I think its a matter of perspective though. I have all the physical buttons I need, and even ones I dont need, so im happy. For you, yours doesn’t have all the functions you need, so obviously your not happy.
Both versions have delay, but I did lose half load and delicate. Gained some other programs though, but those aren’t useful. Funnily enough, neither version has a dedicated rinse.
Series 6 Integrated incase anyone else is interested:
The feature removal is nuanced thing worthy of more discussion. If Bosch had sold the dishwasher with a rinse button, and then disabled it via a firmware patch, I would be pissed as well. If Bosch are advertising a cloud only featured without making it clear its cloud only, also pissed. But Bosch shipping a dishwasher without a rinse button, that is less clear. Not all offline dishwashers have a rinse (I had an IKEA without a rinse cycle), so whether it is a standard feature or not is open for debate. It could be as simple as Bosch deciding to prioritise a difference cycle button instead? Features being removed from products is unfortunately nothing new, in all industries there are numerous examples, the only difference here is that with their app, Bosch can add it back in.
Remote start is the main reason for having it networked. They also advertise it with home assistant/homekit/googlehome/alexa connectivity, which isnt for everyone, but for some, that is a sellable feature. So its not necessarily true that the app directly makes money, it could simply be a feature that helps sell more machines.
Bosch are EU based, so any collected data should be protected by GDPR, although Im not EU, so they could be screwing me if they want. (I am also not a gdpr lawyer, so correct me if i am wrong here). I’d trust Bosch a lot more than a Chinese/US manufacturer, but I isolate it out of an abundance of paranoia.
I still think its unnecessarily rude to call someone’s opinion/experience “pathetic”.
The rest, I absolutely agree with. Its not a Bosch problem, its that specific model of dishwasher for that specific user problem. If I were in their situation, I would return the dishwasher.
Removing buttons definitely sucks. In my case, its a built in dishwasher, so space is already limited for buttons, and all the ones I need are there. So the cloud is 100% value add. I’d hate it as well if the app was my only choice for a feature.
No need for name calling.
My dishwasher is completely fine without the cloud. Period. Full stop.
There is no need to put it on the network, but if you want to, and are paranoid, you can connect it to an isolated network. If you dont want to, dont, and the dishwasher will work.
There are valid use cases for the networking, beyond data collection, if you dont like it, dont use it. I do like it, and I’d rather support companies that do provide first party homeassistant support.
The line between “optional add”, and “base features” will differ per user, so personally, mine can do everything I need it to on the controls, and the cloud stuff is value add.
My only complaint with Bosch is that my washing machine from the same vintage doesn’t have any remote start features, so i can’t run it via homeassistant.
The one way issue is very easily solved (isolated network), and on my model at least, all functionality is available. The app gives more, but everything I need is available on the buttons if I need it.
I actually really like my Bosch dishwasher + home connect. You can hook it up with home assistant, and use that to run the dishwasher when solar is working.
Local access would be nice, but homeconnect isnt that bad, and has been improving.
If your willing to get into the weeds, most HVACs are very basic, and you can easily make your own thermostat with a cheap relay board. That plus a microcontroller and some code (and/or homeassistant) and you can make it as smart as you like.
There are smarter thermostats, but they are usually more expensive.
You might need to specify the wound placement. I’d change a dressing on a leg or a foot of a colleague or acquaintance, but if its a more sensitive area that might require an actual friend.
Can you go to a medical clinic or ER and get it changed?
Vigilantism is bad because of the slippery slope issue. It starts with solid proof, and then slowly declines towards “vibes”, or fabrication of proof.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the high bar set by the legal system, and they have the processes in place to ensure that the bar is met before declaring guilt (its not perfect, but it is so far the best system we have).
If the proof is solid, and the law enforcement is functional, its better to hand it to them and let the system do its job. If the law enforcement isnt functional, vigilantism is all that is left, but you should strive to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” bar. E.g is the evidence good, do you have the right person, could someone else be framing/manipulating the facts.
I’ve clicked the “install updates tonight” button a bunch of times, it consistently fails to update and then I have to force it to update the next morning. Incredibly poor experience.
I’m aware that history is against them. The one thing in Firefox’s (not Mozilla) favour is that its open source. The browser and codebase will live on even if Mozilla crashes and burns.
The forks already exist, the only “moat” that Mozilla has is trust and goodwill, which they are burning rapidly.
If the legal definition of a term has changed such that their current activities now fall under it, changing the terms of use legal document does make sense.
They are pretty clear that under California law, they are “selling” data. They have two options, keep the ToU document the same, and try meet the new laws requirements (which as I’ve said in other comments, seems impossible for a browser - not a lawyer though), or update their ToU without changing their current behaviors.
They have gone with the latter, but it does also allow them to be far more “evil”. Its definitely the first step down a bad road, time will tell if they go further.
If you want to play it safe, block their domains via pihole: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Websites/Domain_List/Mozilla_Owned
Yup. And it doesn’t help that they have been throwing away good will for a while now, with their crypto/AI/etc bandwagon jumping. They are still the least worst option, as I dont trust the forks either, but its getting hard to trust them.
Yeah, its definitely wide open for abuse now. But the California law also seems way too vague as well. What about DNS lookup? That takes a users input and transfers it to someone else, is that a “sale”? Can hardly start separating that out of the browser? Http requests? Its all users initiated, but is it a “sale” in California? Not a lawyer, haven’t a clue.
The rationalization they have given is that legally, they may have been seeking data all along, as some jurisdictions define it extremely loosely.
For example, if you use their translation feature, they are sending the page your looking at (data) to a third party, which provides a benefit to Mozilla. Thats technically a sale in some laws, but most would agree that is acceptable given the user asked for it to happen.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”
I’m overall concerned with Mozilla, but not sure this is malicious yet. But definitely needs to be closely scrutinized.
The 3rd gen iPod shuffles used the headphone port for USB, definitely uncommon though.
The other possibility is that its 2 hexbearites who are trying to save the site, not realising they are bidding against each other. Would be pretty silly if that was it.
“We are currently clean on OPSEC”