In that case, one would be able to establish firewall rules around the traffic they bring in

There is no reason why IoT devices, such as fridges, TVs, beds,.... need to be exposed to the general internet. There are various techniques by which devices can just have the connections they need, and nothing more. You're assuming that everyone wants their toys to be on the general internet, when all they want is themselves alone to have control on it from anywhere. That can be done using VLANs, and all these IoT toys can be in secure enclaves that have no internet access

I'm willing to bet that the people who buy these "smart" devices also are geeky enough to have home labs and special setups to manage them. If they're not that geeky, they probably don't buy these fridges w/ screens in the first place

You're using it for exactly the right purpose - for VMs. If used as a mac. even an M1 would destroy it! But as a platform to run VMs of one or more x86 based OSs, it's a very good solution. Icing on the cake: that can include x86-based macOS VMs as well, w/o needing Hackintosh-like VMs

That was the problem w/ welcoming them into the WTO in 1998

You mean modems that don't support TCP/IP, but support cellular standards? But I thought that 4G and 5G already merged TCP/IP into it

The only thing about a "smart fridge" that I can imagine is it having internal cameras that show one what's inside, so that one can then create a shopping list. Of course, it's nothing that can't be done by simply opening the fridge, inspecting all the items and then putting together a list, but if a fridge has to have special bells & whistles, that's what would strike me. But certainly no screens! Then if it had a way of forwarding those images to the main home server, that would help

However, even w/ all that, there is no reason for any of these things to have internet access. The owner could have access to that via a management VLAN, even if he's not at home

A better thing to rail against, more than either screen or ads, would be network. I can understand devices that have software features, but why would they need to be on the internet? At most, they should be manageable from a home console that handles the switch that they're connected to, if there is actually software that needs to run on them. But why would they need internet access?

Good point. Those things tend to add hundreds of dollars to the price, if not the cost, of a device. There was a time when LED/LCD readouts were there for some relevant and useful, but limited functionality. Nowadays, screens are supposedly cheap enough to replace them, but then again, so is software that they then use, and then feature creep takes over

Then have a home lab and server that separately controls each of these. Do not allow any one of these devices to be a gateway to other devices. What business does the fridge have playing music for the owner? Maybe follow the Unix philosophy - do ONE thing and do it well! For a fridge, I wouldn't mind it having a feature such as a list of contained items - vegetables, meats, drinks, ice cream,..... I don't need it to be my media player

Good for Brian Bosworth in the above story for extending his firewall to cover his fridge. Which actually makes me wonder: why do they need internet access in the first place? All they need to do is be in a LAN, but that LAN doesn't need to be accessible to the internet. If one does have a home network, it's been suggested that they be separated into different VLANs, one for IoT devices. I'd keep the IOT devices off the internet altogether: maybe even APIPA or link-local addresses. Just b'cos I like software features on them doesn't mean that they have to be on a network. Why would my bed want to talk to the fridge?

I'm guessing that when the price doesn't cover the total costs of everything, then your scenario applies - we pay for the product, but still remain the product. Not that that precludes a company from making money on both ends

I'm pretty sure their boards approve

All the more reason to minimize business w/ them, and instead distribute it around to others - Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand, India...... Assuming of course that it can't be done for the same costs in the US or Europe

Which is what Manus has done - moving to Singapore

In the first place, were they Chinese citizens? If yes, it wasn't totally up to them, was it?

While Beijing might consider Taiwan as a part of the People's Republic, they know that in fact, it isn't, so they would never allow somebody who they didn't want escaping from their jurisdiction to go to Hsinchu any more than they'd be okay w/ that person going to Santa Clara

Part of the problem of these totalitarian regimes not recognizing reality

They are using it! It's called the internet. Whether they use e-mail, messaging, video calls, WhatsApp, Snapchat,.... to connect to their contacts, they are using services provided by your evil corporations

The reason they couldn't do that 50 years ago was that those either didn't exist, or weren't as affordable. These days, they are, which is why services like the telegraph have gone out of business, just like the horse and buggy back in the day. Had the Post Office been a private corporation, it too would have either gone under, or morphed into something like a FedEx or DHL

But even the Mac Studio doesn't have PCIe expansion slots. So one would need to max out on what one is buying upfront