Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Says Android Things is Finally Ready For Smart Devices (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the action-time dept.

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.

34 comments

  1. Do not want by olsmeister · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re: Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security is possible.

    2. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · 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 Google these days.

    3. Re:Do not want by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 2

      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 competently!

    4. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > One of the supposed benefits of this is that Google would handle security updates

      For three years. I do not want to have to replace my light switches every three years to stop people turning my smart wall switches into bitcoin miners.

    5. Re:Do not want by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably more secure than everyone and their dog trying to roll their own IoT OS written entirely in Python (or insert scripting language of the week here), having little to zero experience with the security aspects of that kind of design.

      Let someone like google make the OS and secure it and let the IoT script kiddies (developers) wack together whatever functionality they want on the framework of the hour going through APIs that google has locked down and secured.

    7. Re:Do not want by cavreader · · Score: 1

      If we could only figure out how to make smart people instead of smart devices.

    8. Re: Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is forcing you to purchase such items. However I'm disabled but can still do a lot and my brother is paraplegic so some of these types of devices might prove handy for us. What those types of devices are, I don't know but I'm willing to at least entertain the ideas. Crazy security isn't needed for everything but where it is often can be handled. And being a card carrying geek of 50 years i think I can figure out the security needs. I sure as heck don't need a stupid listening device in my house to ask what the weather is doing or order my food. But I don't just throw out tech ideas because oh my God, the security doesn't meet NSA/DOD level 7 standard.

      Not everyone like the car at first either

      -GeekPoet

    9. Re: Do not want by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      This

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    10. Re:Do not want by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Do not want by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      If you currently have a smart switch you get security updates for 0 seconds, let alone 1 year.

    12. Re: Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just had a 'privacy reminder' from google. I could either agree or delete all my stuff including all 3rd party android apps from Google play. No 'I refuse these changes to our agreement', if you didn't do either one the browser closed. It reminds me I have no privacy and google gets to screw me over for more data whenever it wants.

      These devices always start out nice. But google needs more profit and you need to give them more of your private data to sell.

      So yeh, nobody forces you to buy the crap privacy invading thing from google. It just turns slowing into a bad thing over time.

    13. Re:Do not want by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Most people today would consider that a nightmare, not an "advantage".

      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 kind of website for setup or monitoring).

      Then if I want to tunnel into my LAN from outside, that's a different matter.

      But I don't want OR need external websites to view my security cams, or to receive notifications, etc.

      It is perfectly possible to do all those things without third party access, and even to make it simple.

    14. Re:Do not want by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Local access, no need to "sign up" on a remote website to configure or monitor the system.

      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.

    15. Re:Do not want by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And no, no keys "mediated" by Google.

      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.

    16. Re:Do not want by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      (Should have read: "Google need NOT have ANY part in it... ")

    17. Re:Do not want by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    We don't need 'Internet of Things', and 99.9% of them are stupid.

    1. Re:Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by Tablizer · · 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.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by kackle · · Score: 1

      Don't fight your conscience; stupid is stupid - call it out. Although, you will be labeled: "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

      To the GP, I believe in most cases that "IoT" stands for "Internet of Toys".

    3. Re:Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is bliss. Flow-goers seem happier.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      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 admit it - *you* are not the market. Your preferences are not reflective of the market. There are plenty of people who think that $1000 for a carbon fiber bicycle is retarded... they are not the market. There is virtually no one that thinks a tungsten watch is a good idea, despite it being a better material on every metric.

    5. Re:Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I argue against 'consumers wanting' these stupid things, and for the idea of 'marketers convincing people they want things they don't need and that don't make any sense', which is what salesmen do: convince you to buy things you don't really want and don't really need. Stupid is stupid.

    6. Re:Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      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 Retirement" communities. I buy perhaps one consumer product each month, very carefully, and after significant research. That said - I do own a lightbulb speaker, buy cat litter online, etc. Alternatively, I paid $100 for my used French-style bicycle, have made/built many of my own things, and hunted down a fancy tungsten watch, which is essentially indestructible, which appeals to my preferences. I was willing to pay "3 watches" worth of cost for an indestructible watch. Others are willing to pay more (Rado), others, like my mother, cycle through cheap Walmart garbage every couple of years as they beat them to shit.

      Who are you to say what *all* *people* need? Or what *all* *people* want.

    7. Re:Just what we need: more 'IoT' nonsense by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      I'll express whatever opinions I want, buddy, and if you don't like it then that's your problem. I think most 'IoT' things are useless junk, a waste of money, and just one more way people's privacy is invaded by nosy corporations, and again: if you don't like my opinion, that's your problem, I don't need to hear about it from you.

  3. Where's Kurt Russel if you need him by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 0

    *nt*

  4. How wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, what everyone needs a house hold appliances and things full of Malware, backwoods and governments taking full advantage. Cia and the Chinese government are already rubbing their hands....such a sexy future...

    1. Re: How wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spellcheck of doom fail...

    2. Re:How wonderful by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      what everyone needs a house hold appliances and things full of [malware/spyware]

      I suspect many already do. 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 station. I don't think it was an intentional spy mechanism, just an inadvertent "radio".

      The difference is the newer generation of appliances may talk back.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  5. Not open-source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The source hasn't been released and Ars Technica says that it won't be: "Just like Windows, Android Things is closed source and has a centralized update system." (Source: https://bit.ly/2K0aYAY)

    With a support window of just 3 years and invasive Google software you can't tweak, I can't imagine any technical person buying into this.

  6. What’s the over/under for Google to abandon by BLToday · · Score: 1

    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 to know from the supermarket if our eggs were expired.”

  7. Get it while it's hot! by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    ... and before it's deprecated!

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  8. But are smart devices ready for Android? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java programming on layer on layer of abstraction, what could possibly go wrong when putting it inside tiny, tiny devices?

    And are you ready to let Google put yet another information-sucking device into your home, or your purse, or in the kids' room?