19 ms·

In an Era of ‘Smart’ Things, Sometimes Dumb Stuff Is Better

• freedomben 9y ago
  Great article, I totally agree. One area that I feel is also a "sometimes dumb stuff is better" that the article left out, is that (at least for me) hardware controls are almost always superior (tho certainly less flexible) than software controls. There's no better example than the physical keyboard vs. the soft keyboard. Recently I had to purchase a replacement stove, and I am amazed at how much worse the UX is on this stove than my old one. I don't want to slide my finger to determine heat intensity, and select which burner that applies to by pressing a soft button corresponding to the hotplate. Just give me a physical knob for each hotplate please. The UX there is excellent. A more painful example is my Ford truck. Almost everything inside of it is software powered, and the bugs drive me insane. At one point my GPS/stereo touchscreen hit some bug, and the only way to "fix" it was to pull over at a rest stop and power cycle my truck (turn off, then back on again :facepalm: ). That is maddening. As a software developer I understand that bugs happen, but as a consumer I just can't tolerate that kind of stuff in my vehicle. Without question tech has brought us nice things, but with complexity comes bugs (both security-related and non), and with bugs comes software updates (which themselves sometimes introduce bugs in something that was working fine before). Internet-connected things can also be a nightmare for security and privacy. Truly, sometimes the "dumb" version is much better (and way cheaper too).
  • tachyoff 9y ago
    Car “infotainment” systems are the worst. I drive a VW and the touch screen is maddening. Transition animations are too long and involved, which is frustrating because 99% of the time I just need to force connect Bluetooth and that button combination is muscle memory by now. But every time I have to wait for the stupid interface to do this 3D flip. Oh, and if I skip ahead in Spotify with the on-screen controls, it doesn’t pull the new track data until the next track plays automatically, so it’s always out-of-sync.
  • cannonedhamster 9y ago
    The power cycling the car to get the stereo to work isn't limited to Fords unfortunately. I have a "dumb" smart radio and the BT is so bad between my Google phone and the car that I've had numerous glitches some that require power cycling the car, which is insane. I honestly cannot believe something that works flawlessly in nearly every other situation is so screwing in the car, what I wouldn't give to have my aux connector in again.
    • ahartmetz 9y ago
      I work in embedded software, and Bluetooth is the worst. Hardware and software are crawling with bugs. I like to say it's the most unreliable technology in wide use. What you see is after all the workarounds that some poor application developers had to implement.
      • reificator 9y ago
        That's what happens when you try to design a unifying interface for everything. Frankly I'm amazed Bluetooth works as well as it does.
        • ahartmetz 9y ago
          WiFi is an example of an almost everything interface that mostly works, though. But it's a different approach because it leaves application interfaces variable, so less big design up front. Its main functionality gap is, of course, low power and very low cost hardware. That said, I still don't understand why Bluetooth is still flaky after over 20 years of opportunity to improve it.
          • reificator 9y ago
            > WiFi is an example of an almost everything interface And the gap between almost everything and everything is huge. I like the phrase I heard a few years ago from friends that played MMOs: “92 is halfway to 100”. Diminishing returns is a painful thing.
    • 9y ago
  • SilasX 9y ago
    Re: power cycling, I noticed a similar problem when I reviewed Ford/MS’s SYNC system 10 years ago: if I pressed the phone button without a phone linked, I would be locked out of the sound system until I turned the engine off and on again. What? See point 8: http://blog.tyrannyofthemouse.com/2008/07/setting-sync-straight-or-sync-sucx.html?m=0 http://blog.tyrannyofthemouse.com/2008/07/setting-sync-strai...
  • askvictor 9y ago
    Similar problem in an aeroplane, the Boeing 787 would fail if it had been powered on continuously for 248 days: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/01/us-aviation-authority-boeing-787-dreamliner-bug-could-cause-loss-of-control https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/01/us-aviation... You don't really think it would be necessary to turn off your plane then turn it back on again, but here we are.
    • gubby 9y ago
      Ha, 248 days is the point at which a 32bit signed int wraps round if counting in milliseconds.
      • mvitorino 9y ago
        I believe it needs to be a 10ms tick.
    • araes 9y ago
      And I thought the car analogy was bad. Imagine hearing that excuse at 30,000 ft. (or being the pilot and having to give it) as all the lights in the cabin go off and the actuators stop working (would the turbines stop firing?) "Have you tried restarting it? Maybe boot it in safe mode." Loved the bit at the end 'Operators will perform periodic power cycling at scheduled intervals until incorporating a software update.' Sad that this story's "thought experiment" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16393740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16393740 from 8 days ago may be the future, not a joke. Sorry you couldn't drive to work, we're pushing an update to your car by the middle of the week.
      • Moru 9y ago
        On ground standing still and at 30,000 ft height is probably the safest times for the generators to fail. Plenty of time to fix. Imagine this happening during take-off or landing?
      • busterarm 9y ago
        Don't joke. On my first trip flying anywhere ever, on the first leg of the return trip, an AA flight from Austin to St. Louis, we had to abort takeoff while the front wheel was up because all of the on-board computer systems died simultaneously. I've never been in more of a white-knuckle situation in my life, including the time a tire blew while landing at IAD. We then sat on tarmac for close to 3 more hours while they replaced the computers and we took off again in the same plane.
  • henrikschroder 9y ago
    > I don't want to slide my finger to determine heat intensity, and select which burner that applies to by pressing a soft button corresponding to the hotplate. Just give me a physical knob for each hotplate please. The UX there is excellent. This drives me nuts as well. I'm the guy going to appliance stores and testing the knobs of every range just to see if they've managed to fuck up even that simple interface. And some manufacturers have. :-( You want to be able to turn the knob directly to max from 0, without having to go all the way around, but some have a stop in place so you can only turn it in one direction. Absolutely maddening.
    • kqr 9y ago
      > You want to be able to turn the knob directly to max from 0, without having to go all the way around, but some have a stop in place so you can only turn it in one direction. Absolutely maddening. At first I was thinking, "Well, when there's a stop in place, that's usually because that plate has one of those turn-briefly-to-11-and-let-the-knob-spring-back-to-10-in-order-to-activate-the-outer-area-of-the-plate" but then I realised how terrible of an interface that is, too! It took me years to figure out, and I have taught it to so many people since, who wish they knew about it earlier... But what is more important than going from 0 to max, in my opinion, is being able to go in the opposite direction. When I'm holding a pot full of boiling water in one hand and stirring something with my other hand, I want to be able to turn off the plate really quickly.
      • daveFNbuck 9y ago
        Doesn't the stop make it easier to go back to 0? Sure you have to turn it more, but you don't have to worry about accidentally going past 0 and leaving the stove on.
        • Treblemaker 9y ago
          That's another advantage of the mechanical knob: a large detent at "zero". Provides both tactile and acoustic feedback. So, no worries of turning past zero.
  • ttflee 9y ago
    Close all windows and open them again. Oh my.. EDIT: http://wdell.com/humor/stalledcar.html http://wdell.com/humor/stalledcar.html
  • Joeri 9y ago
    The ikea-branded range hood above our stove has touch controls and they drive me nuts. The vapors of the stove deposit on the control surface and cause the “buttons” to malfunction. Sometimes it will switch on full blast by itself and sometimes it will refuse to turn on. The workaround is to wipe down the control surface regularly. Oh, and every 6 months it crashes and I have to unplug and replug it to make it work again.
    • Doxin 9y ago
      You've bought the wrong hood then. IKEA has models with nice clunky physical switches.
  • pjc50 9y ago
    Unfortunately physical controls are significantly more expensive to make - we're talking a whole extra dollar or five on the BOM price here, which turns into several times that at retail. Capacitative sensing is cheap and plastic membrane buttons are cheap. They're also easier to waterproof. Touchscreens in vehicles just seem like an accident waiting to happen.
    • elboru 9y ago
      Finally someone mentions this, everyone seems amazed about Tesla’s big iPad, where you control everything in your car, I haven’t tested it yet, but for me having controls that require taking my eyes from the road sounds like a really bad idea, regular buttons give you touch feedback so you don’t need to look, why is everyone so obsessed with touchscreens?
      • vanderZwan 9y ago
        Because not enough people have read Bret Victor's "A Brief Rant On The Future Of Interaction Design" http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesi...
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
        • icebraining 9y ago
          The Design of Everyday Things already talked about this in the 80s, it's depressing how little his suggestions have been accepted.
          • vanderZwan 9y ago
            I mean, in interaction design is certainly is. It's just that outside of the design world, not enough people realise that there is more to design than graphic design, and that there is more to design than just adding some pretty chrome at the end of the whole development phase.
  • jasonkostempski 9y ago
    My ranges have knobs but my oven is controlled by a seemingly simple set of 4 buttons and a 4 digit disply on a basic circuit board. Just at that vey low level of computerization, the cost to fix a problem goes from $10 to $300.
  • cmrdporcupine 9y ago
    This is what I don't get about the obsession people have with Tesla, in particular the Model 3. The interface in those cars is inferior and distracting. When I'm driving I need an interface I can operate from muscle memory. The controls in my 1985 Saab C900 is almost ideal. Everything important at eye height. Direct manipulation analog controls with an immediate and tactile result. Computers should be here to assist and get out of the way. Wiz-bang fancy too often takes precedence over pragmatism here.
    • greglindahl 9y ago
      You might be surprised to learn that Tesla has steering-wheel buttons, like other cars.
      • cmrdporcupine 9y ago
        I'm aware of this, and aware that they can be configured to control things that the touch screen also controls. But some steering wheel buttons are not enough. Honestly, a giant attention sucking touch screen in the centre of the car is the opposite of the direction manufacturers should be going.
  • Kagerjay 9y ago
    Sometimes the reason manufacturers are going digital is not just to be "smart", albeit it is a nice selling point for them to state it that way. Its actually sometimes cheaper to use digital parts instead of physical parts for certain components. When you talk about stovetops, the tradeoff between price points on a unit from physical / digital controls is generally if it uses a built in thermostat or not, and the need for more advanced features (built in timers, etc). Its fairly common for kitchens to use purely manual driven knobs that open on/off gas valves on the economy scale since they are reliable and work. For home use stoves, since it also doesn't go through as much abuse compare to a kitchen stove, manufacturers will veer towards digital controls to offer more features and selling points.
  • colanderman 9y ago
    Microwaves are the fucking worst. My workplace recently got and LG with hidden capacitative buttons, which don't work half the time, and require various combinations of holding and tapping in unintuitive orders to set anything. A shame because its magnetron is one of those nice inverter-based ones, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to set the power. I would pay thousands for a high-powered inverter microwave with two physical dials: power (measured in WATTS, thank you, not percentage), and time.
    • userbinator 9y ago
      You can get microwave ovens with knobs, although the power won't be in watts because they don't bother calibrating the power output that closely (and it varies slightly with line voltage and use.)
      • colanderman 9y ago
        The only such ones I've found have been under 1000 W, which is too low for me. I appreciate the speed of 1200 W or more models, but those inevitably cheap out on the UI. Commercial models have a dial and high power, but I haven't found such a one where you can control the power, which is a must for oatmeal and such.
        • userbinator 9y ago
          http://www.samsung.com/uk/microwaves/microwave-commercial-cm1519/ http://www.samsung.com/uk/microwaves/microwave-commercial-cm... Large and not cheap, but it's 1500W and has 5 power levels.
          • colanderman 9y ago
            Thanks for the link. I seem to have cast my net too narrow, as Google turns up this: https://www.webstaurantstore.com/14351/commercial-microwaves.html https://www.webstaurantstore.com/14351/commercial-microwaves... which has quite a few high-powered with dual dial controls (though it's not clear which are inverter-based). Some have instead two columns of buttons, one for power, one for time, which is a design I hadn't considered which does also seem easy to use.
  • leetcrew 9y ago
    > At one point my GPS/stereo touchscreen hit some bug, and the only way to "fix" it was to pull over at a rest stop and power cycle my truck (turn off, then back on again :facepalm: ). be glad you even have this option. in my car, sometimes android auto freezes in a way that it will never recover from. this would be a minor annoyance if I could just reboot the thing while driving (and why not? it shouldn't hook into anything essential), but I can't do that. worse still, I can't even hard reset it by power cycling the whole car. the damn thing goes into sleep mode or something and maintains the broken state. only way to fix it is to turn the car off and then wait n minutes for the system to finally shut down.
  • userbinator 9y ago
    Especially with vehicles, I wonder if the designers actually use their creations at all, or they do but ignore all the problems and simply replace it with a smug feeling of having designed something so complex. I have an old car. All electromechanical controls with obvious functions and very pleasant tactile feedback. I don't have to take my eyes off the road to manipulate any of them. IMHO that's how driving should be.
• adambatkin 9y ago
  Many years ago (just after I left for college) my parents decided to build a brand new house. The plan was to include a computerized lighting system where every light was individually addressable and all "light switches" were actually banks of 4 to 8 programmable buttons. The possibilities were endless! What could go wrong? I asked my parents to use a regular light switch in my room. You know the kind that I am talking about - it goes on and off, closing and opening an electrical circuit. It would have been less expensive and (in my opinion) more reliable since after all, it's just a few pieces of metal. I joked that "when everyone else's lights are flashing on and off at 3AM, I'd like to remain asleep". My father accused me (his resident technologist) of being a Luddite and they went on their merry way, finishing construction and installing a fully-computerized lighting system. A few months after they moved in, I got a phone call from my father that started something like this: "Please don't say 'I told you so' but I have to tell you what happened at 3AM last night..." (they flipped that house, and when they built their next one, it had regular light switches)
  • whoisjuan 9y ago
    I totally get the spirit of what you're saying, but to be fair a good reliable automated light-system would have an analog fail-safe that allows you to operate the lights normally in case of a malfunction of the central system, meaning that you just turn off the central system, and all the lights keep operating as normal lights that are not connected to it. But also, centralized light systems are not new. Many corporate facilities have been using these for years and they rarely fail. Maybe the problem is that your father just picked the wrong vendor/system.
    • tachyoff 9y ago
      I think the problem is that you don’t really need centralized lighting at home, and the solution is to use regular light switches. ;)
    • Someone1234 9y ago
      That more or less describes how Philip's Hue works. If the hub died, the smart bulbs can still still be operated using the regular light switch. If the bulb is in standby (smart "off") just flip the switch twice to turn it on. Then it will act like a regular bulb until the hub returns. Hue only has one big defect with regards to this... If there's an electrical outage and the smart bulb is in standby, when power is restored the bulb will turn on. Meaning if power goes out and is restored in the middle of the night the lights could suddenly turn on full brightness. And as an aside, the nice thing about smartbulbs as a concept is that they require zero re-wiring or specialized wiring. So if the manufacturer of your bulbs went out of business or you wanted to change vendors, just replace the bulb and your work is done. Simple.
• yters 9y ago
  We don't realize how complex a lot of the simple things are.
  • sgillen 9y ago
    This is true, I’m not sure the article is saying that the “dumb” versions aren’t complex to make/manufacture/use. Just that sometimes they are more reliable to use in practice.
• nitwit005 9y ago
  "One of the most common uses of Amazon’s Echo is to set a kitchen timer." Truly worth the money. I suspect the greatest value of these things is that they seem like nice gifts. The same thing seems true of the cheaper drones.
  • sgillen 9y ago
    I think the greatest value is probably in the speaker itself, most of the other features do just feel like fluff. Though personally I prefer a more “dumb” speaker I can control with my phone.
  • humanrebar 9y ago
    Relevant Seinfeld episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_(Seinfeld) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_(Seinfeld) Jerry buys his parents a personal organizer, lies about how expensive it was, and then they want to buy more "tip calculators" for their entire condo board.
• throwawazqq 9y ago
  Same for spellcheck, learn to spell and just turn it off. I also highly doubt I will ever pay money for a driverless car.
  • BookmarkSaver 9y ago
    Even if you know "how to spell" it is easy to not notice when you've misspelled something. Also, there isn't really such a thing as just "knowing how to spell", it's an open-ended skill. And some people just don't have the mind to remember the precise spelling of every single random word. I also don't know what driverless cars have to do with this. For one thing, it is possible that you might not have the option in another 25 years in some locations. For another, this actually is an extremely Luddite attitude, given the objectively horrify safety of cars which we've managed to psychologically lock away in modern culture. Not to mention the massive secondary benefits: you get to recover massive amounts of time dedicated to staring at a road, and being sober.
    • simion314 9y ago
      >given the objectively horrify safety of cars which we've managed to psychologically lock away in modern culture. Ab out the car safety, I see your point mentioned every time selfdriving cars are mentioned but we could remove the bad drivers from the road today without having to wait 20 years or more until all or most cars are self driven. My solution would be to have mandatory systems to check the driver for alcohol or drugs and a system to check for the driver attention plus the collision detections and other driver assisting technology. I know there is a privacy problem but I think is not larger then the selfdriving cars one or we can adopt this technologies in countries with less bad governments. My point we can improve car safety today if we want and not wait for selfdriving cars.
      • BookmarkSaver 9y ago
        >My solution would be to have mandatory systems to check the driver for alcohol or drugs I mean, I don't even know where to begin. First, good luck getting the 200 million drivers that don't ever have this problem to agree to dealing with this system every single time they start their car. Not gonna happen. Second, have you actually stopped to think about how this would actually work? BAC is already a pretty vague and inconsistent check of impairment, but it is literally the best available from any category. There are no sobriety tests for other substances. And there definitely are not ones that could be compacted and used on-demand in vehicles. > a system to check for the driver attention plus the collision detections and other driver assisting technology. So instead of just letting software do everything, instead you think we should stop at a stage where the human is redundant and honestly a weakness in the system, just so that we can feel like we are doing something when driving? Why not just let the software do the last 10% of the work and free up 100% of your driving time? This just sounds like pure stubbornness, not an actually effective system. And finally, it completely negates the enormous advantages of an automated driving network. Barring rare and extreme events like multi-lane closures, traffic exists entirely and exclusively because of fundamental issues in human habits and judgement. There would be no traffic if computers were automating freeways. Ever.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• joering2 9y ago
  One of such example is when they offered us a "Smart Cup" on our Cruise (Royal Caribbeans). It has built-in chip so it know who it belongs to. So you go to drink fountain, puts your cup in, LCD display nicely says your name (wow) and then you click which drink you wants and the cup fills in, while the display tells you from now on it remembers your favorite drink. Can't be better huh? Five minutes later I go for a refil: "Sorry but you drank a cup less than 45 minutes ago. Please come back in 39 minutes". I came back, but to the front desk to get a refund. Instead, I replaced it with more expensive regular cup that you could go to cafeteria and get refils of pretty much anything you want to as often as you wanted to.
  • tachyoff 9y ago
    What was the machine dispensing, Woodford Reserve? I thought cruises were “all you can eat/drink”? And why would they sell a limited smart version along side a dumb, analogue version that you could presumably refill as much as you wanted?
  • kerkeslager 9y ago
    This highlights one problem with smart devices. This device truly was smart, but it wasn't smart for you. It was smart for the cruise line, at your expense.
  • Teckla 9y ago
    Royal Caribbean has become masterful at the nickel-and-diming of passengers. My wife and I used to cruise with them, but no more, precisely because of this.
  • userbinator 9y ago
    Drink fountains used to literally be a tap that let you fill as much or as little as you want. Now they have these "smart" ones that give out premetered amounts, regardless of whether you just wanted a mouthful or have a bigger cup to fill.
• ggm 9y ago
  I use the tablet to show recipes.. but it causes grief that its blackscreen at just the point I dont want to have to touch a device to wake it up. The nice thing about paper is, you don't have to wake it up to look at that ingredients list.
  • culturestate 9y ago
    Because my iPad locks when the Smart Cover closes, I always just leave the auto lock timer disabled to avoid this situation.
  • danieldk 9y ago
    Some recipe apps (such as Paprika) prevent display sleep. I have found that more convenient than some books that always want to close.
    • kerkeslager 9y ago
      Decent cookbooks have put thought into the binding so this doesn't happen. I'm not sure there's a clear winner here.
      • danieldk 9y ago
        Since I am a vegetarian, the range of cookbooks is a bit more limited. I have some nice vegetarian cookbooks with binding that closes the book.
• oldcynic 9y ago
  ...and what no one giving us this "progress" ever seems to realise is how often it is slower. For instance our Whirlpool microwave - touch sensitive digital and achieving 5 or 10 minutes takes much longer and more clicks than our old one (no 5 min button, but the Panasonic's touch keypad didn't much like damp hands). Setting power or grill is especially unfriendly and rarely succeeds at first attempt. First microwave had a rotary control, now the preserve of absolute bottom of range rubbish, time setting always took one touch and under a second. I find it's affecting my choices of cars though. Touch sensitive "improvement" of anything basic (heater or fan for instance) is a big negative mark for me as chances are I could formerly achieve it without taking eyes from road, but now I need to look, and you don't want everything on the steering wheel!
  • pdkl95 9y ago
    > First microwave had a rotary control Reminds me of the old "ha-ha-only-serious" joke about how a computer scientist would design a toaster: http://www.fiction.net/tidbits/computer/computer_cs_toaster.html http://www.fiction.net/tidbits/computer/computer_cs_toaster.... Unfortunately some people interpreted it as a plan for the future.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      Most toasters have a thermostat or photocell instead of a timer, so even the simple design is an example of complicators gloves.
      • dTal 9y ago
        A simple timer is under complicated - if you cook two slices in immediate successionm, the second slice will be burned as the coils will still be hot. As I understand it, a good quality toaster will have at minimum both a thermal switch (like a bimetallic switch) and a timer, which only starts when the toaster is hot. I don't see how a simple thermostat with no timer can do the job by itself.
  • gambiting 9y ago
    About the microwave: it seems to be purely American thing. Here in the UK even high-end very expensive microwaves have rotating knobs for setting the time and power. I've seen those monstrosities with a million buttons on the front but they are certainly rare.
• gpapilion 9y ago
  I had an August smart lock for a while. I used it primarily while running so I didn’t have to carry keys. The whole process of unlocking the door was way more painful than a key. I switched back to a regular lock.
  • woolvalley 9y ago
    I got one of those $10 key organizers, they are definitely much nicer to have than 8 keys jangling around. It's like carrying a small pocket knife now. https://www.google.com/search?q=key+organizer https://www.google.com/search?q=key+organizer
  • darkmighty 9y ago
    I find this [type of] lock quite usable, and much more convenient thne keys: https://www.amazon.com/Schlage-FE575-CAM-619-ACC/dp/B001RFDB6C https://www.amazon.com/Schlage-FE575-CAM-619-ACC/dp/B001RFDB... Digital so I don't need keys, but still keeping it as simple as possible. Most have a power backup so you can power it from a 9V battery externally. I still wish it wasn't necessary to change batteries, but it's not too inconvenient given they last a couple years, timewise well worth not dealing with keys.
    • Someone1234 9y ago
      We have two of those, as good as they are I wouldn't trust them on an external door[0]. The locking mechanism has to be fairly light weight due to being driven by an actuator and a battery operated one at that, which means instead of a deadbolt-like configuration it is a traditional spring Latch, which could make it susceptible to bumping or even a strong rare earth magnet. Plus the key is pretty simple. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X038GMKwHNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X038GMKwHNw
• hliyan 9y ago
  I've always preferred tactile/mechanical controls (buttons, knobs, sliders) to the touch screens we have today. And I always trust mechanical systems over fly-by-wire systems. For example, I'm very uncomfortable with things like the Tesla's slide-out door handles, electronic locks in hotel room doors, touch buttons in elevators and GPS navigation systems in aircraft. Smart tends to mean complex, and complex usually means more things to fail. Some things only need shafts, pulleys and gearwheels -- there is no need to bring a microprocessor into the picture...
  • Piskvorrr 9y ago
    Bad news: GPS in airplanes is the least complicated piece of kit, and most commercial aviation is literally fly-by-wire.
    • mrep 9y ago
      I can't find the plane/article but I remember reading about a military jet that is practically always in an unstable flight pattern and computers constantly adjust it to make it so the pilots can fly it normally.
      • merijnv 9y ago
        The would be the F16 if memory serves me well.
      • dvtv75 9y ago
        I recall reading that about the F-117, many years ago. Can't remember the source, either, and I've no idea if it's accurate.
      • hliyan 9y ago
        I recall the main computer of the F-22 core dumping when it crossed the international dateline. And an earlier version of the F-16 flight control computer flipping the plane upside down when it crossed the equator in a simulation...
      • marcosdumay 9y ago
• KamiCrit 9y ago
  My favourite "smart" dumb device has got to be single sensor electronics. The automatic hallway light to be exact. It's a piece of plastic with a photocell and a LED. So long as it has power (but a battery backup would be simple enough) it never fails to turn on "if this, then that". Daylight savings, changing seasons, solar eclipse. It's never a device I have to think about. And at home depot they sell $80 IoT light bulbs demanding a property app.
• firasd 9y ago
  I think real ubiquitous computing will require a different technological approach. These Wi-Fi enabled devices that you can access with an app on your phone are clearly not working out too well. I look forward to tech like smart contact lenses, that google jacquard project, and other interfaces... what if instead of telling Alexa to turn on the lights, you could turn your lights on and off by gesturing (think like mouse gestures--you move your wrist down and left in the air, and a bracelet or sleeve knows what you gestured). Or even better, just thinking. So we're a few hardware inventions away (not to mention, truly enjoyable product inventions away) from knowing what 'Smart Things' really are...
  • pishpash 9y ago
    IoT is built on a cruddy stack. Nobody in their sane mind would design it like that from scratch. The problem is technology is much more pervasive compared with earlier eras, and without careful future proofing you end up stuck in a lot of unfortunate designs that cannot be gotten out of, and more and more is thrown into the pit making it worse and worse.
• shams93 9y ago
  This is why I have been getting superior results working with a $100 tascam digital 4 track compared to what I used to get from logic pro. For music being able to use knobs with eyes closed to record is actually huge to me the GUI is actually a problem for music for my work.
  • 0x00000000 9y ago
    There are few worse design decisions than rotary encoders on a software synth
    • starsinspace 9y ago
      In almost all music software these days, the knobs are actually linear faders in disguise. Displaying them as knobs simply have the advantage of taking up less screen space.
  • 4ad 9y ago
    There's a reason why most music today is still mixed on an analog console. Notice that mixing and recording engineers, even if they use Logic to record, the computer is somewhere on the side, it's not in their face. They don't look at the screen, they just keep their hands on the analog faders and listen.
• ReinholdNiebuhr 9y ago
  Sort of related but not exactly.. and I'm sorry if this is controversial... I just prefer my gas car over my electric car. My gas car is older, the cd play doesn't work however the radio does. I could replace it. I just don't care enough and prefer the randomness of the radio. My electric has mp3, satellite radio etc. Don't know if its nostalgia or what I've just grew up using but yea.. I hate my electric car.
  • brookside 9y ago
    I like elemental cars without bloated features as well, but most new cars both ICE and electric have screens and the like. I don't think this is unique to EVs.
    • ReinholdNiebuhr 9y ago
      Fair. But that's not totally why I dislike my electric car (Nissan). I mention the modern stuff just to highlight the car has significantly better entertainment systems. The nissan compared to the gas (a porsche) is an unfair fight. However I haven't been impressed with tesla when test driving them as well. It's the drive, idk. I know tesla is trying to solve that but so far I haven't been impressed.
    • icantdrive55 9y ago
      I have a feeling simple vechicles (one computer, and maybe a powertrain computer) will be coveted in the near future. I have a nineties dodge Dakota that I was going to just run into the ground. I never loved the truck, and used to think it was complicated to work on. After looking at new vechicles, the nineties cars, and trucks are comparatively simple. I grew up fixing my own cars, and couldn't imagine paying someone to work on my vechicles. I don't like the complexity of the newer vechicles I'm looking at. The wealthy will have no problem having a dealership spend 3-hours calibrating the sensors on a bumper, at $240/hr. I couldn't imagine spending so much. Even if I had the money spending $2400 to replace a bumper is just crazy. (A buddy of mine called me up, and let the price of his bumper replacement slip out. I told him they must have done more. Well, I looked up his make/model, and that is roughly the going rate. And yes, it went right on his credit card.)
• hudibras 9y ago
  On the one hand, the analog watch they show to compare with the Apple Watch is an Omega Speedmaster, the first watch on the moon. Shows that you can do great things with just gears and springs. On the other hand, it does cost $3,000...
  • Jtsummers 9y ago
    On the third hand, it'll still be running after 50 years and fully compatible with all standard issue eyeballs. Amortized cost of $60/year. Will the Apple Watch still be running in 50 years? At around $300/watch right now, each one needs to last at least 5 years to remain price competitive.
    • inamberclad 9y ago
      5 years sounds alright, actually. Tech can last that long, despite engineering for obsolescence. But that moonwatch will probably stay in style much longer too.
    • kerkeslager 9y ago
      In 50 years, will it still fit my sense of style? Will I manage to avoid misplacing it or getting lost for 50 years? I'm not saying I want a Smart Watch (getting even more distracted? No thanks). What I'm saying is that lasting power in a device isn't just about continuing to function.
      • Jtsummers 9y ago
        Fair, but that particular style has apparently already made it 50 years. It's got lasting power at least with a decent sized (or well funded) segment of the market. It's also an object you can give to children and grandchildren. I have a number of objects like these. I would have zero interest in passing on my 2017 Apple Watch 3 in 20 years. There's something to be said, IMO, for things that will last generations and not just years.
        • icebraining 9y ago
• th0ma5 9y ago
  I have done some neat hobby automation projects, and I have some thoughts: 1. With some more work it wouldn't be so, but when the power goes out it is like rebooting Jurassic Park to get my sound system back the way I like. 2. The proprietary power grab is worse than any video format war or chat program territory battle. I've tried to DIY as much as I can, but Google Home is a no go for DIY. I can emulate on/off Phillips Hue stuff for Alexa Scenes but for Google Home you have to go through the net. 3. I can't ask Alexa to do anything when the (rare) internet is out, but I can control everything fine with my phone or IR. Most automation projects seem to require outside the firewall stuff. 4. Would be cool if I could come up with a port knocking thing for Alexa Skills to talk back to the LAN with some kind of reliable security and encryption... But Skills seem to be only available to call out insecurely or to a running EC2 instance say but I don't have a free tier account being an early adopter of EC2. 5. In general, the products I will buy are ideally LAN only. Maybe that's unrealistic like a non smart TV?
• truculation 9y ago
  Yes I would like a Starship Enterprise-style computer in my house. Who wouldn't? But it has to be the the ad-free version that works for me. It won't monitor the activities of my family and then sell the anonymized data to selected third parties. Then supply the de-anonymized data to government agencies and school boards at the drop of a hat for 'safe-guarding' or 'anti-terrorism' purposes. In the meantime I recognise that there's some health value to getting up periodically to flick switches.
  • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    No one's going to build this for you. If you want an assistant built around your needs... start building. AI is not going to magically make a piece of software work the way each and every person on Earth would like, but making one for yourself is far more possible. :)
  • spc476 9y ago
    Then there's the ST:TNG episode "Contagion" where the crew spends the entire hour futzing around with the Enterprise's computer only to come to the conclusion of "let's reboot it!" Sigh.
    • tragomaskhalos 9y ago
      Was it running a Windows update ;-) : "do not power off your computer" = "tough tits if you were packing up your laptop to go home matey, one of those soi-disant 'updates' is actually a virus scan, which will take hours if you're lucky, or I might just bork the whole frickin' thing, we'll see..."
  • pasabagi 9y ago
    I think this is kinda possible - if you hook up a raspberry pi with a bunch of relay switches. I think there's a speech-recognition project from Mozilla that's actually trained on the pi. I vaguely considered it - but honestly, what's the point? Light switches are excellent tech. I think I'll go for a home computer the day somebody makes a roomba that can pick up trash, and clean the bathroom. Before that, all the really time-consuming stuff has to be done manually anyway.
• rcthompson 9y ago
  I think the advantage of "dumb" devices is that you can fully understand how they work, at least at a level of abstraction that covers all possible functionality you care about. For smart devices, you can't fully understand how all of them work, so you have to trust that they understand correctly what you want them to do and are actually attempting to do it. Or if you can't trust it, you have to spend time and effort verifying it. And you also have to trust (or verify) that they're not doing stupid/malicious things like punching holes in your firewall or leaking your personal data. In short, you can simply use a dumb device, but you have to manage a smart device, and that requires much more mental bandwidth.
  • exodust 9y ago
    That's a good point about using a device vs managing a device. We need more "dumb" devices that have optional layers of smart enhancements. Best of both worlds would be my preference for replacing things like a kitchen timer or light switch.
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    This is definitely how I view the "dumb" vs "smart" automation. Complex things are hard to reason about, and as much as you might claim they "just work" that's only true until they suddenly don't, and then you can't fix them easily. Simple things are easy to reason about. They may not always work, but at least when they don't it should be pretty obvious why. I bring this up a lot in my "why the Linux Desktop sucks" rants, but it sadly applies to a whole lot of technology. So many complex systems introduced to solve non-problems or problems created by the complexity in the first place. It's enough that sometimes I want to just give up computing and live in a cave.
• kendallpark 9y ago
  Soft touch "buttons" vs regular mechanical buttons. Soft touch buttons are the bane of my existence. With most buttons, there's no feedback as to whether or not the button has been pressed. It's also difficult to develop muscle memory so you can you use the buttons without looking. For this reason I can't stand typing on an iPad's screen keyboard. Also the reason turning on a modern TV involves me dragging my fingers all over the bottom hoping I hit the power button. The extreme of this is newer Macbook touchbar. Vim is a nightmare to use. Did I even press ESC? Can't tell. Another great example: http://www.homecrux.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/GE%E2%80%99s-Smart-Sous-Vide-Probe-and-Touch-sensitive-Induction-Cooktops_5.jpg http://www.homecrux.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/GE%E2%80%...
  • elboru 9y ago
    I have a Ford Fusion 2013, AC and radio is controlled with those soft touch buttons, man I hate those buttons, I don’t want to take my eyes from the road just to change the radio! I don’t get why the obsession about putting “touch” functionality to every single damn thing, they don’t provide a single UX improvement.
    • ahartmetz 9y ago
      Still a remnant of the hype about certain Apple products, it seems.
      • ahartmetz 9y ago
        Huh, downvotes. Seriously, I was there, working in a related field at the time of the iPhone and iPad hypes, and that was exactly when ill-advised uses of touchscreens popped up everywhere. They became the thing every product needed to have to be perceived as modern. Just to remind you how hypey it was, "tablets will replace PC-type computers for most consumers in the next few years" and "world's first iPad DJ". I wish I was making up the last one.
        • greedo 9y ago
• bradgessler 9y ago
  A bit dumber than a “smart device”: the new AppleTV remote is a tiny touchpad that communicates with the box via Bluetooth. The problem is when this thing ends up in a cushion or gets squished under a pillow it pauses, stops, or starts rewinding the video. Compare that to a cheaper IR remote where it simply can’t communicate with the unit in those situations. Turns out line of sight is a feature for a TV remote.
  • grzm 9y ago
    Yeah, that's happened to me, too. It's small, slim size makes it fit just about anywhere. I do like not having to point it at the box however, and it means the AppleTV unit can be placed out of sight. It is a tradeoff, though.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      With HDMI-CEC, your TV can receive the IR signal and pass the instruction back to the AppleTV through the wire, without having to place the unit in sight.
      • grzm 9y ago
        So that's what's going on when I've nudged the universal remote when using the AppleTV. Cheers!
    • josteink 9y ago
      The Logitech harmony remote also works over radio so it doesn’t need line of sight. But it’s not so small that it gets lost. I never use my Apple TV remote. It’s not practical enough.
      • grzm 9y ago
        And I much prefer mine over any other I’ve used. One of us must be wrong ;)
  • starsinspace 9y ago
• virgilp 9y ago
  I get his point and to some extent[1] I agree, but it seems a lot of his examples are caused by his technology choices. I can run Waze in my car with no issues (just use an Android phone); I don't use smartwatches for other reasons (I don't wear a watch, period); but when I did, it was always-on (years ago!). [1] I agree that old technologies are always superior in some aspects to new technologies. But, crucially, they are inferior in others, that sometimes turn out to be more important. When that is the case, the new technology will typically gradually become better in all aspects (i.e. with time the inferior aspects get fix; but yes it may take a while)
• l0b0 9y ago
  Smart meters. Since working in IoT on a "dumb" meter I figure the killer feature isn't automatic temperature and power regulation, it's knowledge. Once you know where and when you are using lots of power you can easily figure out a solution that fits your situation, rather than endlessly coddling an intrusive system.
  • toomuchtodo 9y ago
    https://sense.com/ https://sense.com/
  • gm-conspiracy 9y ago
    https://openenergymonitor.org/ https://openenergymonitor.org/ based on raspberry pi
• pishpash 9y ago
  Dumb stuff have always been better. Most of the smart things are useless.
• Torai 9y ago
  I love how "techie" people needs nurturing to realize what makes sense and what not. So 2 years later, they realize what other people know the moment they hear about some product. Something Silicon Valley engineers do. They invent silly things just cause they know how to code bluetooth communications. Like a water bottle that measures how much you are drinking during the day for example. But hey, it's not their fault. It's hacker news fault. Didn't you spend years telling them "Ideas are worth zero. Execution is king". Now you have highly productive dumb people you helped creating. I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
  • Joeri 9y ago
    A phone with a touch screen instead of physical buttons was a dumb idea until it was executed well. Smart devices aren’t a bad idea, they just haven’t been executed well enough.
    • Torai 9y ago
      I never said "all smart devices". I was obviously implying some smart devices for some use-cases. A bluetooth connected water bottle is well executed, but poorly ideated.
    • pjc50 9y ago
      They're still bad phones - you can't answer or dial them without looking. It's just that they're far more useful as tiny internet tablets and people have in many cases gradually moved to text chat over voice.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• meuk 9y ago
  I would say that usually the dumb stuff is better. People are sometimes surprised (since I work in IT) that I am against putting too many functionality in stuff. First example: in my experience, there is nothing better than a blackboard for explaining a subject. I have never seen a blackboard that does not work. I also have never had a smooth experience with a smartboard (for starters, it has to boot and the projector has to be on and connected which just takes some minutes), and I have rarely had a good experience with whiteboards (usually the markers just don't work well, and there's no way to see that beforehand, so you end up trying a lot of them). It also irritates me intensely how often it is assumed that you're always connected to the internet. Games nowadays not only have mandatory updates, but also require you to be connected. I used to play games once a week with a friend, and the experience just sucked. Call of Duty almost always had a multiple gigabyte update waiting for us, so that we had to wait half an hour to play (even though we didn't play online). It has happened multiple times that the internet didn't work, and we just had to find something else to do. Then, smart TV's have some of the same problems too. I have had some new experiences since my roommate bought a 4k monstrosity with ambilight (which only purpose seems to be that ensure that no-one can concentrate on something else when the TV is on). I have never had to wait multiple minutes to turn the TV on before. I have never had a TV crash on me before. I have never been confused by a remote control before (the remote control has a button with a triangle symbol to go to all apps, and some other buttons with symbols I have never seen before, and there are two different places with apps - some of them are the same while others can only be found in one place). The TV also boots with the sound very loud, and I have to wait until the TV is fully booted until the sound can be adjusted. Which in practice means that I can't watch TV after my roommate goes asleep at 9:30.
  • TomMarius 9y ago
    A large part of this is shitty engineering and product development. These products could be made so much better, but they suck instead.
    • meuk 9y ago
      True, but it is also the price to pay when you use technology. You can't test everything. The TV, for example, is a new model from a big, quality brand (and in general it works well). Likewise, Call of Duty (the game that requires internet even if you play offline - not sure if this holds for all games in the series) is not a small title. So if these products by big companies have that shitty engineering, then most products with the same functionality probably will have similar problems.
• meuk 9y ago
  Maybe a large part of why hardware buttons work so much better than software buttons is that they just are there. They do not pop up whenever you enter a new screen, and usually, you can't miss them (as in 'oh, I didn't realize that bar was clickable'). They are also much more restrictive than software UI's - so the designer really has to put in effort since you can't replace the hardware interface by putting out an update. I can't resist to draw a parallel with programming. In the early days, where binaries consisted of carefully handcrafted code, they were in the range of kilobytes. Nowadays programs are in the range of megabytes to gigabytes due to all the libraries that are statically included (and possibly duplicated). When I install Xilinx ISE (no support for anything above windows 7) or Visual Studio (both 2015 and 2017, because both have features that the other one does not contain), I have already used more space on my SSD than I'd like.
• jurassic 9y ago
  I love how my paper and pens never try to force me into paying them $5/month forever.
  • FroshKiller 9y ago
    Where did you find a notebook that never runs out of blank pages and a pen that never needs ink?
• vanderZwan 9y ago
  I'm going to verbatim copy a conversation I had on twitter a few weeks ago[0], because it seems particularly relevant, and I want to credit whomever is behind the algoglitches twitter account with coming up with the term "formerly fixable objects": @JobvdZwan: My mother called me the other day asking why I "installed Bing". Because she does not grasp that software can modify itself, it did not occur to her that Firefox itself switched after an auto-update. In this light it makes sense that family members blame you for "breaking" their computer if you helped them out months or years before: if you fix, say, a door, it will not spontaneously change after that. But fixing a computer is not like fixing a door. @algoglitches: Interestingly doors will probably be computers a few years from now cf https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/you-are-already-living-inside-a-computer/539193/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/you-a... . We will refer to them as "formerly fixable objects" and they will produce their own glitches. @JobvdZwan: Did you just make up the term "formerly fixable objects"? Because that should be a term. [0] https://twitter.com/JobvdZwan/status/962328161429151745 https://twitter.com/JobvdZwan/status/962328161429151745
• tnr23 9y ago
  seriously guys? why is this being discussed? just get normal switches and try to use the saved time to develop a product which provides actual value to the world.
  • 4ad 9y ago
    Because smart stuff is here to stay and make our lives miserable. I don't know if smart bulbs will ever become popular, but you can't buy a dumb TV today anymore. I don't even know if there ever was a 4k dumb TV.
• titzer 9y ago
  There are varying levels of cynicism with which to view the smart home stuff. On the plus side, smart home automation is great for those with mobility issues or disabilities, the elderly. It also could save a lot of energy globally. On the other hand, a lot of things just don't need to be smart, and making them smart often means that they are not directly servicable by owners. When something breaks, you need a whole stack of knowledge about software to figure out where it went wrong. A lot of us here might have that knowledge, but even then it's a giant hassle. It seems insane that in the future it might require arcane knowledge of Python, bash, and Linux to get your lights on. That's some kind of fail. The most cynical view, which I sometimes dare myself to consider, is that all of this smart home/internet of things is just another bubble where hardware manufacturers are pushing their chips into literally everything because they have to keep making more money...somehow. In the latter case, well. Civilization doesn't need more hucksters, even if they are selling little black squares of silicon this time around.
• raverbashing 9y ago
  Most of the "smart IoT stuff" is built by (cheap) engineers and decision makers with no sense of IT security and reliability engineering Also the infrastructure in a major city is usually much more reliable than someone living in the suburbs (especially in non-1st world countries). And I'm not even talking about internet, but electricity as well See the Tesla remote unlock fiasco, people think it's a good idea to lock their car using a device which needs a recharge every day (and could break, has a higher chance of getting robbed than a key, etc), and needs access to cell towers to unlock the car? Compare this to other manufacturers where the mechanical keys will work even if the battery in the remote dies See the bluetooth locks fiasco, you're putting a cheap and unreliable device between you and your house? Do people realize how stupid is that?!
• amelius 9y ago
  I think a lot of us engineers are solving non-problems. We make life only marginally better for a lot of people (if we're lucky). To me it seems that a relatively simple job like e.g. highschool teacher has more impact and provides more meaning than what we are doing. Anyway, at least I feel better than those engineers who are trying to make people click ads more.
• Kuiper 9y ago
  I am a big fan of the Kindle 4. (2012) It's wonderful. I use mine practically every day. It has these huge things on the side called "buttons" that you can use to turn the pages. They have a tactile feel when pressed, and accidental button presses are never a problem. It's symmetrical, so you can hold it in either your right or left hand. It's the last Kindle made before someone got the bright idea that people would rather have a touch screen instead of buttons. Because apparently, when I'm reading a book, the thing I want to do is use my thumb to cover up the screen (you know, the thing that is displaying the text that I'm reading), and hold the device in a very specific way such that I can press the page when I need to while avoiding accidental touches before I've reached the end of the page. Recently, they decided to re-introduce the majestic "button" feature into some of the newer Kindle models. You can get it if you opt for the premium deluxe "Kindle Oasis" which for some reason has an asymmetrical bezel and costs $250. (The Kindle 4 originally retailed for $80, which is where pricing for current Kindle models also starts.) I love my Kindle 4. I use it every day and take it with me everywhere, and whenever I misplace it and need to buy a replacement, I find myself going to ebay to look for a used version of the old model so I can have a device with buttons.
  • Spacemolte 9y ago
    Oh yes, that was my biggest worry when i bought the paperwhite - If i would miss those buttons too much. Even now after a year, if I could get the paperwhite with buttons, I would. It just works, you don't have to move your finger to change the page. It's not much I have to move my fingers to change page on the paperwhite, but it's still so much more than should be necessary, the old model just fit like a glove. (I would still get the paperwhite even with no buttons, and it has not been as annoying regarding accidental page changes as I had initially feared. And i really love the background lighting)
  • Kagerjay 9y ago
    My Kindle 3 broke about a couple months ago. I've had it for nearly 4-5 years, worked like a champ, I had a protective case on it with an external LED light you could extend off of it to read at night. I got used to using purely tactile buttons when reading. So I had to buy a new kindle. I looked into the Oasis, and the kindle paper white, and the voyager. I ended up going with the kindle paper white for $80, despite the fact it doesn't have tactile buttons I actually prefer the kindle paper white. I actually find that pressing a tactile button on every page is kind of tiring with my old Amazon Kindle 3. Swiping back and forth is much easier if you do it constantly, and doesn't really take long to get used too
• monna 9y ago
  Most of this is just marketing. Companies realizing that they can sell some tech gizmo by slapping a "smart" label on it. Technology isn't inherently "smart", but the application of technology can be smart. When done right it works as an amplifier to our abilities, like all tools do. I you're merely interested in tech for it's own sake, better to get a raspbery pi or arduino and make your own crazy shit, it doesn't need to be useful.
• nijynot 9y ago
  I don't agree with almost all of it. If you compare a normal wristwatch with Apple watch w.r.t time keeping only, you're not comparing it fairly. The Apple watch can just do so much more than a normal watch can, and it's programmable, you can add things with time. Same can be said for the alarm clock and what not. Why no compare a smartphone to the analog alarm? That'd what most people use I think, and they instead pick some gadget alarm clock which not many use I'd say. A big difference is that a smartphone and Apple watch is a device that can a do what a 100 "dumb stuff" can do. It's a all-in-one device and that's very valuable. Their last point on touch screens in cars is very weak. With a touch screen, you can change the UI anytime. It's flexible with infinite buttons. A normal one with real buttons sure are more tactile, but when you ship it, it's set in stone with limited button and functionality.
  • JasonFruit 9y ago
    I believe that's their point: while each smart device can usurp the function of dozens of single-purpose devices, for any single function the smart device makes tradeoffs that the single-purpose one can avoid. So, while it's cool that the Apple watch can check your email, tell your body temperature, and give you directions, it's less good as a watch than a cheap, dumb ol' watch. It's a question of whether the tradeoffs are worth it to you. Clearly to you, they are, but for the author and me, they aren't.
    • acdha 9y ago
      Also, you now have the usual software management failures. My Apple Watch 2 is about 7 months old. Every function on it works worse than when I bought it: e.g. Siri has gone from activating 80% of the time to about 30%. No other industry gets away with such routine negligence of core job functions.
      • Retra 9y ago
        That's because people don't buy these things for their functionality, but for the functionality they imagine they could have. Not coincidentally, that is also how they are marketed. People are always sitting on a park benches on their smooth-screened laptops with absolutely no glare and a huge grin on their face.
• sly010 9y ago
  I despise gadgets too-smart-to-function-normally as much as anyone, but here is a counter example: For a long time now, cars have a well integrated set of bells and whistles all connected via fairly reliable communication protocols (like CAN and such) and for the most part they just work. I never had the parking break not engage or cruse control drift. (I am not talking about the touchscreens and apple and android integrations as the article mentions it, those are closer to the 'smart' trend). What if we didn't insist on retrofitting existing 110V systems and imagined a house with a modern power bus? What if we stopped focusing on selling things in the <$100 range and sold entire systems that are designed to work well together? What if we stopped insisting on unreliable radio communication and just used good'ol wires. The lower power thing is only good for sensors anyway. Anything else will need power. Obviously this is not an option for existing homes maybe not even new homes, but what about hotels and office buildings? I am just wondering (hoping) if this whole mess is not the fault of technology per say but the fault of the business minds and todays hype culture. Can we use technology to make things better, not just smarter? I would be into that. Edit: formatting
  • Joeri 9y ago
    Well, that sort of thing has existed for a long time, like KNX, but usually prices are a lot steeper and a higher degree of technical competence is required to set it up. The problem is the incentive structure. Companies will prefer proprietary protocols over standards unless the standard is very popular, and no standard will become that popular without a huge ecosystem in place.
  • marcosdumay 9y ago
    > I never had the parking break not engage or cruse control drift. Well, at least around here those things are required to have an old style steel wires fail-safe. And I know that because I have needed the fail-safe once. But about selling living-place automation as a package, it is basically the say everybody was doing it since the 80's. The <$100 things are basically a reaction from consumers against the huge packages inability to keep working after deployed for a few years (due to planed obsolescence) and the plain bad deal of depending on a single packager.
• tworc 9y ago
  Physical books are the ultimate dumb tool: No need to charge; no notifications; can take notes if you like; and fantastic life span if well looked after.
  • thebigspacefuck 9y ago
    In defense of e-readers, I can carry an Infinite Jest sized book to the store with me in my pocket and start reading it while my SO is trying on clothes. I can download a new book from the library without having to check which branch has the copy I'm looking for and going there. I can preview a book without looking up which store near me has it, driving to the book store, and finding a place to sit to start reading through the first chapters. The battery life is fairly long as well so charging is usually not an issue. I still have several copies of physical books and still go to the library or the book store on occasion, but the experience of reading on an e-reader is superior in my opinion. The text size can be adjusted to my preference. I can read in low lighting without needing the light to be just right. I grew up reading in bed and now I don't have to lay on my side to make sure the paper is facing the light or deal with the annoyance of being too early or late into the book to where the pages aren't supportive of my hand. With physical books, thin or slippery paper can be an annoyance, but the e-reader is always the same size and experience. Of course, I didn't used to think about such things, I just read away, but once I got started on the e-reader, it's hard to go back. The one exception is a textbook or books where you need to flip back and forth a lot.
• gwbas1c 9y ago
  I'm building my house now, and I have plans for wall switches to control outlets behind the TV. I mostly buy AV equipment that can be controlled by turning the power on/off.
• savrajsingh 9y ago
  To do lists are still better on paper, too
• spikej 9y ago
  One of my favourite examples: resetting the router using a timer instead of scripting it https://www.howtogeek.com/289178/how-to-automatically-reboot-your-router-on-a-schedule-the-easy-way/ https://www.howtogeek.com/289178/how-to-automatically-reboot...
  • pwg 9y ago
    Had a DSL modem years ago that had this issue (periodically it would simply quit interacting with the DSLAM, resulting in no internet until it got power cycled). My solution was exactly this (although without googling for a solution). A 24 hour light timer, set to power cycle the modem sometime in the middle of the night. Since it usually took several days before the modem got hung, a nightly power cycle meant that things were working properly at other times.
• intopieces 9y ago
  I can come up with an equal number of cases where the “dumb stuff” doesn’t work the way I want it to. 1.) A dumb watch can’t tell me where my next meeting is being held. Am I really going to go back to balancing my laptop on my knee to check that? 2.) A dumb alarm clock can’t even play white noise that I use to go to sleep. Its display can’t be customized for when my taste in Time face changes. I could go on, but sufficed to say that the UX teams of these blockbuster products have already done this work. It’s why people buy the damn products. Hipster Ludditism is still Ludditism and it gets boring really fast.
  • adangert 9y ago
    why not use your phone? Navigating watch ui's are horrendous. Plus you don't have to charge another device every night.
    • intopieces 9y ago
      The Apple Watch displays the location of my next meeting beneath the time. The UI interaction is identical to a typical watch.
  • Piskvorrr 9y ago
    Here, have a dictionary: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sometimes http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sometimes
    • dang 9y ago
      Please don't do this here.
• intrasight 9y ago
  That Sharp alarm clock is the very one waking me up every morning. Nice and loud. And I like the "tick-tick".
• subpixel 9y ago
  This reminds me of multi-room sound systems, which are as bad today as they were decades ago. They're a technological solution to a problem that only marketing can convince you exists. And only once you pay thousands of dollars to enable the same sounds to by piped all over your house do you realize how unpleasant that experience is.
• veli_joza 9y ago
  There are two issues at play here. The first is that soft buttons, gesture recognitions and 'smart' UIs are applied tastelessly to give impression of futuristic product. UI design is very hard and I hope that best patterns will prevail over time. There are also many good examples of transition to digital UI and I like to think things are getting better. The second issue is, in order to operate UI, you have to form a mental model (simulation) of it in your mind, in order to execute your intention. In analog days the controls were limited by space and cost, so UIs were simple to use. In digital age same UI surface can be used for different actions depending on context. It creates additional burden on user to hold this context in his mind, to know about all possible contexts and how to move between them. If you are surrounded with many such devices, all with different usage patterns, you will curse their designers often. I wish every digital interface would also have friendly API for remote control so I could build my own simplified interface for existing devices.
• nathan_long 9y ago
  "Smart" is 100% a marketing term. "Networked" would be more accurate in most cases. Do you want a "smart" coffee pot? Oh yes, you smart person, of course you do! Do you want a networked coffee pot? No, because that would be dumb. All the fun of rebooting and hackers, but you still have to physically touch it to make and pour coffee. The really dumb part of many of these devices is coupling. A truly "smart tv" would be a good screen + wires + a computerized device, so you can switch out screen or computer at will. Gluing them together guarantees crappiness and waste.