Hacker News Reader

Comment by deepstack | Hacker News Reader

the company is also doing some sketchy things in the smart home space under their brand "Aqara"

The whole idea of connecting everything to the internet is getting out of hand.

1. Internet and digital infrastructure has no integrity as how it is currently.

2. Anything for home, machinery, all should work when there is NO internet connection. Just like an app should work (to some extend) in airplane mode. It really comes down to the idea of data/device sovereignty.

Is this my device or not? If I need to ping some place in China to get this working. Then make it clear on your front page that it is is a lease.

View on HN

The only company I would trust with home automation at this point is IKEA. They're the only ones doing this who are actually in the business of making their customers' homes nice, rather than collecting and monetizing their customers' data.

(And now I'm half expecting someone to respond that IKEA also collects our data. I don't know if they do, and I'd expect them not to, but I'd really like to know if they do.)

It's a company. With shareholders. Even if you can trust them now, that's no guarantee for the future. Trusting companies is just silly.

I guess this is technical true, but then you're a person and some people do terrible things, therefore you must be terrible?

I think what the GP is stating is that Ikea's model is based on selling home goods, so the incentives align to sell you home goods not collect data for the Dutch government. Apple could steal all your most private data as well, but their business is luxury electronics so it's not in their best interest. Could this change? asolutely, but are you more concerned with what could be, or what currently is?

> I guess this is technical true, but then you're a person and some people do terrible things, therefore you must be terrible?

People are on average far more predictable than companies. A company is like a person with a very unstable personality. And the predictable component of a company's behavior is usually selfish and evil, whereas the predictable component of a person's behavior is usually good.

> It's a company. With shareholders.

It's owned by a dutch foundation which serves to "promote and support innovation in the field of architectural and interior design" (via [0]). Oh and something about kids in developing countries.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_INGKA_Foundation

IKEA has a complex corporate structure which was created specifically because of the high Swedish taxes. Hence the Dutch connection.

Also, read the criticisms section of that link. Only after publication of the criticism in the Economist did the family who owns IKEA take action. Now imagine what happens if the family has less control in the future. Also, supporting innovation and supporting developing countries does not mean "don't track users", etc.

Shareholders care about public perception. Selling user data isn't that profitable. It makes sense that a company would weigh in the potential cost to the brand when determining whether to sell user data.

I could see IKEA using their "good behavior" as a marketing expenditure or selling point. Much like Apple does. This would align well with their general brand perception vis-a-vis sustainability and whatnot.

The only people that care about this sort of thing here, on hacker news. Or similar tech forums.

My mom isn't going to care, she's going to get something because she thinks it looks cool and the brand is eco-friendly or some shit.

There is a demand for bulletproof cars and blackout curtains, but judging by what I see in my neighborhood, I wouldn't invest heavily in a company that makes those things. But the latest fashions, made sustainably, in POC & women owned business, OMG SO AWESOMEMMEMEME

I realise this is an opinion du jour around here now, but it's a pretty paranoid take on the market economy.

I trust that if I buy a can of coke, it will contain coke because coke want to keep selling me coke. They don't need to be good people, they just have to care about making money in the future. The fact that I think they care about that is why I can trust that the can of coke in fact contains coke with high probability.

> I trust that if I buy a can of coke, it will contain coke because coke want to keep selling me coke.

Perhaps but if the company could sell you more coke by having your personal data, it would be silly to assume they would not explore that route.

When we buy genuine Xiaomi lightbulbs it’s definitely Xiaomi lightbulbs in the package, that’s not the argument.

The question is what happens at the purchase time, and afterwards. To bring back the coke you love, there’s Coca-Cola vending machine that will accept payment from a cell phone, linking with the vending machine through NFC.

What happens to you info when you download the app, what do they do with your purchase history ? Do your data stay in the ‘coke’ silo or move to all the other sister brands and partner marketing firms to infinity and beyond ? Do they scan the other apps on your phone to better profile you ? Do they lobby where you live to get rid of blocking rules when they track you buy less because of them ?

That’s the questions that would come with ‘buying a coke’

> I trust that if I buy a can of coke, it will contain coke because coke want to keep selling me coke

You don't even know what coke is, since that formula is kept secret (well, Coca Cola's at least). Also, in some countries, you'll get high-fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar, which is believed to increase the risk of fatty liver disease, obesity etc. (caveat: Some believe the evidence is not conclusive enough for certainty.)

And why don't they just "sell you coke" everywhere? Because it makes them more money. And the raison d'etre of a commercial company/corporation is pecuniary gain. Profiting. Making money. Management is obligated to act so as to maximize profit (under legal obligations etc. etc.)

This brings us to your first point:

> it's a pretty paranoid take on the market economy.

No, it's literally what commercial companies' charters and fundamental structure requires. No conspiracy theory or paranoia.

In context of spying - if the company has determined their profits would improve by them spying on you, and that they can get away with it - then it's pretty likely they will indeed spy on you.

The point is that if I want a can of sugar water (or aspartame) I can reliably find one. I'm unlikely to pop the tab and find kombucha or sand.

'Companies are out to make money' is not the debate trump card you seem to think it is. In fact the same view is embedded in my previous comment. The question is, given it's true what's the range of phenomena that result, what works well, what badly etc?

> market economy

If your argument for the market economy working in a way that shouldn't inspire paranoia is based on trust and distinguished consumer choice, you've not been paying attention to world news or you're arguing in bad faith.

> If your argument for the market economy working in a way that shouldn't inspire paranoia is based on trust and distinguished consumer choice, you've not been paying attention to world news or you're arguing in bad faith.

No, I think you missed the point. It's based on greedy organisations being predictable. Amazon will send stuff we order so that we buy more stuff from them. Electricity grid with zero regulation will fail to invest in preventative measures against extreme events. Trust or distrust arises from the particular game theoretic situation we're talking about. Simply thinking every corporation will screw us at every moment is the paranoia.

IKEA is a European company. Can't trust America- its bought and payed for by corporations- and the Chinese are enigmatic- who knows what they want?

Is this satire?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com