5 ms·

I honestly don't think that future is worth the cost. Some of those things would be great, but controlling lights with Iot? Why? Aren't we solving a problem tha

by vlunkr 11y ago

I honestly don't think that future is worth the cost. Some of those things would be great, but controlling lights with Iot? Why? Aren't we solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved? I currently spend roughly 0% of my time thinking about and managing light switches, the system works great as is. Same goes for turning on media and setting the temperature. These things just work and they are bug free. I can only see them getting worse by adding networking and software. Of course, it's a different argument when your house starts making food for you, but but I think I'll still lean towards maintaining my current system.

maxerickson 11y ago
Media devices don't really work that well. For example, my cable box comes with a remote that has a 'turn everything on' macro button. Except there's no integration, it just blasts the power toggle IR for the TV. Does it work? Yeah. Does it work well? No. Buying a single brand and carefully selecting devices can help with that sort of thing, but it's BS you have to be careful to get any integration, it should just work.
- vlunkr 11y ago
  That's true, somehow universal remotes aren't that great still. At this point I have to use a TV remote and a Roku remote. I tend to not use surround sound just because that requires yet another remote. But still, this is a problem that can be solved with better device integration, rather than connecting everything to the internet.
- jonknee 11y ago
  FWIW, the Logitech Harmony Home Hub was my favorite tech purchase last year. Slightly annoying to setup, but rock solid. I put all my other remotes away in a cabinet last year and haven't once used any of them. I only use it for media devices, but it can also control some other home automated stuff (lights, blinds, etc).
- joncrocks 11y ago
  A good number of newer devices ship with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#CEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#CEC which is meant to help with this type of thing. I'd agree that a lot of the time it still doesn't work 'well' though.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I vaguely remembered that HDMI had something and had looked it up and checked if the cable box supported it before I posted; it doesn't (unsurprisingly). The sad thing is that it is so easy to imagine so much more. If the cable box provided the available programming as data, I could use whatever interface I wanted to access it. Instead, I'm stuck with their customer hostile crap (no way to hide channels, etc.).
bsder 11y ago
> Some of those things would be great, but controlling lights with Iot? Why? Aren't we solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved? Try installing new lights and switches in your house sometimes and come back and ask that again. Not to mention, why do we want 120/240VAC to the controls rather than low voltage DC (less shock risk, less fire hazard, etc.)? This is even more desirable in office buildings.
- 0xffff2 11y ago
  >Try installing new lights and switches in your house sometimes and come back and ask that again. I've installed plenty of lights and light switches... I still don't see the problem. Either you have the requisite knowledge to do these things, or you hire an electrician who does. Furthermore, no fancy IoT device is going to remove the basic requirement for running wires to the light socket and (semi-optionally) from the socket to a switch. This is fine because it only has to be done once when a space is built. I would much rather have simple and reliable wiring done once when my house is built than have to buy new light switches every two years because my old light switch is obsolete. >Not to mention, why do we want 120/240VAC to the controls rather than low voltage DC (less shock risk, less fire hazard, etc.)? Oh come on. the shock/fire risk of a properly installed light switch is indistinguishable from zero.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Not to mention, why do we want 120/240VAC to the controls rather than low voltage DC (less shock risk, less fire hazard, etc.)? Because its simpler, and therefore both cheaper and less failure-prone, to run the actual power to the device through the switch. We've had alternatives with a complexity cost for a long time; they are rarely preferred because the complexity cost is rarely justified. IoT provides more alternatives with complexity costs, but doesn't really change the basic reality for most light switches.
- dragonne 11y ago
  I just installed new switches (and receptacles) throughout my house. It wasn't difficult. The system is pretty simple, and it's marvelously stable---my house was constructed in the '70s, yet all of the new components fit into the same boxes as the worn out ones they replace. This is great! Not to mention that the whole project has cost just a few hundred dollars, and the results will last decades. Why would I ever want my house to jump on the high tech upgrade treadmill?* *Call me back when you can sell me robotic chicken legs for my house. That would be awesome.
knz 11y ago
To use lights as an example - there are uses cases for some people. I have my downstairs and external lights set to turn on and/or flash if my home alarm goes off at night time. When my kids were infants I had lights set to turn on/off as I moved around the house at 3am to make a bottle etc. When I'm away for a long period of time I use it to control the lights and make it look more like someone is home. Another example is monitoring water leaks - my house was destroyed by a water leak several years ago. I absolutely sleep a little better knowing that I'll get an alert if the sump pump fails etc. I really don't understand why so many developers are so opposed to IoT. There are issues to be resolved (security concerns, standardization of protocols, some obviously stupid devices etc) but there is also the potential to make modest improvements to common routines and tasks.
paganel 11y ago
The best feature for a house would be a self-cleaning device. I'm not talking only about automatic cleaners like the Roomba (which, as far as I've read, only work some of the time under some particular circumstances), but about the whole package: dust-cleaning robot, toilet-cleaning robot, dish-washer cleaning robot (we're almost there for this thanks to the dish-washer machine itself), putting-things-back-in-place cleaning robot (books, pillows, toys, DVDs etc). Basically I'm thinking of something like Rosie from the Jetsons (https://www.google.ro/search?q=rosie+jetsons&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&biw=1280&bih=613&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY7Lryi57LAhUhJ5oKHd-pDAAQ_AUIBygB https://www.google.ro/search?q=rosie+jetsons&client=firefox-...)

by vlunkr 11y ago

maxerickson 11y ago

Media devices don't really work that well. For example, my cable box comes with a remote that has a 'turn everything on' macro button. Except there's no integration, it just blasts the power toggle IR for the TV. Does it work? Yeah. Does it work well? No. Buying a single brand and carefully selecting devices can help with that sort of thing, but it's BS you have to be careful to get any integration, it should just work.

vlunkr 11y ago
That's true, somehow universal remotes aren't that great still. At this point I have to use a TV remote and a Roku remote. I tend to not use surround sound just because that requires yet another remote. But still, this is a problem that can be solved with better device integration, rather than connecting everything to the internet.
jonknee 11y ago
FWIW, the Logitech Harmony Home Hub was my favorite tech purchase last year. Slightly annoying to setup, but rock solid. I put all my other remotes away in a cabinet last year and haven't once used any of them. I only use it for media devices, but it can also control some other home automated stuff (lights, blinds, etc).
joncrocks 11y ago
A good number of newer devices ship with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#CEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#CEC which is meant to help with this type of thing. I'd agree that a lot of the time it still doesn't work 'well' though.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I vaguely remembered that HDMI had something and had looked it up and checked if the cable box supported it before I posted; it doesn't (unsurprisingly). The sad thing is that it is so easy to imagine so much more. If the cable box provided the available programming as data, I could use whatever interface I wanted to access it. Instead, I'm stuck with their customer hostile crap (no way to hide channels, etc.).

bsder 11y ago

> Some of those things would be great, but controlling lights with Iot? Why? Aren't we solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved? Try installing new lights and switches in your house sometimes and come back and ask that again. Not to mention, why do we want 120/240VAC to the controls rather than low voltage DC (less shock risk, less fire hazard, etc.)? This is even more desirable in office buildings.

0xffff2 11y ago
>Try installing new lights and switches in your house sometimes and come back and ask that again. I've installed plenty of lights and light switches... I still don't see the problem. Either you have the requisite knowledge to do these things, or you hire an electrician who does. Furthermore, no fancy IoT device is going to remove the basic requirement for running wires to the light socket and (semi-optionally) from the socket to a switch. This is fine because it only has to be done once when a space is built. I would much rather have simple and reliable wiring done once when my house is built than have to buy new light switches every two years because my old light switch is obsolete. >Not to mention, why do we want 120/240VAC to the controls rather than low voltage DC (less shock risk, less fire hazard, etc.)? Oh come on. the shock/fire risk of a properly installed light switch is indistinguishable from zero.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Not to mention, why do we want 120/240VAC to the controls rather than low voltage DC (less shock risk, less fire hazard, etc.)? Because its simpler, and therefore both cheaper and less failure-prone, to run the actual power to the device through the switch. We've had alternatives with a complexity cost for a long time; they are rarely preferred because the complexity cost is rarely justified. IoT provides more alternatives with complexity costs, but doesn't really change the basic reality for most light switches.
dragonne 11y ago
I just installed new switches (and receptacles) throughout my house. It wasn't difficult. The system is pretty simple, and it's marvelously stable---my house was constructed in the '70s, yet all of the new components fit into the same boxes as the worn out ones they replace. This is great! Not to mention that the whole project has cost just a few hundred dollars, and the results will last decades. Why would I ever want my house to jump on the high tech upgrade treadmill?* *Call me back when you can sell me robotic chicken legs for my house. That would be awesome.

knz 11y ago

To use lights as an example - there are uses cases for some people. I have my downstairs and external lights set to turn on and/or flash if my home alarm goes off at night time. When my kids were infants I had lights set to turn on/off as I moved around the house at 3am to make a bottle etc. When I'm away for a long period of time I use it to control the lights and make it look more like someone is home. Another example is monitoring water leaks - my house was destroyed by a water leak several years ago. I absolutely sleep a little better knowing that I'll get an alert if the sump pump fails etc. I really don't understand why so many developers are so opposed to IoT. There are issues to be resolved (security concerns, standardization of protocols, some obviously stupid devices etc) but there is also the potential to make modest improvements to common routines and tasks.

paganel 11y ago

The best feature for a house would be a self-cleaning device. I'm not talking only about automatic cleaners like the Roomba (which, as far as I've read, only work some of the time under some particular circumstances), but about the whole package: dust-cleaning robot, toilet-cleaning robot, dish-washer cleaning robot (we're almost there for this thanks to the dish-washer machine itself), putting-things-back-in-place cleaning robot (books, pillows, toys, DVDs etc). Basically I'm thinking of something like Rosie from the Jetsons (https://www.google.ro/search?q=rosie+jetsons&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&biw=1280&bih=613&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY7Lryi57LAhUhJ5oKHd-pDAAQ_AUIBygB https://www.google.ro/search?q=rosie+jetsons&client=firefox-...)