Smart houses are no longer approaching – they’ve already arrived. Voice activation has reached a critical user base, and many household devices are now “smart,” though not always in the way one expects when hearing the phrase smart home. Game consoles like Xbox and PlayStation, for example, double as media hubs, yet offer little in terms of real household value beyond games and streaming.
More impressive are the appliances that go beyond entertainment. Coffee makers now respond to voice commands through a central hub. Toasters remember your preferred shade of crispness. Convection ovens monitor not only heat and time, but also “smell” ingredients using advanced chemo-sensory tools. These innovations promise to liberate humans from mundane kitchen tasks – to free us up for whatever it is humans are still supposed to be doing.
Each of these devices shares a common weakness tied to connectivity: privacy. Concerns once centered on hackers stealing passwords. That threat still exists, but a deeper, more structural problem has emerged – one designed into the devices themselves. Data mining, targeted advertising, and bandwidth drain have become routine. Despite all this digital creepiness, the bigger issue might be more basic. Many of these devices simply fail to make life easier. At least, that’s the argument made by journalist Kashmir Hill:
“I’m going to warn you against a smart home because living in it is annoying as hell.” (Hill, 2018)
Full respect to Ms. Hill, though I couldn’t disagree more. I once shared her skepticism, and I voiced it loudly at the 2013 Future of Design Conference in Boston. During the opening forum, tech host Luria Petrucci described an emerging frontier – the Internet of Things. Several examples were offered, though one stood out: the smart ladle. As described, it would connect to a smartphone app and relay the temperature of your soup. To me, this was absurd – a needless gadget that wasted engineering time and research dollars. After all, a basic kitchen thermometer from the last century could do the job more reliably, more quickly, and without the help of Bluetooth.
When the floor opened for questions, I raised my hand – confident, maybe even a little smug – glad to be the lone voice pushing back against tech for tech’s sake. Whiz-bang gadgets that solved problems nobody had struck me as a waste of time, money, and talent. Then Ms. Petrucci changed my mind with a single word: Market.
That simple word carries real weight. The market decides what survives and what fades into the junk drawer of history. Take a moment to consider:
- New technologies almost always come with a high price tag. Early adopters pay not only to buy, but also to install, maintain, and troubleshoot these devices. The cost grows when follow-up versions – often incompatible with the first – begin flooding the market. Brand updates and competing formats force users into cycles of replacement or abandonment.
- Most people, especially those with less disposable income or less interest in tech trends, choose to wait. These users let market forces shake out what works and what doesn’t. If a connected device offers only novelty, the market will strip it of value. It will disappear.
- Cost alone doesn’t determine survival. There’s another price to pay – consequence. Smart homes, like smartphones before them, introduce real risks. Many users begin with little awareness of what’s being collected, tracked, or sold. Over time, they learn – usually by proxy – about surveillance, breaches, and behavior profiling. The question becomes: once the public catches on, will smart homes go the way of the Segway or the smartphone?
Smartphone adoption offers a clear answer. Pew Research data shows that over 97% of the population now owns a smart mobile device (Pew Research Center, 2018). Awareness of surveillance or security risks has done little to slow this trend. Most users, even when informed, are unwilling to give up the convenience.
Expense and consequence alone do not stop adoption – they refine it. Together, these factors help shape a powerful, three-tier form of market regulation: caution, value, and backlash. This framework aligns with Lawrence Lessig’s Code 2.0, where market forces are listed as one of four primary regulators of digital behavior (Grimmelmann, n.d.).
That’s why the smart ladle, as ridiculous as it sounds (and it does), still holds conceptual value. Build the device, release it into the world, and let the market decide whether it earns a place in people’s homes.
Ms. Hill made the same mistake I once did – judging the technology in isolation. Her experiment overloaded a home with devices, not for quality of life, but for quantity of data. In trying to learn how the tech collects information, she buried her household in tools designed more for novelty than necessity. No surprise it became a frustrating experience. That setup was destined to fail. It’s like blaming a hammer for a splintered board or a crooked shelf.
At time of writing, smart appliance adoption stands at 14%, with forecasts placing it near 22% within the next four years (Statista, n.d.). These aren’t explosive numbers, but they suggest gradual acceptance. Most people, like me, don’t live in sensor-saturated homes. My setup includes only a few smart devices – each chosen with purpose. Despite the hype, the backlash, and the headlines, buyers continue voting with their wallets.
If that trend holds, Ms. Hill’s conclusion may be less a warning and more a moment of early frustration. Novelty will fade. Utility will remain.
References
Hill, K. (2018, February 7). The house that spied on me. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.com/the-house-that-spied-on-me-1822429852
Pew Research Center. (2018, February 5). Mobile fact sheet. https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
Grimmelmann, J. (n.d.). Internet law: Cases and problems (Version 41). https://internetcasebook.com/
Statista. (n.d.). Smart appliances – United States: Market forecast. https://www.statista.com/outlook/389/109/smart-appliances/united-states