OK, that does it. I just discovered another incredible “Internet of Things” story, and I have something important to ask, and say, about it. Please share this as much as you can.

The story, narrated in all its painful details here, can be summarized as follows:

Some people collectively shelled out THREE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS to fund a “smart fingerprint padlock” that, besides being “not even wrong” in and by itself, is a collection of screwups as astonishing as they were predictable. This image only gives a pale idea of how dumb this is, read the article for details:

Important IoT announcement /img/tapplock.jpg
What humanity needed the most, done in the only (predictably) possible way: BADLY

320K Dollars for THAT? OK, then…

Please, everybody:

  1. track the people who gave 320K USD for a “smart padlock” like that
  2. tell them that if a Tapplock deserves 320K USD, then they should also equally, immediately fund everybody who, like me, works hard to give people a non-luddite but sensible view of digital technology
  3. If you can, do the same. We deserve at least as much as Tapplock. Each of us
  4. Me, I surely do, if Tapplock (or Juicero…) is what passes for “innovation-worth-funding” these days. To know how everybody can fund me, and above all why, first see here, then browse my posts on IoT, “smart” homes, contracts or cars, and finally some endorsements I received (*)

Seriously, now

I already was serious, actually. I do mean every word I wrote above, including point 4. But what really matters is to bring back some sense in this whole circus as soon as possible, before it makes, as a minimum, LOTS of environmental and economics damage.

In the posts linked above you can find many examples of people and projects that deserve, much more than me, ten times more funding than Tapplock or Juicero. So please share this post as much as you can, and put your money on people and projects that are doing something that really matters. To contact me, see here. Thanks.

(*) heck, I forgot blockchain. Shame on me.