5 ms·

I couldn't agree more. There is no magic feature that is going to make me want a smart home. The whole concept sounds like a nightmare on so many levels. - hig

by anm89 5y ago

I couldn't agree more. There is no magic feature that is going to make me want a smart home. The whole concept sounds like a nightmare on so many levels. - higher maintenance - loss of privacy - loss of ownership of things in my home - reliance on subscriptions

nousermane 5y ago
It's funny how first item on your list of drawbacks (higher maintenance) was already there with first-wave of home automation, back in last century [0]. Current iteration not only fails to solve that problem, it also brings 3 additional problems. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.10
- anm89 5y ago
  Yeah the 'better' it gets the more layers of code, abstractions, and networked system are required to work in perfect harmony for my home to not start creating problems in my life. Every extra feature is a regression.
White_Wolf 5y ago
if it's full offline with no subscriptions or internet connectivity - I'm up for some. If it needs any kind of connectivity or it comes as a service - no way in hell I'm exposing my family to the risk of not being able to flush a toiled one day because of a tweet or god know what.
- jmkni 5y ago
  > If it needs any kind of connectivity or it comes as a service - no way in hell I'm exposing my family to the risk of not being able to flush a toilet one day because of a tweet or god know what. That sounds like the plot to a Black Mirror episode
- mauvehaus 5y ago
  The problem is twofold: 1) People don't understand and don't want to have to understand how WiFi, servers, clients, protocols, GUIDs, etc work so they can up a standalone system. Manufacturers create systems requiring internet connectivity so they can abstract away some of the complexity from the end users. Unfortunately, that means when stuff fails, it's totally opaque, as described in TFA. I mean, shit, most people couldn't wire a lamp correctly or change a tire [citation needed, but you get my point]. 2) Rent seeking and data mining. Why let the customer pay for the lightbulb once and use it forever when you can make them pay for a monthly subscription and sell the usage data? And then you can force an upgrade when you deprecate the service before the light bulb burns out. Win/win! Remember: when somebody says "internet of things" what you should hear is "billions on unpatched, unmaintained Linux devices sold by companies whose core competencies aren't securing computers racing each other to the bottom".
  - White_Wolf 5y ago
    to be entirely honest I see the IOT part as a blessing and a curse. I can see what potential benefits IOT devices could bring but the risks of all these outdated devices in my home scare the hell out of me. I know it sounds like paranoid talk but my whole life is digital these days.
  - durbleflorp 5y ago
    Okay, but neither of those problems are actually an issue with smart homes as a concept, they're mostly issues with the way profit motive drives behavior in a capitalist system. The first point is confusing because the majority of tools people use today they can't repair themselves. That's what happens as technology advances, you need specialists to understand each system. If you look at things like earthships that are built to manage a lot more factors than a typical home, it becomes pretty clear how useful automating some of those systems and allowing them to share data could be. If you had good open standards for the tech and were actually trying to make things that improved people's lives or saved energy rather than mine data or recurring revenue, you could make some cool shit. Really the complaint should be about the way these products are developed and marketed, which is hardly unique to this sector.
- anm89 5y ago
  The problem with this is that it seems like you are now on the hook for long term maintenance of some hacky system you threw together. I think if you view this is a hobby and a chance to play with electronics then that is probably a great use case. But if your goal is to minimize the amount of time you are spending on this stuff, I'm very skeptical that whatever system you are throwing together on your own is really a good way to do that. There is a reason that so many of the systems out there suck. Building good ones is really hard, takes a ton of research, R&D, and collaboration between many experts. I fail to see how removing all of that and throwing something together yourself really creates a reliable system
blacktriangle 5y ago
What's really sad is that there's no need for any smart home concept to result in a loss of privacy. However people are cheap, and its difficult to impossible for somebody selling a self-hosting smart home appliance that you just plug in to your wall to outcompete somebody who is practically giving away the hardware to make the money on your data or on subscriptions over time.
vwelling 5y ago
A lot of off-the-shelf consumer smart home products do suffer from the drawbacks you've listed, but they do not generally apply to the smart home concept. My home is automated using components that use the KNX standard, and although the initial investment is higher than a conventional electrical installation, I'd argue maintenance is actually simpler and cheaper – as pretty much all of it is in the software. Additionally, there's quite a few benefits: - It's all wired, so it's been rock solid; - It's vendor agnostic; - It's entirely local, so there's no subscriptions or even an internet connection dependency; - There's a ton of gateways available that allow me to interface with non-KNX products; Overall, I'm pretty happy with it. It is just a matter of convenience however, it's hardly a must-have.
- fy20 5y ago
  I'm building a house at the moment and will go the KNX route. It really does seem great, it's just pretty much unknown outside of Germany for residential use. The way communication works is each device has a number of inputs and outputs that have defined data types (there are one hundred or so in total). When programming devices you just tell them which channel (group address) the inputs and outputs (group objects) should be linked to. Inputs can be linked to any number of channels, but outputs can only be linked to 1. Some devices have basic logic units if you want to do more complicated things. The group address is 16 bits, so there's lots of room for flexibility. For example, if you have a switch and the on/off output is linked to channel A, when you switch it on, it would send a 'switch on' message on that channel. If you have a light actuator (in simple terms, a programmable relay) that listens on channel A, when it receives that message it would turn the light on. If you want to add another switch at the other end of the hallway, you only need to program that switch to send the on/off output to channel A - the other devices don't need to be reprogrammed. Devices are certified (which is one reason why they are quite expensive compared to consumer smart home devices), but that means they are guaranteed to work together regardless of the manufacturer. The protocol itself hasn't really changed over time (there are a few minor new features which are not backwards compatible) so if you have a installation from the early 00s, you can buy new hardware today and know it'll work without issues.
  - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bishoprook2 5y ago
>There is no magic feature that is going to make me want a smart home. Imagine the fun when it all goes obsolete in five years, a controller board dies with no replacement available, all for very little advantage. Maybe this is Peak Technology. Sticking a computer and communications network on things that gain little from the addition. The one exception I might make is low-cost surveillance cameras, but of course it took the industry about ten seconds to add subscriptions and spying-on-you to the business model.
- foobarian 5y ago
  It's bad enough that LED lights exploded in variety and change early and often. I had one of ten, 20-year lifespan ceiling flood lamps go dark, and of course the replacements don't exist because these particular lamps were only made during a 1-2 year window. To add insult to injury the fault is not in the actual light emitting element but (of course) in the driver.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    > the fault is not in the actual light emitting element but (of course) in the driver.... Being over-driven. Big Clive loves to tear down LED bulbs to examine the driver boards. Often shows you ways to drop the current to sustainable levels and get back your 20-year lifespan LED bulbs (caveat, at lower power levels). https://www.youtube.com/user/bigclivedotcom https://www.youtube.com/user/bigclivedotcom More specifically, example: https://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4 https://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Yeah, I consider "smart home" to be one of those complexity feith driven developments. Switches are simple, understandable, minimally-abstracted interfaces that almost never fail. Why would I want to add a several computers and some software to that? That just brings a whole bunch of new failure modes to the table for a miniscule gain in convenience.

by anm89 5y ago

nousermane 5y ago

It's funny how first item on your list of drawbacks (higher maintenance) was already there with first-wave of home automation, back in last century [0]. Current iteration not only fails to solve that problem, it also brings 3 additional problems. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.10

anm89 5y ago
Yeah the 'better' it gets the more layers of code, abstractions, and networked system are required to work in perfect harmony for my home to not start creating problems in my life. Every extra feature is a regression.

White_Wolf 5y ago

if it's full offline with no subscriptions or internet connectivity - I'm up for some. If it needs any kind of connectivity or it comes as a service - no way in hell I'm exposing my family to the risk of not being able to flush a toiled one day because of a tweet or god know what.

jmkni 5y ago
> If it needs any kind of connectivity or it comes as a service - no way in hell I'm exposing my family to the risk of not being able to flush a toilet one day because of a tweet or god know what. That sounds like the plot to a Black Mirror episode
mauvehaus 5y ago
The problem is twofold: 1) People don't understand and don't want to have to understand how WiFi, servers, clients, protocols, GUIDs, etc work so they can up a standalone system. Manufacturers create systems requiring internet connectivity so they can abstract away some of the complexity from the end users. Unfortunately, that means when stuff fails, it's totally opaque, as described in TFA. I mean, shit, most people couldn't wire a lamp correctly or change a tire [citation needed, but you get my point]. 2) Rent seeking and data mining. Why let the customer pay for the lightbulb once and use it forever when you can make them pay for a monthly subscription and sell the usage data? And then you can force an upgrade when you deprecate the service before the light bulb burns out. Win/win! Remember: when somebody says "internet of things" what you should hear is "billions on unpatched, unmaintained Linux devices sold by companies whose core competencies aren't securing computers racing each other to the bottom".
- White_Wolf 5y ago
  to be entirely honest I see the IOT part as a blessing and a curse. I can see what potential benefits IOT devices could bring but the risks of all these outdated devices in my home scare the hell out of me. I know it sounds like paranoid talk but my whole life is digital these days.
- durbleflorp 5y ago
  Okay, but neither of those problems are actually an issue with smart homes as a concept, they're mostly issues with the way profit motive drives behavior in a capitalist system. The first point is confusing because the majority of tools people use today they can't repair themselves. That's what happens as technology advances, you need specialists to understand each system. If you look at things like earthships that are built to manage a lot more factors than a typical home, it becomes pretty clear how useful automating some of those systems and allowing them to share data could be. If you had good open standards for the tech and were actually trying to make things that improved people's lives or saved energy rather than mine data or recurring revenue, you could make some cool shit. Really the complaint should be about the way these products are developed and marketed, which is hardly unique to this sector.
anm89 5y ago
The problem with this is that it seems like you are now on the hook for long term maintenance of some hacky system you threw together. I think if you view this is a hobby and a chance to play with electronics then that is probably a great use case. But if your goal is to minimize the amount of time you are spending on this stuff, I'm very skeptical that whatever system you are throwing together on your own is really a good way to do that. There is a reason that so many of the systems out there suck. Building good ones is really hard, takes a ton of research, R&D, and collaboration between many experts. I fail to see how removing all of that and throwing something together yourself really creates a reliable system

blacktriangle 5y ago

What's really sad is that there's no need for any smart home concept to result in a loss of privacy. However people are cheap, and its difficult to impossible for somebody selling a self-hosting smart home appliance that you just plug in to your wall to outcompete somebody who is practically giving away the hardware to make the money on your data or on subscriptions over time.

vwelling 5y ago

A lot of off-the-shelf consumer smart home products do suffer from the drawbacks you've listed, but they do not generally apply to the smart home concept. My home is automated using components that use the KNX standard, and although the initial investment is higher than a conventional electrical installation, I'd argue maintenance is actually simpler and cheaper – as pretty much all of it is in the software. Additionally, there's quite a few benefits: - It's all wired, so it's been rock solid; - It's vendor agnostic; - It's entirely local, so there's no subscriptions or even an internet connection dependency; - There's a ton of gateways available that allow me to interface with non-KNX products; Overall, I'm pretty happy with it. It is just a matter of convenience however, it's hardly a must-have.

fy20 5y ago
I'm building a house at the moment and will go the KNX route. It really does seem great, it's just pretty much unknown outside of Germany for residential use. The way communication works is each device has a number of inputs and outputs that have defined data types (there are one hundred or so in total). When programming devices you just tell them which channel (group address) the inputs and outputs (group objects) should be linked to. Inputs can be linked to any number of channels, but outputs can only be linked to 1. Some devices have basic logic units if you want to do more complicated things. The group address is 16 bits, so there's lots of room for flexibility. For example, if you have a switch and the on/off output is linked to channel A, when you switch it on, it would send a 'switch on' message on that channel. If you have a light actuator (in simple terms, a programmable relay) that listens on channel A, when it receives that message it would turn the light on. If you want to add another switch at the other end of the hallway, you only need to program that switch to send the on/off output to channel A - the other devices don't need to be reprogrammed. Devices are certified (which is one reason why they are quite expensive compared to consumer smart home devices), but that means they are guaranteed to work together regardless of the manufacturer. The protocol itself hasn't really changed over time (there are a few minor new features which are not backwards compatible) so if you have a installation from the early 00s, you can buy new hardware today and know it'll work without issues.
- 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bishoprook2 5y ago

>There is no magic feature that is going to make me want a smart home. Imagine the fun when it all goes obsolete in five years, a controller board dies with no replacement available, all for very little advantage. Maybe this is Peak Technology. Sticking a computer and communications network on things that gain little from the addition. The one exception I might make is low-cost surveillance cameras, but of course it took the industry about ten seconds to add subscriptions and spying-on-you to the business model.

foobarian 5y ago
It's bad enough that LED lights exploded in variety and change early and often. I had one of ten, 20-year lifespan ceiling flood lamps go dark, and of course the replacements don't exist because these particular lamps were only made during a 1-2 year window. To add insult to injury the fault is not in the actual light emitting element but (of course) in the driver.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  > the fault is not in the actual light emitting element but (of course) in the driver.... Being over-driven. Big Clive loves to tear down LED bulbs to examine the driver boards. Often shows you ways to drop the current to sustainable levels and get back your 20-year lifespan LED bulbs (caveat, at lower power levels). https://www.youtube.com/user/bigclivedotcom https://www.youtube.com/user/bigclivedotcom More specifically, example: https://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4 https://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Yeah, I consider "smart home" to be one of those complexity feith driven developments. Switches are simple, understandable, minimally-abstracted interfaces that almost never fail. Why would I want to add a several computers and some software to that? That just brings a whole bunch of new failure modes to the table for a miniscule gain in convenience.