posted in Technology

new_otters_raft@new_otters_raft@piefed.ca

Pet owners say smart pet feeder outage led to furry ones going unfed

This feels like bad design

Smart pet-feeder company Petlibro suffered an outage on Tuesday, giving users a harsh reminder of the risks of relying on smart devices.

Petlibro makes pet feeders that connect to Wi-Fi and, for setup with Petlibro’s mobile companion app, Bluetooth. Users can set the feeders to automatically dispense food at scheduled times, which is handy for pet care when the owner is out of the home.

In a statement to The Verge, Petlibro CEO York Wu said this week’s outage was “related to how the Petlibro app communicates with devices through its online servers.”

Some user reports have also conflicted with Petlibro’s claims about offline functionality. As The Verge pointed out, various users online claimed that during the outage, their devices did not perform any scheduled feedings, performed some feedings but not others, or performed feedings late (examples here, here, here, here, and here).

arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/08/pet-owners-say-smart-pet-feeder-outage-led-to-furry-ones-going-unfed/
NaibofTabr@NaibofTabr@infosec.pub

Replying to an earlier post

Why in fuck would a device that activates a motor once or twice a day on a schedule need any kind of network connectivity? This is an ultra-dumb programmatic function, it shouldn’t need any more compute power than an alarm clock. Why would you hook it up to a smart home anything?

It should be exactly this complicated:

Anything beyond that is like killing a housefly with a bazooka.

cynar@cynar@lemmy.world

Replying to an earlier post

The ability to play with it, without having to fiddle with tiny switches is a big feature to many. Often these are used by people with mobility issues. The ability to add an extra feed, due to exercise, or adjust the timings to account for changes in life plans are a godsend to many.

Smart home devices are a balancing act. The extra control means more can also go wrong. Minimising that is a big part. The most critical is making it behave sanely when it suddenly goes offline. E.g. smart light switches become dumb ones, when the central hub goes down.

cynar@cynar@lemmy.world

Replying to an earlier post

To each their own. I prefer having the ability to adjust things from 1 central source. I’m prone to losing remotes.

Also, how would you do such a remote. You would also need a screen for feedback etc, which puts you back at square 1.

Also, a remote would be considerably more expensive than the extra cost of a ZigBee/Wifi enabled microcontroller.

en
NaibofTabr@NaibofTabr@infosec.pub

Replying to an earlier post

To each their own. I prefer having the ability to adjust things from 1 central source. I’m prone to losing remotes.

My preference is for devices to be as simple and reliable and end-user repairable as possible. I have an aversion to any kind of appliance that might be dependent on someone else to update software or maintain a network service to keep operational. No software dependence at all if possible, just a basic microcontroller and firmware. Again, there’s nothing to this that needs to be any more advanced or complicated than the functions of a basic alarm clock like this:

Instead of setting off an alarm, we’re activating the feeding mechanism. Dead simple. Hell, you could probably make this yourself by wiring the alarm from a clock like this to a motor that moves the feeding mechanism.

Also, how would you do such a remote. You would also need a screen for feedback etc, which puts you back at square 1.

Nah, there’s no reason feeding times need to be any more granular than per-hour. You can show that with a 2x6 grid of 12 indicator LEDs, with a 13th AM/PM indicator. On lights indicate hours when feeding will activate. You could have that on both the remote and the feeder, cheap and easy. Maybe you have a 14th indicator that lights up if the food in the storage bin is low and needs refilling.

Also, a remote would be considerably more expensive than the extra cost of a ZigBee/Wifi enabled microcontroller.

Definitely not, because it’s not fair to count the cost of only the link hardware on the feeder, you have to account for the cost of the rest of the smart home system to operate it. A remote like this is dirt cheap:

You’re over thinking what this really needs to do. It’s a timer that activates a switch, that’s all.

cynar@cynar@lemmy.world

Replying to an earlier post

It’s worth noting that I think both should exist.

No software dependence at all if possible, just a basic microcontroller and firmware.

Agreed, I just want a ZigBee endpoint as well.

As for the smart home stuff, I already have it in place, so it’s no additional expense.

Control wise, your method would be fine for someone techie and motivated. It would annoy the hell out of some non techies, particularly if they had vision issues (think OAP). It would also close down the option of relatives helping out by monitoring it remotely.

As I said, different target audiences. Both have their places. I just wish the smart option did its job properly, rather than the half baked options we keep getting.