12 ms·
Google's Nest Stops Selling Smart Smoke Alarms Over Fire Safety Concerns
- _Robbie 13y agoIs there any more information on what exactly the problem was? From the article it is unclear if this is a pure software bug, a UI problem, or something else.
- justincormack 13y agoMore here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83e63a02-bb7c-11e3-8d4a-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83e63a02-bb7c-11e3-8d4a-00144feabd... (registration required) Basically the wave to disable alarm feature is too aggressive, and other movements can disable it.
- gabemart 13y agoLink without registration required: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F83e63a02-bb7c-11e3-8d4a-00144feabdc0.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...
- aestra 13y agoI remember when the smoke detector was first on HN. Some people saying wave to disarm was a great feature and some were saying it was a terrible feature. I guess terrible won out. It is still a scary feature to me in concept, even if it wasn't broken. This is a safety device, it shouldn't be easy to disarm.
- johnward 13y agoOld smoke detectors had this feature. You just take the battery out. I have to do this to one of mine every time we use our broiler. I'm sure I'm not the only person who ever removed a battery an forgot to replace it for awhile. At least the nest feature is temporary.
- deveac 13y ago>Old smoke detectors had this feature. You just take the battery out. The feature was having the detector unknowingly disabled. A better analogy would be the batteries in your smoke detector running out.
- johnward 13y agoMy understanding is that it's temporarily disabled by the wave. Is that not the case? It's still an issue if a fire starts and you aren't alerted for 20 minutes but I'm curious.
- IanCal 13y agoI've said this elsewhere, but I don't think I've ever had a smoke alarm that couldn't be turned off by pressing the test button.
- raldi 13y agoIf you don't provide a safe way to temporarily disarm a smoke detector, your users will find unsafe ways to do it. So providing a wave-to-disarm feature could literally save lives, if it discourages people from removing batteries or placing tape over the speaker.
- IanCal 13y agoI don't think I've ever had a smoke alarm that doesn't turn off if you just press the test button.
- raldi 13y ago"Just"? How tall are you?
- IanCal 13y agoMaybe others have vaulted ceilings in huge mansions, but a standing on a chair has been enough for me. It's hardly a difficult task, and certainly easier than removing the battery or putting tape over the speaker which appeared to be the alternatives suggested above.
- raldi 13y agoWhen a smoke detector starts falsely making noise in the middle of the night, you have to get out of bed, turn on a light, get a chair, or maybe a stepladder... and maybe that stepladder is on another level, so you have to carry it up a flight of stairs and try not to bang the walls... it's a huge irritation. Similarly, when there's one in the kitchen and it goes off constantly every time you make toast, it's a major ongoing annoyance. Many people will respond to these situations by removing the batteries, covering the speaker with tape, or other things that lessen the functionality of the device in the event of an actual emergency. Therefore, a properly-functioning wave-to-disarm feature (and other irritation-mitigation mechanisms) are not just conveniences; they literally save lives.
- 13y ago
- darkarmani 13y ago> I guess terrible won out. It is still a scary feature to me in concept, even if it wasn't broken. This is a safety device, it shouldn't be easy to disarm. The scary feature is my current method of taking the battery out of the smoke detector. I have yet to understand how this "old feature" is better than nest's feature.
- giarc 13y agoLike people running out of the house?
- M4v3R 13y agoThat's very responsible of them. Even if it means lost sales, it seems a right thing to do, and may ultimately give them a good PR.
- alistairjcbrown 13y agosigh I just ordered one of these and was really looking forward to it :( As a safety device, it's a no brainer - I have to return it until it's rock solid. I can't knowingly replace my existing smoke detector with one which has the potential to under perform.
- hugodahl 13y agoAs a safety device, it performs to the standards that are expected. The issue is with a "feature", which lets you silence the siren in situations where the alarm is a false one. The siren can still be silenced by pushing the button.
- alistairjcbrown 13y ago> it performs to the standards that are expected The company have said it doesn't - there is a potential that the device will not alert when smoke is detected because of a false positive when detecting waving. The feature actively affects the performance if the device which is why it is being disabled.
- raldi 13y agoAs soon as you install it, it'll download a patch that turns off the wave feature. At that point, what's the safety concern?
- alistairjcbrown 13y ago- That my faith is slightly shaken; simple smoke detectors are tried and tested, this is a little more wildcard - That I've paid for a smoke detector that doesn't do the same as was advertised when I purchased it, - That Nest have said "We're stopping these from being purchased until we fix them", not "As soon as you install it, it'll download a patch that turns off the wave feature. What's the problem?"
- eik3_de 13y ago> "Nest can remotely disable the Wave feature" How can I be 100 % sure that the "just beep when smoke" feature can't be remotely disabled without my notice? Intelligent home appliances are nice and all, but when the lives of your family depend on it, I'd rather be on the KISS side.
- atwebb 13y agoDo you line your walls with long life firecrackers as well?
- raldi 13y agoHow can you be 100% sure a bus driver won't crash into you when you're crossing the street? Would you therefore avoid streets?
- disputin 13y agoProbably just wait until the bus has stopped.
- dragonwriter 13y agoThat the bus has stopped is not a guarantee that it won't suddenly lurch forward and hit you.
- a1a 13y agoThe difference is that I need to trust over two billion people [1] not to disable my fire alarm. It's rather fallacious to compare this number with the number of bus drivers I interact with. [1] http://phys.org/news/2011-01-internet-users-worldwide-billion.html http://phys.org/news/2011-01-internet-users-worldwide-billio...
- brey 13y agoNest has stopped selling its smart smoke alarms after it discovered a flaw which could prevent the timely detection of fire. the company is not aware of any customers who have experienced it this is disingenuous. you would expect this feature (detect fire and save your life) to be used by a tiny, tiny percentage of customers. the fact that nobody's experienced the failure does not make this situation any better. it's like selling a car with a broken airbag. "well, it's not caused me a problem, I don't see the issue ..." (I'm not criticising Nest, they're doing the right thing. I'm saying it's bad journalism to throw that in the article as if that mitigates things)
- spuz 13y agoHow is this disingenuous? How else is the reporter supposed to explain that this issue has not been experienced by any customers?
- lanaius 13y agoIn an ideal world, the same way the person you responded to did (hopefully via Nest themselves). "Nest is not aware of any customers affected by this flaw though they stress/admit that this is potentially due to the relative rarity of home fires."
- schnevets 13y agoReminds me of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/937/ https://xkcd.com/937/
- darkarmani 13y agoHere is the full "disingenuous" quote: > Nest's own internal testing identified this problem and the company is not aware of any customers who have experienced it, "but the fact that it could even potentially happen is extremely important to me and I want to address it immediately." Where did they imply that the situation is better because no one has experienced the failure??
- csmatt 13y agoNow this is a good April Fools joke (albeit a little late)
- sremani 13y agoI felt smoke alarm was un-natural product for Nest, but again they were the men in arena and its their company - much respect there. I was anticipating something like a device that lets timing for water heater and calibrate the temperature etc. but I guess there are just too much variety of water heater systems for that, but it would be cool and reduce gas bill and in a true nest fashion would pay_for_itself. But this device also show-cases how bringing "smartness" into safety devices is fraught with risk and in the case smoke detector the convenience is not worth the economics. The Nest thermostat was true win-win value proposition - where as the Smoke detector is just not that.
- nutate 13y agoAww that's sad. What I liked about the Nest smoke alarm was that I could check which of my various houses was on fire, right from my smartphone. Ugh, guess will have to wait for version 2.0.
- coreymgilmore 13y agoQuestion: If this was a simple fix (disabling Wave) for a convenience feature (waving instead of having to reach and hit a button), then why are they stopping sales? It would seem logical to update all unsold devices to disable Wave and continue on with sales. Safety concern, slightly. Nest has made note that this feature have never been compromised yet (then again, its the one time when the Wave does fail that caused a huge issue so this point is null). Also, the Wave feature does not affect the detection of smoke, only the resulting alarm. I think there is something else going on here. Possibly a more serious safety hazard. If a software update can solve the Wave issue, then why the stopped sales? If there are stopped sales, why not a more serious email/note or a recall?