Yeah I get where that emotive language can come off as a bit much. But if SmartThings isn’t willing to take some of that responsibility it probably shouldn’t market itself that way…
Maybe I can just relate more with 18 month old twins. I find it very difficult to do many required tasks while physically remaining within reach of both children 100% of the time. As such I got risk mitigation technologies like a baby gate to keep my kids in the kitchen and safe from the risk of falling down the stairs. That gate has taken on some of the responsibility I used to own where I knew I couldn’t be more than a few feet away and must have focused attention on them at any given time.
Sure if they overcome this properly installed gate at the exact moment I’m 8 feet away not watching as I load the dishwasher, that’s still my fault. I’m responsible for their well being and the gate mitigation decision. However I’m darn sure not going to be happy with the gate manufacturer who marketed itself as a means of keeping my kids from getting close to the stairs, a promise I then leveraged in order to be far enough away from them to make their dinner or clean their sippy cups… If I can’t rely on some form of leverage for my mitigation, whats the point of the purchase?
Of course the difference in the two examples is one technology has some kinds of certification (albeit voluntary in US) like ASTM and JPMA, designed to ensure these technologies are likely to perform. Whereas SmartThings has no independent organization certifying their product for these use cases that they market themselves as solving. So I agree with those that say research is necessary.
However I don’t have any issue with taking them task when the leverage they claim to offer isn’t realized.