back to article Cats, dogs starve as web-connected chow chute PetNet plays dead

Humans have been forced to temporarily interact with their dogs or cats – perhaps both – after PetNet’s internet-controlled smart feeder system suffered a blackout. For $149, the company provides a web-enabled dog/cat feeder that is pre-programmed to dispense food stuffs at certain time and portion sizes. But PetNet warned …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Yet another useless gadget...

    That loses it's functionality completely as soon as it's connection is down...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yet another useless gadget...

      But if it stores the config locally how will they instantly cut you off when you miss a subscription payment??!!

      IoT - designed for them, not you.

      1. Scott Broukell

        Re: Yet another useless gadget...

        Internet

        of

        Taxing the stupid

    2. Christian Berger

      Well its purpose depends on its connection

      I mean you are just confusing the purpose of the device. It's not there to feed your pet. It's there to generate some data which, given the current hype, might become valuable when combined with other data. Big Data for the win.

      It's a closed source device, you are the product not the customer, no matter how much you paid.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well its purpose depends on its connection

        "I'm sorry Dave, I can't feed you"

  2. Dwarf

    Another negative for IoT

    There is a reason that some things should be autonomous within your own home and have no external dependencies.

    You have to wonder how hard it would have been to design the device to store the feeding pattern locally, rather than rely on a permanent up-link to the mother-ship. I'm thinking PIC / Arduino implementing a weekly clock and a control output to trigger the feeding mechanism.

    I wonder who would be liable for any animal cruelty resulting from temporary starvation ?

    - Hint, the vendor will have weasel words in their documentation saying its not their fault if anything breaks (like your favourite pet).

    1. TimR

      Re: Another negative for IoT

      "...the vendor will have weasel words in their documentation saying its not their fault if anything breaks (like your favourite pet)."

      Yep, from their website:

      "You use a Product at your own discretion and risk. You will be solely responsible for (and Petnet disclaims) any and all loss, liability or damages resulting from your use of a Product, including damage or loss to your home, other peripherals connected to the Product, computer, mobile device, and all other items and pets in your home."

      1. toughluck

        A splendid idea for a business

        Set up a company like "PetNet". Pay off RSCPCA/PETA/whatever. Get lawyers.

        Sell your automatic feeder to thousands of gullible morons.

        Turn off your servers.

        Alert the RSPCA/PETA/whatever to owners that might potentially be cruel to their animals and disclose the customer list.

        Wait for lawsuits to start.

        Reap profits from lawyer services to whoever pays more (PETA/RSPCA/whatever or your own customers). Provide telemetry data favors the correct party.

      2. Stoneshop
        Devil

        Re: Another negative for IoT

        Hint, the vendor will have weasel words in their documentation

        A large and/or fierce enough dog will have little problem with a weasel, and I know some cats who would manage likewise.

        Hungry enough they will be sufficiently motivated to deal with the marketing twonks who deal in weasel words.

    2. WraithCadmus
      Flame

      Re: Another negative for IoT

      I've been looking at Lightwave, and the only reason I'm considering it is it acts as you describe, storing the config on a local controller and using the network for updates.

      Icon: Boiler to come on as I leave the pub this winter perhaps?

    3. Natalie Gritpants

      Re: Another negative for IoT

      No doubt there is a processor of some sorts in there. It's program hasn't been designed well. personally I'd have it keep the schedule locally but allow remote updates and a time sync service in case the power goes off. Oh and a motion activated so the internets can see which of the neighbours cats is in your kitchen.

    4. fidodogbreath

      Re: Another negative for IoT

      There is a reason that some things should be autonomous within your own home and have no external dependencies.

      My cat is already autonomous within our home. He has extensive and redundant overlapping notification systems to alert us to his various needs. For example, if his audible "I want food" alarm is not acknowledged within the desired time frame, he escalates to leg clawing. No internet connection required.

      1. Tomato42
        Joke

        Re: Another negative for IoT

        @fidodogbreath the problem is that the notification system works only in local environment, with a roaming owner it is ineffective

        1. Kane

          Re: Another negative for IoT

          "the problem is that the notification system works only in local environment, with a roaming owner it is ineffective"

          Roaming owners are a temporary state of affairs, they cannot roam indefinitely, cats know this. Hence why they keep their claws sharpened on various pieces of furniture/fence panels/trees etc.

          Whilst I have used this Pratchett quote before, still relevant:

          "Cats will amusingly tolerate humans only until someone comes up with a tin opener that can be operated with a paw."

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Coat

            Re: Another negative for IoT

            Unfortuneately for Cats, somone will stil need to supply the Tins - unless they can operate Amazon Pantry of course

            1. mosw

              Re: Another negative for IoT

              If it does not exist already I assume Amazon is working on a cat operated Amazon Dash Button so the they can order more food. Or maybe they will train Alexa to recognize an "I am hungry" meow.

              Once we are all gone, all that may be left are our self maintaining machines and the cats they serve.

    5. Mark 85

      @Dwarf -- Re: Another negative for IoT

      They've had auto-feeders for years for pets. (Yeah.. farms have had them also). And this long before IoT or even the internet. Why buy and then keep paying? If your WAN connection goes down... doggie dies.

      One of the fun things about having a pet is feeding time....

  3. GrumpenKraut
    Pirate

    What. A. Time. To. Be. Alive.

    What. A. Time. To. Be. Starved. By. IoT. Fuck. Up. ------ your pet ----->

    Splendid article, beer icon implied.

  4. SotarrTheWizard
    Trollface

    And it's not like it's either hard OR expensive. . . .

    . . . to add an offline function. I mean, it already has a small computer in it. . .

    Let me guess: Manglement pooh-poohed it, as they couldn't offer "pet-feeding as a service" if you could set the timer and let it run by itself. . .

    1. Cuddles

      Re: And it's not like it's either hard OR expensive. . . .

      " . . to add an offline function."

      Of course, the whole problem here was caused by the accidental addition of an offline function...

      "Let me guess: Manglement pooh-poohed it, as they couldn't offer "pet-feeding as a service" if you could set the timer and let it run by itself."

      The really sad part is that there are numerous feeders that already do exactly that, and are available for far less than $150. As with so many IoT things, this isn't so much a solution in search of a problem as it is screwing up the solution we already had.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Even if it did store the configuration locally

    How reliable is it? If people are only using it to feed animals during a single day, not such a problem.

    I'm not going to comment on people who keep social animals like dogs and then leave them at home alone all day, except to remark that a Raspberry Pi has more empathy and common sense.

    1. Kernel

      Re: Even if it did store the configuration locally

      A excellent point - we've got such a device that stores it's configuration on board (not an IOT device) - it's only suitable for supervised use, ie., we need to keep a eye on it to make sure it feeds out the amount the cat is supposed to have each day and manually adjust the amount with a little scoop as required.

      Cat food has a tendency to clump, especially in winter, and we get all the issues of tunneling and arching experienced in any large silo - just ours is in miniature.

      Given the somewhat dodgy consistency of performance I would not buy such a device again.

      If we're away overnight the cat gets a decent sized all-you-can-eat self-serve buffet - clean water is always available in quantity, although it appears the water left in the bottom of the shower tastes better.

      1. Nolveys

        Re: Even if it did store the configuration locally

        although it appears the water left in the bottom of the shower tastes better.

        Everyone knows that the best water comes from the toilet.

  6. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    Never mind the pets

    What will happen when the cloud fails to remind me that I've left a kid in a hot car?

    Some people shouldn't be allowed to raise hamsters, let alone cats, dogs or kids.

  7. jake Silver badge

    The people who use this thing ...

    ... don't have "pets", rather they have fashion accessories.

    I feel sorry for the critters. The peopleyuppies get what they deserve.

  8. MondoMan

    yet another SciFi plot made real

    IIRC this was a plot device in one of Larry Niven's stories about warlike alien felines he called Kzin. The Kzin leader is assassinated by human hackers who inactivate the leader's home kit-feeding mechanism. When he returns home, he is attacked and devoured by his own starving kits.

    Perhaps PetNet owners should exercise caution in opening their front doors?

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: yet another SciFi plot made real

      Yeah, that's one service call I don't want to make.

    2. Ashley_Pomeroy

      Re: yet another SciFi plot made real

      A similar idea appeared in Ray Bradbury's "And the Moon be Still as Bright", from The Martian Chronicles. In that story an automatic house survives a nuclear war that killed its owners. The pet food dispenser continues to work, but the door to the kitchen is jammed, so even though there is plenty of food the dog starves to death. Then the house catches fire and burns down. I think it was a metaphor.

      In any case the lesson is that you shouldn't rely on home automation to keep a house running in the event of a nuclear war. And you should always consider the whole system when designing an automatic mechanism, not just the mechanism itself.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More dead cats :)

    Vermin. Bird killers. The only good cat is a dead one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      Re: More dead cats :)

      I wish I could give you more than just one downvote but I suspect others will start downvoting your post in no time...

    2. Boo Radley

      Re: More dead cats :)

      How many birds are killed by motor vehicles. I bet it's ten times the number killed by cats. Where's the outrage over that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More dead cats :)

        "How many birds are killed by motor vehicles. I bet it's ten times the number killed by cats. Where's the outrage over that?"

        Well, the RSPB estimates approx. 55 million birds killed by cats every year, though they do say it is not much of a problem.

        Details here

        I don't know the number killed by cars, but I do know that in the last 20 years about 1 bird has got killed by my car. Assuming I'm not too far off average and that there are around 35 million vehicles on the road, that would suggest somewhere around 2 million birds per year. Even if I am a whole order of magnitude below average, that's still only around 20 million a year, way off your claim of 550 million.

        This is not an anti-cat post, this is an "extraordinary claims require some sort of proof" post.

        1. Bloakey1

          Re: More dead cats :)

          <snip>

          "This is not an anti-cat post, this is an "extraordinary claims require some sort of proof" post."

          Woos. The only good cat is a drunken cat.

          Errr, sorry, I mean a tight pussy!

      2. Steven Jones

        Re: More dead cats :)

        Many fewer than are killed by cats and, in any event, car drivers don't set out to kill birds and most will try and avoid them. Cats methodically set out to hunt them down. Note, it's not the cat's fault. It's humans for keeping them in massively larger numbers than could be supported in the wild.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: More dead cats :)

          Soon after I learnt to drive, I hit a pheasant. I pulled over to see if it was alright, and glad to see that it was only stunned. After a few minutes it flow off across the road - and was hit by another car coming in the opposite direction!

          For balance - on another occasion, hit a cat as well. Did the decent thing and pulled over to look for it. Five minutes later, came to the realisation that I'm looking for a black cat at night....

          1. Putters

            Re: More dead cats :)

            Over the last 30 years or so behind the wheel I've managed to hit a few of our feathered friends. Though probably few enough to count on the digits of one hand.

            I am, however, one of what I suspect is a pretty small group of people who have managed to run over a squirrel whilst riding a pushbike (me on the bike, not the squirrel, obviously) ...

            1. ICPurvis47
              Windows

              Re: More dead cats :)

              I ran over a snake whilst riding a bike through Epping Forest, didn't stop to find out what type, although I suspect it was a Grass Snake (harmless).

            2. Vic

              Re: More dead cats :)

              I am, however, one of what I suspect is a pretty small group of people who have managed to run over a squirrel whilst riding a pushbike

              You might be surprised - I had one of those as well...

              Vic.

        2. Vic

          Re: More dead cats :)

          car drivers don't set out to kill birds and most will try and avoid them

          ... Except pheasants, of course.

          Vic.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: More dead cats :)

      Cats aren't vermin. Now pigeons, on the other hand...

    4. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: More dead cats :)

      Our cat doesn't work in three dimensions. He'll pretty much ignore birds frolicking in front of him because he knows birds have an UP option and that's hard.

      Rodents, on the other hand, are fair game and he'll hunt them for fun. This, we encourage. The only good mouse is a dead one (that applies equally to the cartoon mouse).

      1. 404
        Coat

        Re: More dead Birds:)

        Hit a wild turkey the other day - I'm pretty sure it tried to take me out in a murder-suicide effort.

        I was doing about 50mph up in the mountains and watched this large bird *turn around* as it was walking *off* the road and launch itself literally at my face. However, this wild turkey vastly underestimated the strength of my windshield in it's murder-suicide attempt and went *poof* HARD on the glass, I ducked (?lmao) out of sheer 'IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR ME' response and saw a bunch of feathers in my rear view mirror behind me, not sure where it landed. Half expected to find it in the bed of my truck. Nope.

        **the one with bloody feathers all over the damn thing...

        1. Donn Bly

          Re: More dead Birds:)

          I've only hit a bird once in all my years of driving -- and it was a large white goose that tried crossing over the road from one pond to another. It went under my 1-ton van and thew a cloud of feathers behind me that looked like someone had opened a down pillow and emptied it out the window, causing almost white-out conditions. Luckily nobody was right behind me, as the road curved as it went between the two ponds...

          When I had a cat, it would bring me a present of wild poultry about once a week.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: More dead Birds:)

            How many birds you kill in your car depends on the speed of travel. There's a section of Nebraska that's lightly populated (less than one person per square mile) that I travel each year. On a highway north of North Platte I travel at 90-110 mph for about a 50 minute trip, and there are these birds that are always sitting on the highway pecking at stuff. Not sure what, maybe seeds blowing from the grass on either side - this is cattle country so there are no crops.

            I probably kill a dozen each way. Going the speed limit most of them probably get out of the way, though some are stupid and will fly out of the way and then double back into the path of the car, even at 60 mph they'd be toast.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: More dead Birds:)

              Used to drive a triumph spitfire, along narrow south of England sunken roads through woods.

              Had a line of pheasants painted on the side with crosses through them....

              I'm probably not a representative sample though. Most driving is done on motorways and birds tend not to fly low over them.

          2. Stoneshop

            Re: More dead Birds:)

            I've only hit a bird once in all my years of driving

            Me too, and it was only a second-hand kill. It was a pheasant that was hit by an oncoming van, bouncing off its windshield, and landing right in the path of my front wheel, which duly squished it into a quantity of pheasant pate (augmented with crunchy bits) plus a cloud of feathers.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              How about frogs?

              I was once driving in north central Missouri through a heavy rainstorm shortly after dark, and on this one winding ~10 mile section of county road there were uncounted thousands tiny frogs hopping around on the road, at least 2 or 3 per square foot. So many that I had to slow down because I was powersliding around the curves on their guts!

              Never seen anything like that before or since.

        2. NotBob

          Wild Turkey

          You're supposed to drink it, not hit it with a vehicle

      2. Dwarf

        Re: More dead cats :)

        But ...this screws up quantum physics - What would Schrodinger say.

        Only he's allowed to kill the cat.

        I'm thinking about the IoT equivalent of that analogy - a non-resilient web enabled service that might light the match in the box if the web services call was correctly formatted.

        Perhaps we need to update the analogy by introducing Faraday to Schrodinger - so that the box is now RF shielded as well.

      3. Stoneshop
        Coat

        Re: More dead cats :)

        The only good mouse is a dead one

        Oh, you prefer trackballs too?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like