I am pretty sure that people actually want network connected hardware instead of Internet-connected hardware.<p>And perhaps they also want a way to access their hardware in their home network in a secure and private way.
That's definitely the case. However, these things are remarkably hard to explain to journalists. Our open source power outlet, the Crownstone, has nice conversion rates when people find us on Kickstarter. It is a problem though that journalists don't want to hear a story about all the things you can do with kits like that. They want single use cases. They want simple stories to tell. The end user does not want that! They like to get more product for their money. I think the app market concept could only be invented by business savvy tech people... It's our task to encourage kits and kit makers to keep doing what they are doing! Back them up! :-)
"Jeremy Blum's home-automation system, which he calls Jarvis, can control lights, curtains and music and can answer questions about anything using a phone, voice commands or this command center."<p>Implementations like this kind of scare me. It is certainly cool to be 'able' to automate these things, but should we? Are we going to use technology to make our lives lazier, or better? No, they aren't mutually-exclusive, but I can't help but think that making it so you don't have to leave your couch in order to turn off the lights is a movement toward a worse lifestyle. Your health has a much larger contribution to your standard of living than convenience, and to me, this seems like trading off one for the other (in a subtle way). However, maybe I will eventually be convinced of the net benefits. Am I approaching this wrong?