Smart technology was born with the promise of improving our lives, and in many ways, it accomplishes this goal. Some smart gadgets are literal lifesavers, while others just add a level of convenience that we couldn’t imagine going without. This isn’t always the case, however, with some smart systems crossing the line into what marketers want us to want, rather than delivering what we actually desire.
Examining a few examples here, we want to investigate which smart devices stand as the best of what human creativity has to offer, and which we might be wary of. How can we protect ourselves here, and which might we be better off avoiding entirely?
The Necessities
Standing as the only real necessity in modern smart tech offerings are smartphones. We all need these to survive in the modern technological age, both for communication and entertainment. Thankfully, these are systems where users have the most choice in terms of models, operating systems, and software, and many uses can be shared across desktop and PC systems.
Consider an example here from entertainment, such as if you’re a fan of iGaming experiences like online slots. In titles like Happy Nets or Big Bass Mission Fissin’, you’ll have equal access to the games no matter your device. These are highly optimised software that work just as well on humble smartphones as they do on powerful computers, so you never risk missing out. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all smart devices.
Flexible Choices
The next most common smart device most of us own is the smart TV. While not strictly necessary, these systems are ubiquitous, and they’re not always systems with the user’s best interests in mind. While hardware is likely the deciding factor many users will turn to with smart TVs, it’s the operating systems of the smart functionality that can prove the most problematic.
Perhaps the biggest example of this we’ve seen recently comes from Roku, which made headlines in 2024 by modifying the terms and conditions of its platform after the sale. According to the new terms, any disputes people had with the company would have to go through forced arbitration. If users did not agree, then they completely lost access to the device they paid for. This move was widely considered anti-consumer, and it’s a direction many companies are seemingly all too happy to head toward.
The Potentially Avoidable
There are also cases where smart technology might be best avoided entirely, thanks to questionable advantages and the potential for companies to later change the terms of the sale. There is again precedent here, as explored by Samsung and some of its smart fridges, with an update letting the device deliver ads directly into your home where it didn’t before. This is, again, a change of what users bought in a way many consumer advocates find offensive, and again, it’s a direction many other tech companies are all too eager to explore.
The ultimate takeaway here is that smart technology might best be avoided when it isn’t strictly necessary. If it is necessary, it’s best for buyers to carefully research the company they’re buying from, to check previous examples of anti-consumer behaviour. If possible, systems that accept or can be modified to work on open-source software can help reduce or eliminate such negative outcomes. It’s not convenient, but in an age where big tech continually seeks more control, being more hesitant is a path that’s increasingly better for consumers.
