7 ms·
Yeah, instead they could have built a digital timer into the device like in the 80s. Even though this would be more reliable, you couldn't control it from your
by gerbilly 10y ago
Yeah, instead they could have built a digital timer into the device like in the 80s.
Even though this would be more reliable, you couldn't control it from your phone, which seems to be a selling feature for all of these badly designed IOT devices.
Somebody should design a timer module that can be controlled via bluetooth and (optionally) via Wifi.
Then you could program the timer from your iPad or whatever, but if connectivity is lost, the local controller would retain the settings and continue to work until connectivity is re-established.
- dasboth 10y agoExactly, it's nice to be able to change the frequency of the timer remotely via the web, but the device should cache the latest settings offline. This is definitely an instance of malice/greed rather than an oversight...
- brianwawok 10y agoHow often do you need to change your cat feeding frequency? Once per 10 years?
- martin_a 10y agoIf you think this way, you wouldn´t need something but a digital timer at all.
- dasboth 10y agoWell and that's the other thing, exactly. The offline caching is more important for other appliances that need to happen on a timer and you might alter the frequency more often (e.g. a thermostat or something).
- gerbilly 10y agoYeah exactly, it's not like we have to measure out cat food by the gram every day. And, personally I can't wait for this fad for "control X from your phone" apps and devices to die down.
- martin_a 10y agoLocally caching the results from the application server would have done the job just fine.