The problem isn't that "some value" can't be extracted. The problem is that the value that can be extracted is bounded by my actual problems. Nest can't fundamentally transform my house heating experience into some sort of delight; at the absolute limit, all it could possibly do is cut my heating bill down to $0. Which would be amazing, but it can't do that, of course.
Other IoT possibilities I see tossed about have even worse possibilities; Nest is probably already the biggest possible winner. If you eliminate 100% of the time I spend turning lights on and off, you've basically had no impact on my life. If you design a glorious IoT refrigerator that somehow requires 0 additional time out of my life to feed it data (which is a negative) it still has to face up to the fact that my "display" showing me what I have which I can get to by simply opening the door is superior to any practical front-mounted display. There's very little room for any sort of IoT water-use optimizer, certainly nothing a startup could wedge into and make money. What can the IoT do for my washer and dryer, play tunes off of Pandora while I'm loading them? My cell can already do that.
I don't need an Internet of Things. I need a Robot of doing Things, and if it's hooked up to the internet I rather expect we'll still see it as "a robot" rather than "an IoT device". (I don't think I want my robot live hooked up to the internet anyhow.)
And just to be clear, I'll say again I totally get it for commercial and civil use, so I'm not just down on IoT in general. (I'm down on IoT security in general, but that's a separate problem. Sort of. Close enough for now anyhow.) It just seems to me that the vast bulk of the IoT story involves being not physically proximal to the IoT device (and, indeed, note how the core Nest use case of "turning off the heat when you are not there" fits that to a T), and therefore, unless you live in a mansion, it's solving a problem a homeowner mostly doesn't have.
Honestly, I agree, and I love having my house low-tech and simple. The best solution is avoiding the problem altogether.
But your argument can be advanced against electric light. I could do just fine with candles in my house. But in 2016 I'm not going to go back to candles, even if electricity isn't really saving me that much time or money.
Imagine in 2050 never having to turn on the lights again because they will turn on automatically and that will work well. Never deal with carrying things and reaching over with your elbow. It won't add more than $200 of value to your life, but will you actively opt out of it?
It's not that "IoT" will make your life vastly more efficient and save you tons of money. It's that when it's easy enough and good enough, it will become the new normal as mains electricity is now. Currently it's a buggy gadget, but so was every technology once.
Other IoT possibilities I see tossed about have even worse possibilities; Nest is probably already the biggest possible winner. If you eliminate 100% of the time I spend turning lights on and off, you've basically had no impact on my life. If you design a glorious IoT refrigerator that somehow requires 0 additional time out of my life to feed it data (which is a negative) it still has to face up to the fact that my "display" showing me what I have which I can get to by simply opening the door is superior to any practical front-mounted display. There's very little room for any sort of IoT water-use optimizer, certainly nothing a startup could wedge into and make money. What can the IoT do for my washer and dryer, play tunes off of Pandora while I'm loading them? My cell can already do that.
I don't need an Internet of Things. I need a Robot of doing Things, and if it's hooked up to the internet I rather expect we'll still see it as "a robot" rather than "an IoT device". (I don't think I want my robot live hooked up to the internet anyhow.)
And just to be clear, I'll say again I totally get it for commercial and civil use, so I'm not just down on IoT in general. (I'm down on IoT security in general, but that's a separate problem. Sort of. Close enough for now anyhow.) It just seems to me that the vast bulk of the IoT story involves being not physically proximal to the IoT device (and, indeed, note how the core Nest use case of "turning off the heat when you are not there" fits that to a T), and therefore, unless you live in a mansion, it's solving a problem a homeowner mostly doesn't have.