Apple rumoured to announce a new ‘Smart Home’ platform at WWDC


  • Super_Deluxe

    No Apple, I wont allow you to take over my home too.

    • It’s Me

      Didn’t google mention last week that ads on thermostats and smoke alarms was a goal? If Apple can guarantee their “smart home” isn’t snooping on homeowners habits and collecting that info, it would seem to be a preferable option.

      If Apple’s had this in the works for a while, it explains why they were so miffed about Neat going to google.

    • Super_Deluxe

      If they can guarantee it then it wont be so bad but I doubt it.

    • It’s Me

      I don’t think it would be that hard to guarantee. I don’t think most people would be against it learning your habits for it’s normal functions (i.e. you come home at 9PM, so make sure the AC/heat is on by 8:30). But the issue would be if this info is uploaded to the network and what happens to it then. Apple wouldn’t seem to have much to gain by using that info for ads or analysis beyond core functions, at least not so much their wouldn’t reasonable forgo it in order to be more attractive. Their business doesn’t revolve around collecting, analyzing and aggregating all of your personal info.

      For me to believe such a guarantee from any company would come down to how much do they gain by using my info, how have the historically used such data, and is my data central to their core businesses.

    • Super_Deluxe

      My problem is with the security of my info. What happens if that data is compromised and the hacker knows when people will be away from home? I’m not against the tech, I just dont trust it just yet just like the NFC payment thing. I will give it a shot once all the problems are bugs have been worked out though, just wont be an early adopter.

    • Post

      They never said it was there goal. You really need to read source material. They said that it will be hard to differentiate mobile and non mobile ad rates when in the future there is a possibility to serve ads in many ways, including those you’ve listed. However, they never stated that was there goal.

    • It’s Me

      “We expect the definition of ‘mobile’ to continue to evolve as more and more ‘smart’ devices gain traction in the market. For example, a few years from now, we and other companies could be serving ads and other content on refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches, to name just a few possibilities.”

      ““We are in contact with the SEC to clarify the language in this 2013 filing, which does not reflect Google’s product roadmap. Nest, which we acquired after this filing was made, does not have an ads-based model and has never had any such plans.”

      So, they’ve clarified only that their Nest division isn’t planning ads..right now.

    • FlamesFan89

      Wow, you went from “We expect the definition of ‘mobile’ to continue to evolve as more and more ‘smart’ devices gain traction in the market. For example…” to
      “Didn’t google mention last week that ads on thermostats and smoke alarms was a goal?”

      The quote you provided starts with a prediction of the market evolving from what it is now. Then they give an example of a possibility of something that companies could do, and you turn that into it being a stated goal of the company.

      There could be a smoking gun, internal document within the Google upper echelon which, in no uncertain term, says, “Our goal is to advertise on thermostats and smoke alarms”, but you can not claim to have gleaned that in any way shape or form from the quote you provided.

      You might want to put more clothes on, your bias is showing.

    • FlamesFan89

      And that is completely fair. I don’t disagree with you. I gladly PAY for Netflix so that I can watch without ads. It’s my opinion that cable TV shouldn’t have ads since you have to pay for the service.

    • FlamesFan89

      Good point

    • It’s Me

      My bias? So the SEC, wsj, forbes, NYT and every tech blog didn’t also read it that way? Google didn’t recognize their admission and rushed out a follow up statement to SEC to reassure them that they didn’t mean Nest was included in their plans? Funny because I didn’t go there alone. Everyone, including google, went there.

      Hmm. Your over sensitivity about perceived barbs and your need to rush to defend beloved is showing.

    • FlamesFan89

      Aww, muffin doesn’t like someone pointing out where he went wrong?

      You might want to re-read what I wrote, and take note of how I am being specific with my criticisms. I’m saying that, from the quote you posted, you can make all the guesses and assumptions you want, right along with any publications or the SEC, but they are guesses and assumptions. At no point, in that quote, does Google say, “our stated goal is to advertise on thermostats and smoke alarms” or any other home devices for that matter.

      Again, you are free to guess and assume all you want, and as I said, that may very well be their EXACT plan, and there may be internal documents which state EXACTLY THAT, but, they didn’t state it as fact, and therefore, it is only speculation at best.

      But you know, if you want to also assume that Google is my beloved or something, feel free to do that too. I don’t care, but it is SOOO much fun pointing out your mistakes. Keep ’em coming. 🙂 You might also note that I in no way defended Google or anyone else for that matter. I just pointed out your mistake.

    • It’s Me

      Nope. The problem was that you implied it was due to some bias and a puzzling conclusion to reach. You questioned how I “went there”.

      The fact is most seem to have thought the same, so the bias appears to be yours. It was such a puzzling conclusion that even google, who made the statements, went there. So, while you don’t like them and take offense, it appears you are mostly alone, outside of coreligionists.

      Don’t get butthurt so easily when you imagine someone attacking google or Samsung, especially when the attack is only in your head. That sort of religious zealotry is delusional.

    • FlamesFan89

      bwah ha ha ha ha. Even when I explain it in plain english, you don’t get it. I don’t care if Google advertises on your forehead. I don’t care if you call them out for advertising on your forehead.

      What I’m saying is that if Google says “there is potential, that in the future, the sky will be purple”, that is not the same as “Our goal is to make the sky purple” which is what you are saying. I couldn’t care less if they DO want to make the sky purple. I’m pointing out your mistake. That’s all.

      Have fun misunderstanding it all again though, as I’m sure you will.

    • It’s Me

      The misunderstanding is only yours sweetheart. When google themselves, SEC and pretty much everyone else with even some intelligence read it the same way, you getting butthurt about is telling. Google even had to write a follow up reply to SEC because they thought the same thing.

      You obviously do care. Perhaps you should write to google and SEC and whine to them instead of me, because it was them their interpretation that has you so upset.

    • FlamesFan89

      bwah ha ha ha ha ha. This is just too funny. Stop, just stop, my gut hurts from laughing at you. It’s too much.

      Bwah ha ha ha ha ha

      Ok, let’s test something. I’m going to say something completely unrelated to anything in this conversation (if you want to call it that), and I want to see how you can try to spin it as me being butthurt or defending Google. Ok, so here we go:


      Now GO!

    • It’s Me

      Realistically, this response of yours is as well thought out as your previous attempts.

      Have you written your letter to google and the SEC to explain your point of view on their misunderstanding? I mean, when they and almost everyone else is in agreement on the meaning of their statement, you really need to correct them.

      I’m honestly starting to think you are a parody account. No one can really be as dense or as religiously fanatical as you.

      If google said, “we expect to be in your bedrooms soon, watching everything you do” would you attack everyone that was alarmed at that? Would you have another fit and start accusing people of bias because they read that as their plan? When a business states they expect to do something, most people don’t see that as fortune telling. When they make a statement to the SEC of what they expect to be doing, that is not predicting the future. This isn’t rocket science, I am not sure why you have such difficulty with the concepts here.

      You make me very sad for our education system. I hope you are young and can outgrow your fanaticism and lack of critical thinking.

    • FlamesFan89

      It’s hilarious that you think I had “a fit” when I merely pointed out that a statement of a possibility, along with an example, does not equate to a stated goal.

      It’s also hilarious that you think I am trying to defend anyone for anything, when I have repeatedly told you that I don’t care one way or the other. The only thing I have done is stated that two things that are clearly not equal, are, well, not equal.

      For example, forty-two does not equal twenty-six.

      But hey, if that is fanatical thinking for you, if that isn’t something you can understand, then it is you who the education system has failed.

      You will note how I have again, not defended anyone’s actions for anything here, I have simply pointed out that two things are not equal.

      I will also AGAIN point out that Google may very well have the EXACT goal of putting advertising on home devices, and I DON’T CARE. That is their prerogative, and no one has to like it. In fact, I wouldn’t like it, and would not purchase a home device like a thermostat or smoke alarm if it meant it was going to show advertising all the time. That would suck balls. But, I’m not defending anyone, because I don’t care one way or the other.

      But please, do go on amusing me.

    • It’s Me

      If a company goes before the SEC and makes claims about what actions they expect to take, you honestly want to get into some petty semantics parsing in order to argue against those that correctly read that as a statement of intent?

      I didn’t ask if you if you would like google doing those things. I am sure it would give you wood. I asked what would you take their meaning to be if they stated, to the SEC, that it is their expectation to do so.

      Two days worth of petty, nonsensical responses says you do care. It’s funny, that as you go on and on about how you don’t care, you remind me most of Lady MacBeth, “the lady doth protest too much methinks”. And lady, you doth protest too much.

    • FlamesFan89

      bwah ha ha ha. Hey look, I quoted Shakespeare, I must be smart.

      It’s awesome how I specifically state that I wouldn’t like those devices if they had advertising, and you somehow take that to mean that it would “give [me] wood”. See, there’s that education system letting you down again.

      Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble, but it was Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude who spoke that famous line. Wow, you just can’t get anything right, can you.

      To answer your question, if Google said, “our goal is to put advertising on home devices” then I would make a point of not buying those devices, as that would suck balls. If they say that they see the market changing, and that advertising on home devices is an example of something they could see in the future, then I take that to be that it is something they are considering, that it is a possibility, but what I do not take it to mean is that it is a stated goal of the company and that they are diving head first down that hole. But, then, I prefer to take statements at their face value and not overreact or read too much into them. But that’s just me.

    • It’s Me

      Buddy, I said you remind be of Lady Macbeth, not Gertrude. I didn’t say Lady M said it, it was about her. Hence, you remind me of her (Lady M). Do you recall why that was said about Lady Macbeth? . Let’s give you the dumbed down, wikipedia explanation “It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person’s overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.” So, keep up your oft used denials. They really make it seem believable. Really. You don’t care. You don’t. Not at all. You just don’t care. Never cared. Honestly. Seriously. Really. Don’t care at all. 😀

      But yes, thanks for another example of our poor education system. It sucks apparently.

      And again, I didn’t ask you what you would do if Google said “our goal is to put advertising on home devices”. I asked what would you take their meaning to be if they stated, to the SEC, that it is their expectation to do so. Three times and you keep dodging or misreading the question.

    • FlamesFan89

      WOW, just wow. Poor education indeed if you don’t even realize that Hamlet, and Macbeth, are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLAYS. Listen, I know who said it, I know what it is about. I’m not protesting too much, I’m pointing out the error in your accusations. Queen Gertrude states in in response to a question from her son Hamlet regarding the Player Queen, in a play they are watching, who ironically, bears a striking resemblance to herself. That’s the beauty of the prose, and one of Shakespeare’s greatest abilities with his writing, the ability to create irony. What makes this even more hilarious, is that the irony of the person stating the line (Gertrude) not realizing that she is in essence criticizing herself, is completely lost on you as you use the statement yourself. (by the way, I didn’t need to look any of that up on wikipedia, because, well, I actually know what I’m talking about).

      You doth accuse too much, methinks.

      If they stated, to the SEC, that their expectation is to do so, then I would assume that they expect to do so, as, well, that is what they said. That however is not what was said in the quote you provided. If you have other quotes that state differently, so be it, which would be in exact agreement with my previous statements regarding internal documents.

      An NHL head coach can state before a game that the team needs to hit hard, and more often, to wear down the opposition’s defencemen. That does not mean that they intend to hit from behind, or cross-check, or commit any penalties whatsoever. And even if they do hit from behind, or cross-check, or otherwise, and even if in the locker room the coach told the team, I want you to cross-check the life out of those guys, it does not change the meaning of the original statement.

      That’s my point. The original statement is worded such that it is a possibility, and an example, but not a definite. If you would like to argue otherwise, please be my guest, but make no mistake, you will be wrong.

    • It’s Me

      Doh! you are right, it was Hamlet. My bad. But you still doth protest too much.

      “We expect the definition of ‘mobile’ to continue to evolve as more and more ‘smart’ devices gain traction in the market. For example, a few years from now, we and other companies could be serving ads and other content on refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches, to name just a few possibilities.”

      How can you not read that as they expect to be serving ads in those places? They said what they expect to do and then give an example of ads on those locations. That’s expectation.

    • FlamesFan89

      It’s an example and a prediction. I can fully see how it can be interpreted as you are saying. But you originally said that “Didn’t google mention last week that ads on thermostats and smoke alarms was a goal?”

      An expectation of how the market MIGHT change, and an example of what MIGHT happen in the future, and a defined corporate goal are two different things. I have no knowledge of your employment background, so perhaps that’s where the subtleties of the semantics are being lost on you (please do not take that as a slight against you, it is most assuredly not meant as one), but when a company, especially one the size of Google defines and states a “goal”, it is an extremely thoroughly thought out thing, that is well defined, and they will be working diligently to achieve it. The statement as quoted, to me, more reads as it being something they think might come to light, and if it does, it will be a potential revenue stream for them, and it is very likely something they are actively working on, but it is by no means a corporate “Goal”.

      Does that make sense?

    • It’s Me

      Of course it makes sense. That is clearly one way to read their statement and i have never argued otherwise. But, as is obvious, it can also be read as intent, i.e. plans.

      And it is obvious given that every news site, the SEC and google themselves read it that way. Find any news article on the subject and you will see it. That google felt the need to clarify it in a followup response, demonstrates they also saw it could be read that way.

      So, if it was such a common reading, why attack me for reading it the same? The denial of such an obvious reading and that you felt the need to attack over such a common reading is what gives the impression of fanaticism and oversensitivity regarding the company involved.

    • FlamesFan89

      Can we be clear about one thing, and that is the SEC, and the insanity that it is. If an employee, especially one from a company the size of Google, says, “crap, I was 14 seconds late submitting my timesheet last week”, the SEC gets in a tizzy and goes into overdrive on auditing and analyzing everything that has taken place in the past 400 years, regardless of the age of the company. Point being, every company nowadays has to be unnecessarily clear about everything they say in regards to everything, and they are constantly clarifying things. So the fact that Google clarified the statement doesn’t really mean much in my books. It’s CYA.

      As for news publications, they are looking for headlines. Reporting has degraded to the point of Print first, sell, retract later in fine print. We have to obviously get our information from somewhere, but I rarely, on any topic, take information from major news outlets to be 100% reliable.

      Ok, all that said, getting back to the original statements. I was calling you out for twisting the statement. That’s it. I honestly don’t care if your assumption is 100% correct. I was simply pointing out the spin. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don’t like that, that’s perfectly acceptable, you don’t have to, but that’s what I did.

    • FlamesFan89

      By the way, I suggest you look up the words “fanaticism”, “fanatical”, and other such variations.

      In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      I’ll make you a deal. How about I let you know when I make a statement that is defending Google in any way shape or form, and also when I get butthurt about anything. Ok? Deal? Ok then.

      Now, back to your regularly scheduled pissy posts. 🙂

    • It’s Me

      “fanatic outlook or behavior especially as exhibited by excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions on some subject”

      Religious fanatic….fits you to a tee. Blind, thoughtless, overly eager, excessively enthusiastic and completely unreasoned whenever you imagine someone faulting google or Samsung.

      Did you honestly think the definition would make you look less like a nutjob?


    • FlamesFan89

      Look, if you equate stating a fact, to fanaticism, then you really need help.

      I’m not being blind, thoughtless, or overly eager. I’m not expressing any sort of unreasoning zeal. I’m stating facts, which you don’t seem to like.

      Disregard for facts would land you, not me, in the land of religious fanatic.

      If Google wants to advertise on anything, they can go right ahead. I personally wouldn’t want those products, but hey, it’s their prerogative. If you want to believe that some saying something is a possibility is the exact same thing as saying it is a defined goal, well, I suppose that’s your prerogative too, but it doesn’t make you right.

    • It’s Me

      I did not ask if you would agree with it or like it. I asked what would you take their meaning to be if they stated, to the SEC, that it is their expectation to do so.

    • FlamesFan89

      But they didn’t. They stated that it is their expectation that the market would change, and gave an example of how advertising might be used in this changed market.

      If they said, We expect to put advertising on refrigerators, then I would expect they would put advertising on refrigerators.

      I would not however hear someone say, I expect that in the future the rules of hockey will be changed in regards to fighting, and take that to mean that it is their declared goal to change the rules regarding fighting in hockey.

    • It’s Me

      “We expect the definition of ‘mobile’ to continue to evolve as more and more ‘smart’ devices gain traction in the market. For example, a few years from now, we and other companies could be serving ads and other content on refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches, to name just a few possibilities.”

      They give clear examples about what they expect to be doing soon.

    • FlamesFan89

      “example”, “could be”, “possibilities”.

      Those are the key words. A declared corporate goal would NEVER contain weasel words like “could be” and “possibilities”, or (not contained in this quote) “might”, or “maybe”, etc.

      You stated it was their goal, I’m saying they expressed it as something that could come to fruition.

    • It’s Me

      “Expect” is also a key word. You’ll note they are given as examples of what they expect to do.

    • FlamesFan89

      “We expect the definition of ‘mobile’ to continue to evolve”

      What they stated as an expectation what that the definition of mobile would evolve to include more devices. They did not say, we expect to create all these devices, nor did they state, we expect to advertise on all these devices. Advertising on them was given as a “possibility” however.

    • It’s Me

      They expect the definition of mobile to evolve and then give specific examples if what they mean, including delivering ads to those devices.

    • FlamesFan89

      an expectation and a goal are still two different things.

    • It’s Me

      Are they always?

      “If they said, We expect to put advertising on refrigerators, then I would expect they would put advertising on refrigerators.” Do you remember writing that?

      I agree, if a company says they expect to do something, then I expect they will do it (or try). That’s what a goal is, something you expect to do (or at least try to do, as success isn’t guaranteed)

    • FlamesFan89

      If an expectation isn’t realized, it usually means that the situation changed. Let’s say, as a hypothetical for this case, some law it passed preventing advertising on devices such as refrigerators. That won’t ever happen, but you get the idea. Google would have to forget about any R&D in that regard, and move on in another direction. If a goal is not reached however, there is serious reflection, and likely heads rolling. There will have been some failure which lead to the goal not being realized.

      Another example would be, Joe Average expects to continue working for company ABC, and doing his job to a satisfactory level. He has a defined goal of putting together 48 gizmos a day during his shift.

      Now, if the company goes under because the gizmos aren’t selling, Joe’s expectation won’t be realized, and he will have to look for new work. However, that is different than him only making 12 gizmos a day, and getting fired for not reaching his goals.

      Perhaps these are bad examples, perhaps not, but I hope they help to clarify why I see the statement from Google as a totally different thing as a defined goal as you claimed it to be.

    • FlamesFan89

      Perhaps a better example would be, instead of a law being passed regarding ads on fridges, the expectation not being met is that the market evolves differently, such that, consumers outwardly reject the idea of smart devices in the home. Google would likely stop pursuing that avenue, but it wouldn’t be a failure to reach a goal, it would be a change in expectations, and the market.

    • It’s Me

      Those examples of expectations not being realized apply even if you explicitly say they were plans instead of expectations. Nothing is guaranteed, things change.

      “If they said, We expect to put advertising on refrigerators, then I would expect they would put advertising on refrigerators.”

      Doesn’t mean it will happen or that something won’t prevent it. But it’s clearly their goal (in that example that you provided)

    • FlamesFan89

      I think this all comes down to how you and I view the words expectation and goal. It is my opinion, that those are two very different things. Your opinion is that they more or less equate.

      Neither of us is going to convince the other, methinks, thus we best make better use of our time.

    • J-Ro

      How does Google expect people to stand and stare at their thermostat, if the selling point of the thermostat was that it needs little to no assistance?

    • It’s Me

      Probably wouldn’t make a great ad delivery vehicle. Great as a data collection point though.

      Now, if they bought a home security company or home security camera company, then with the other Nest devices they really have great coverage for data collection.

    • J-Ro

      I guess tapping my house through all my devices is a lot easier than just asking me what I want.

  • It’s Me


  • hyperhyper

    Oh great, another proprietary piece of technology from Apple. I would be a lot more open to using their products if they weren’t so scared to make it more open so other people can build upon their stuff. History has shown that they suck when they try to do it themselves (Apple Maps, iPhone keyboard, etc…) At least with nest, their is an API you can tie into. I appreciate that Apple wants to further technology but when they do it in a vacuum, it makes technology centric people shudder because the 1990’s are way behind us and we are used to working with more open platforms. Even Microsoft has seen the light and has been working towards those goals.