From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

<https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

The same sort of idea that *chocolate* makes everything better?
(chocolate covered pistachio nuts??)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 2026-01-08, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: ><https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

The same sort of idea that *chocolate* makes everything better?
(chocolate covered pistachio nuts??)

I like chocolate.
I like Rich Tea biscuits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_tea)
I hate chocolate-coated Rich Tea buscuits
--
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 1/9/2026 1:19 AM, Ian wrote:

On 2026-01-08, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

<https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

The same sort of idea that *chocolate* makes everything better?
(chocolate covered pistachio nuts??)

I like chocolate.
I like Rich Tea biscuits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_tea)
I hate chocolate-coated Rich Tea buscuits

Exactly. You can't just glom AI onto a product and expect it
to be "better". You have to consider what you are providing,
at the end of the day.

Expect to see even more of this as vendors try to sort out how
to capitalize on AI -- poorly!

[A refrigerator can add value by telling you what you are running
low on -- based on observations of current quantities AND past
consumption rates. Or, let you sort out what you might want to make
for supper, tonight, based on items on hand ("Pick up some tomatoes
on your way home!")

But, using that as an excuse to pitch products ("On sale, now, at...")
sends the wrong message to the consumer: "You're not helping me but,
rather, trying to exploit me" (How do I know that you haven't been
selling my consumption data to the very people who want to sell me products??)

Devices that talk to the outside world should always be suspect in regards
to what they may be leaking about you and how they might be influenced
by those folks -- who, likely, have THEIR interests at heart!]

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:31:26 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

<https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

I think and hope here is a trend towards simple things with simple
controls. We don't need phone apps to turn on the lights or flush the
toilet.

The same sort of idea that *chocolate* makes everything better?
(chocolate covered pistachio nuts??)

Now that makes excellent sense.



John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

<https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

IMO, those are not technical failures. Rather, they show how current
economy works. Remember, goal of a businesses is to make money.
Delivering working product is just cost of doing business. And
as business improve, there is tendency to cut costs.

Software (especially in USA due to DCMA) is very attractive as
a means to lock down customers into using specific product.
Of course, software is also a cost effective way to deliver
various features (useful or not). So manufacturers want
many features in software. And there is long tradition in
software developement to cut cost on testing: just let
customers test your product.

The products in the article clearly represent things that
businesses want to sell. Some people will buy them because
features look attractive to then. Other will buy once there
are no alternatives.
--
Waldek Hebisch
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 1/10/2026 2:08 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

<https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

IMO, those are not technical failures. Rather, they show how current

The comments aren't focused on whether they "work" or not.
But, rather, the consequences of their potential adoption.

A camera in a doorbell, connected to a server owned by a third
party, can technically perform as intended. But, now adds
privacy and security issues where they didn't, before.

Ditto "nanny cams", voice assistants, etc.

All can "work" remarkably well. But, have serious costs that
the user may not be aware of.

economy works. Remember, goal of a businesses is to make money.
Delivering working product is just cost of doing business. And
as business improve, there is tendency to cut costs.

Note that the reviewers are not commenting on the ability of
a product to make money. Rather, their assessment of the
downsides of the products from the consumer/societal perspective.

Bottled water is a wonderful way to make money -- selling tap
water in convenient, disposable plastic containers. But,
that doesn't mean it's an idea that folks should champion.

Software (especially in USA due to DCMA) is very attractive as
a means to lock down customers into using specific product.
Of course, software is also a cost effective way to deliver
various features (useful or not). So manufacturers want
many features in software. And there is long tradition in
software developement to cut cost on testing: just let
customers test your product.

I didn't see any comments regarding how well/poorly the
products performed. Rather, the unseen consequences of
their "specifications" (ignoring execution).

You *know* that law enforcement agencies contact "camera servers"
to obtain video that they use for their purposes, often without
the knowledge of the provider of that video.

If manufacturer A makes privacy "guarantees" today, will they be
honored, tomorrow? Or, will the "fine print" of a future firmware
update change those terms knowing most users won't notice what
they've agreed to? If the company is sold, will the new owner
be bound by the terms from the previous owner?

In the US, there is no current legislation protecting your privacy
in these devices -- even if the result of the intermediary
being maliciously hacked and YOUR data stolen. I.e., there is no
downside to the manufacturer with regard to that aspect. Yet,
the manufacturer can monetize that data as he sees fit.

The products in the article clearly represent things that
businesses want to sell. Some people will buy them because
features look attractive to then. Other will buy once there
are no alternatives.

And, others will NOT buy them because they don't welcome the features
and their attendant price increases.

What does the manufacturer do when/if that becomes a real concern?
A new model with those features removed??

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

<https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

IMO, those are not technical failures. Rather, they show how current
economy works. Remember, goal of a businesses is to make money.
Delivering working product is just cost of doing business. And
as business improve, there is tendency to cut costs.

Many of these companies see stock market money as the thing to be made, not profits. 'Line go up' == success. The CEO will exit before investors
discover that lines also go down. The investors are also piling in on a
'line go up' basis, rather than a sober reflection on the potential market, revenues, profit, costs, etc.

The products in the article clearly represent things that
businesses want to sell. Some people will buy them because
features look attractive to then. Other will buy once there
are no alternatives.

It seems like the companies are skipping the 'doing things customers want' stage and moving straight to the 'make $$$$' stage, which is possible when there are ever more gullible investors to throw money at them (or you can
skew the market enough such that index funds etc will roboinvest in them).

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Don Y wrote:
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Bottled water is a wonderful way to make money -- selling tap|
|water in convenient, disposable plastic containers. But, |
|that doesn't mean it's an idea that folks should champion." | |--------------------------------------------------------------|

A radio broadcast during 2025 alleged that a scientist recently
discovered evidence that plastic bottles cause a health problem.

(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 1/10/2026 6:32 AM, Theo wrote:

Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

<https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6fb7b007d>

IMO, those are not technical failures. Rather, they show how current
economy works. Remember, goal of a businesses is to make money.
Delivering working product is just cost of doing business. And
as business improve, there is tendency to cut costs.

Many of these companies see stock market money as the thing to be made, not profits. 'Line go up' == success. The CEO will exit before investors discover that lines also go down. The investors are also piling in on a 'line go up' basis, rather than a sober reflection on the potential market, revenues, profit, costs, etc.

Possibly. But Feeping Creaturism costs money. Every development
dollar spent on features that don't improve sales is a dollar
diverted from {Advertising, Research, Development, Stock Buy Backs, etc.}

One has to wonder if the "Marketing" folks actually understand their
markets or if they are just reacting to the latest fads.

Our refrigerator has three evaporators and an autofill water pitcher, accessible through-the-door. Both are definite "wins" in terms of utility.
I have no idea how anyone could think there was a need for WiFi or BT!
What value-added, that?

The products in the article clearly represent things that
businesses want to sell. Some people will buy them because
features look attractive to then. Other will buy once there
are no alternatives.

It seems like the companies are skipping the 'doing things customers want' stage and moving straight to the 'make $$$$' stage, which is possible when there are ever more gullible investors to throw money at them (or you can skew the market enough such that index funds etc will roboinvest in them).

But reality eventually catches up in terms of profit/loss statements.
Investors move on to the next "scammer", unceremoniously abandoning
their "investment" in your firm.

I think these things (WiFi in appliances, AI, "Family Hubs", etc.)
boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology and
its "value added". Like chocolate covered pistachios (NOT pistachio
NUT MEATS but actual pistachios -- the nuts you INTEND to pry open
with your fingertips but can only do so after you have LICKED
off the chocolate).

It will be interesting to see if "AI" becomes a term to be avoided
as job losses attributable to AI become more prominent.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

In message <slrn10m1ehc.3j0.${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-i@vm46. home.jusme.com>, Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com>
writes

On 2026-01-08, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >><https://apnews.com/article/ces-worst-show-ai-0ce7fbc5aff68e8ff6d7b8e6f >>b7b007d>

The same sort of idea that *chocolate* makes everything better?
(chocolate covered pistachio nuts??)

I like chocolate.
I like Rich Tea biscuits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_tea)
I hate chocolate-coated Rich Tea buscuits

The biscuit is merely a substrate to carry the chocklit .

B
--
Brian Howie
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2