't a normal product. It's IoT, and it's Logitech. This is like enshitification^2. Hyper-enshitification?
Honestly I'm surprised it was supported for 2 years. I expected Logitech to cease support of it before it even got to the checkout. They have an incredibly shitty history with this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Another fine example of the renter economy. You never owned the light switch. You merely rented it.
Re: (Score:2)
In no way is it reasonable to have some asshole you've never heard of make a decision to cause hardware you bought and paid for stop working because they aren't interested in maintaining their service offering any more.
Anyone looking far enough to the horizon knows that if you start selling a product like this, you have to keep the service on until the last one leaves the world, or someone decides it's not worth maintaining any more and perfectly working hardware goes to the landfill.
Fuck Logitech for not m
Re: Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
actually, it does (Score:2)
It doesn't have cancerous growth curves demanded by those trying to hit an exponential jackpot every quarter, but the economy will function just fine.
Re: Makes sense (Score:3)
You're not actually "doing" anything with the button other than reinforcing trust that a company's cloud server will exist in a few years to carry out what you perceived as a linked actual, lol. Foolish to think that.
Be fucked, customer! (Score:2, Insightful)
These are toys and were never designed as professional equipment. At the same time, my light-switches just keep working ...
Light switches (Score:3)
Funny you should say that. I had a ceiling fan that stopped working. Various YouTube videos suggested it could be a failed capacitor in the fan. I took it apart, and everything measured correctly on my meter. The fan was fine. The problem was the switch on the wall had broken. I've had to replace four failed light switches in our house.
They don't make them like they used to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I spent 3 years as a hardware tech. The first things checked are power and clocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like cheap switch quality. I am still at a lifetime failed light switches of one, and that one was about 50 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
They were all in the same house, but they were installed at three different times (2 original, 1 extension, 1 later retrofit), so they wouldn't have been from the same batch. I'm thinking they were all in places where you would often be standing to the side, so there could be side-to-side stress, which is what caused them to fail. They were all from the 90s or later; older switches might have been stronger.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. There is also the occasional bad batch where some economics graduate moron caused things to be made cheaper than possible.
If a company sells a brickable device, (Score:1, Insightful)
...I believe there should be disclosure on the packaging or product page. Otherwise they are selling an internet service, not just a physical product.
Blue states are usually okay with such laws, the red states like to waste all their time working around laissez-faire's gotcha so that the Holy Rich can have their Holy Taxcuts. ProveMeWrong!
Re: (Score:3)
In my mind these intentionally brick-able devices violates " implied warranty of fitness [for purpose]".
Getting an attorney and actually winning a case though. Good luck, these guys got way more lawyers than any of us consumers have.
Re: (Score:1)
What about a class-action lawsuit?
And the second S in IoT... (Score:4, Funny)
stands for "support".
Re: (Score:2)
What does the "H" stand for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IoT doesn't necessarily mean cloud. Plenty of IoT devices work without them.
Re: (Score:2)
IoT doesn't necessarily mean cloud. Plenty of IoT devices work without them.
I would say most IoT devices are cloud connected. You can't have an Internet of things if the thing is not on the internet.
Not all smart devices are IoT devices though. You have protocols like Z-Wave, Zigbee, and Matter that allow completely local control, but those devices aren't necessarily internet addressable without jumping through some hoops.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between cloud connected and cloud dependent. To be clear all the IoT devices in my house are cloud connected. But 100% of them work when there's no internet connection at home as well.
Re: (Score:2)
(the first 'S' stands for Security)
Local functions should be local (Score:5, Insightful)
Another illustration of why you donÂt want to depend on the cloud for local functions.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they commit to open sourcing the cloud server aspect upon EOL so that the users, if they choose, can run it on their own cloud server.
Open source (Score:2)
Solve it with open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Counter example (Score:3)
Bosch is going to take down the servers that some of their smart thermostats use.
The thermostats will continue to work, they just won't be Internet-accessible.
They are sending out newer models that will be fully supported at no cost to the owner.
Re: (Score:2)
When I moved into my new house, I bought a bunch of fairly bare-bones Honeywell switches that supported Z-Wave. All the smarts are on a server I control. Short of a physical defect I never have to worry about them going out of support.
Pop switches? (Score:2)
More like Poop switches.
Return them to Logitech (Score:4, Interesting)
Postage paid by recipient.
Use the address of the Logitech CEO as the return address so they can get caught in the infinite loop.
Re: (Score:1)
If it requires a cloud account, you don't own it (Score:5, Insightful)
You merely paid $100 for the privilege of throwing it away before it wears out.
Never buy any device... (Score:4, Insightful)
... that requires cloud access
The cloud is a trap
Run away
Wild (Score:2)
People just accept this kind of thing as totally normal. As we move closer and closer to the WEFs "Own nothing:be happy", it's becoming more and more absurd that people are just OK with this.
Watch them turn around and sell an identical product with a different color button or rounded corners or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Subscription for button? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but most people don't have the technical wherewithal to set it up.
Not buying any smart-home that aren't local-use. (Score:2)
Specifically cross-platform, not vendor-app or vendor-cloud dependent.
I still have some Hue bulbs, and a few WiFi bulbs that are dependent on vendor lock-in that I'll be replacing when they go out.
Any newer devices are Matter/Thread compatible. Local control, no vendor lock-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Hue bulbs are Matter compatible.
Thank goodness it wasn't open source (Score:2)
Thank goodness it wasn't open source...can you imagine? People might still be able to use a thing they bought, err, I mean "inadvertently rented without realizing it".
And we can't have that, now can we?
Logitech pulling another Squeezebox (Score:1)
Flic and SwitchBot work better anyhow (Score:2)
So if working, they will brick them... (Score:2)
Luddites, unite! (Score:1)
They bricked my Squeezeboxes (Score:2)
They bricked all of my Squeezeboxes.
And then they stopped making the Trackman Marble.
I'm done with Logitech.