So this is completely unrelated. IP addressing schemes will not change the business methods of large consumer device companies.
That's exactly the point; they market it as if it would make a plethora of new and innovative things happen but in reality they will allow none of it.
So, it's pointless to rush adoption.
How much innovation and applications have been stymied by artificial network-layer barriers:
> First is actually a more subtle issue... the Skype peer-to-peer network architecture elected certain nodes to be "supernodes", to help maintain the index of peers as well as handle parts of the NAT/firewall traversal for other peers.
* https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/T9f6a724f4bcd6616-M0e99aba...
* https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/skype...
CPE gear has gotten better hole punching over time (PCP, UPnP), but one still has to futz around with STUN/ICE/TURN.
We've invented entirely new protocols (QUIC) because of middleware boxes blocking things (SCTP, DCCP) and generally getting in the way.
What I meant in the grandparent comment is that if a company makes it their business strategy to have all devices call home, they will do that regardless if they use ipv4 or ipv6. But if ipv6 is widely implemented and there is no cost to ip addresses, it is entirely possible that another company can create an ap that allows you to directly communicate to your devices without using a central server.
Do you really think Roomba is going to let you run your Robot Vacuum without contacting, er permission, from their data center in Virginia?