Not sure why the future should be this way.

The issues mentioned are all bad design decisions. For it to work in the future, they just need to be executed well.

IMO, it's because most manufacturers' main goal with "smart" devices isn't making better products; it's designing products that are less expensive to manufacture, but bring in at least as much revenue.

A device that's controlled using the owner's phone (or a web application, etc.) is cheaper to produce in bulk than one that has a built-in interface to interact with.

A security camera system that stores all its data in cloud-hosted storage is also cheaper to produce in bulk, because it doesn't need to include storage hardware of its own. That has the added benefit (to the manufacturer) of tying the customer into ongoing service fees.

In other words, while I agree with you that they're bad design decisions from the consumer perspective, they're good design decisions (at least in the short term, which is all most corporations care about now) from the manufacturer's perspective.

Unfortunately, at least for a lot of manufacturers, the decision process is going to go something like, "Should we make sure this can operate even if that domain goes offline?" "Nah, if that happens, the company will be belly-up, so why should we care?"

(And yes, that is assuming that they'll never accidentally—or intentionally—fail to renew their domain name...)

Like coyotes, each one too clever by half until the entire Smart Potrzebie market vanishes from under their collective feet

Because people keep falling for it, so manufacturers do not build independence features.

For now, because it still sounds cool and futuristic, but if the whole audience of HN is already rejecting smart devices wholesale, that's a bellwether the industry might want to consider before the attitude percolates out to public at large.

Or...there are engineers who realize this regardless of hacker news and push better design factors by communicating customer needs and impact on branding. Hacker news is not as influential as we may believe.

The public at large does not care what we think.

Of course not, but they care when the stuff they buy bricks within a few years.

Sadly, unless we as engineers, or ideally some broader body promotes some standard of device independence -- customers will eventually reject all such devices regardless of where they reside on the spectrum of cripple-able <---> independent.

For many of these products it was a very deliberate design decision, both in order to lock-in the user and also to be able to collect the data on them.