On 2/2/2017 4:47 AM, Paul wrote:> In article <bbf94f2b-607b-4fa0-8e7c-d0a7a59d19fa@googlegroups.com>, > jladasky@itu.edu says... >> >> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Prochak wrote: >> >>> I had TWO detectors: one smoke, one CO, located about 12 feet apart >>> with the furnace in between and a shelf in between. And I could not >>> tell which was chhirping! >> >> Yes, that's a real problem that I have also experienced. The very >> short chirp of a smoke detector, when it echoes off a bare wall or >> floor (I still have acoustical "oatmeal" ceilings in my house), can be >> harder to locate than you might imagine. >> >> I used to have only one smoke detector in the whole house. It was easy >> then. When we remodeled two bathrooms, the city's code inspector came >> through and made us add a LOT of detectors. Including the carbon >> monoxide sensor, now I have nine of them! > > What they need is a latching elctromechanical like I have on some RCD > outlets, where by you have a small hole/window through which you > can view something solid which has two colour labels like Red and Green > so you can inspect if necessary with a torch. > > That way even if the battery has died completely it can be SEEN if > battery is OK or not on that unit. > > You still inspect the however many but you > > Don't have to wait for chirrup > > CAn see if battery is completely dead > > Can regularly inspect status > > If clever enough can show battery fault because someone has removed > the battery to satisfy inspection regimes. > > Still have chirrup to say battery going but quicker to find the actual > one.I think this would be a great application for a spot of eInk if they can make it cheaply enough. That stuff takes a bit of power to change, but holds its state for a long time with no power. It would only need a quarter inch square or maybe a simple logo showing the battery dead. A battery with the slashed circle over it would do I suppose. -- Rick C
Stupid design decisions
Started by ●January 5, 2017
Reply by ●February 2, 20172017-02-02
Reply by ●February 2, 20172017-02-02
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:35:38 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>On 2/2/2017 4:47 AM, Paul wrote: >> In article <bbf94f2b-607b-4fa0-8e7c-d0a7a59d19fa@googlegroups.com>, >> jladasky@itu.edu says... >>> >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Prochak wrote: >>> >>>> I had TWO detectors: one smoke, one CO, located about 12 feet apart >>>> with the furnace in between and a shelf in between. And I could not >>>> tell which was chhirping! >>> >>> Yes, that's a real problem that I have also experienced. The very >>> short chirp of a smoke detector, when it echoes off a bare wall or >>> floor (I still have acoustical "oatmeal" ceilings in my house), can be >>> harder to locate than you might imagine. >>> >>> I used to have only one smoke detector in the whole house. It was easy >>> then. When we remodeled two bathrooms, the city's code inspector came >>> through and made us add a LOT of detectors. Including the carbon >>> monoxide sensor, now I have nine of them! >> >> What they need is a latching elctromechanical like I have on some RCD >> outlets, where by you have a small hole/window through which you >> can view something solid which has two colour labels like Red and Green >> so you can inspect if necessary with a torch. >> >> That way even if the battery has died completely it can be SEEN if >> battery is OK or not on that unit. >> >> You still inspect the however many but you >> >> Don't have to wait for chirrup >> >> CAn see if battery is completely dead >> >> Can regularly inspect status >> >> If clever enough can show battery fault because someone has removed >> the battery to satisfy inspection regimes. >> >> Still have chirrup to say battery going but quicker to find the actual >> one. > >I think this would be a great application for a spot of eInk if they can >make it cheaply enough. That stuff takes a bit of power to change, but >holds its state for a long time with no power. It would only need a >quarter inch square or maybe a simple logo showing the battery dead. A >battery with the slashed circle over it would do I suppose.There are also a number of smoke detectors that are (or can be) Internet connected. Many of those also avoid the need for wires to interconnect multiple detectors in a house.
Reply by ●February 2, 20172017-02-02
On 2/2/2017 5:26 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:35:38 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/2/2017 4:47 AM, Paul wrote: >>> In article <bbf94f2b-607b-4fa0-8e7c-d0a7a59d19fa@googlegroups.com>, >>> jladasky@itu.edu says... >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Prochak wrote: >>>> >>>>> I had TWO detectors: one smoke, one CO, located about 12 feet apart >>>>> with the furnace in between and a shelf in between. And I could not >>>>> tell which was chhirping! >>>> >>>> Yes, that's a real problem that I have also experienced. The very >>>> short chirp of a smoke detector, when it echoes off a bare wall or >>>> floor (I still have acoustical "oatmeal" ceilings in my house), can be >>>> harder to locate than you might imagine. >>>> >>>> I used to have only one smoke detector in the whole house. It was easy >>>> then. When we remodeled two bathrooms, the city's code inspector came >>>> through and made us add a LOT of detectors. Including the carbon >>>> monoxide sensor, now I have nine of them! >>> >>> What they need is a latching elctromechanical like I have on some RCD >>> outlets, where by you have a small hole/window through which you >>> can view something solid which has two colour labels like Red and Green >>> so you can inspect if necessary with a torch. >>> >>> That way even if the battery has died completely it can be SEEN if >>> battery is OK or not on that unit. >>> >>> You still inspect the however many but you >>> >>> Don't have to wait for chirrup >>> >>> CAn see if battery is completely dead >>> >>> Can regularly inspect status >>> >>> If clever enough can show battery fault because someone has removed >>> the battery to satisfy inspection regimes. >>> >>> Still have chirrup to say battery going but quicker to find the actual >>> one. >> >> I think this would be a great application for a spot of eInk if they can >> make it cheaply enough. That stuff takes a bit of power to change, but >> holds its state for a long time with no power. It would only need a >> quarter inch square or maybe a simple logo showing the battery dead. A >> battery with the slashed circle over it would do I suppose. > > > There are also a number of smoke detectors that are (or can be) > Internet connected. Many of those also avoid the need for wires to > interconnect multiple detectors in a house.That's gotta jack up the price. Isn't a smoke detector still in the $20 ballpark? I guess they can put a raspberry pi zero in for only $5. -- Rick C
Reply by ●February 3, 20172017-02-03
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:49:27 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>On 2/2/2017 5:26 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:35:38 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2/2/2017 4:47 AM, Paul wrote: >>>> In article <bbf94f2b-607b-4fa0-8e7c-d0a7a59d19fa@googlegroups.com>, >>>> jladasky@itu.edu says... >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Prochak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I had TWO detectors: one smoke, one CO, located about 12 feet apart >>>>>> with the furnace in between and a shelf in between. And I could not >>>>>> tell which was chhirping! >>>>> >>>>> Yes, that's a real problem that I have also experienced. The very >>>>> short chirp of a smoke detector, when it echoes off a bare wall or >>>>> floor (I still have acoustical "oatmeal" ceilings in my house), can be >>>>> harder to locate than you might imagine. >>>>> >>>>> I used to have only one smoke detector in the whole house. It was easy >>>>> then. When we remodeled two bathrooms, the city's code inspector came >>>>> through and made us add a LOT of detectors. Including the carbon >>>>> monoxide sensor, now I have nine of them! >>>> >>>> What they need is a latching elctromechanical like I have on some RCD >>>> outlets, where by you have a small hole/window through which you >>>> can view something solid which has two colour labels like Red and Green >>>> so you can inspect if necessary with a torch. >>>> >>>> That way even if the battery has died completely it can be SEEN if >>>> battery is OK or not on that unit. >>>> >>>> You still inspect the however many but you >>>> >>>> Don't have to wait for chirrup >>>> >>>> CAn see if battery is completely dead >>>> >>>> Can regularly inspect status >>>> >>>> If clever enough can show battery fault because someone has removed >>>> the battery to satisfy inspection regimes. >>>> >>>> Still have chirrup to say battery going but quicker to find the actual >>>> one. >>> >>> I think this would be a great application for a spot of eInk if they can >>> make it cheaply enough. That stuff takes a bit of power to change, but >>> holds its state for a long time with no power. It would only need a >>> quarter inch square or maybe a simple logo showing the battery dead. A >>> battery with the slashed circle over it would do I suppose. >> >> >> There are also a number of smoke detectors that are (or can be) >> Internet connected. Many of those also avoid the need for wires to >> interconnect multiple detectors in a house. > >That's gotta jack up the price. Isn't a smoke detector still in the $20 >ballpark? I guess they can put a raspberry pi zero in for only $5.The combination smoke+CO alarms seem to be more in the $40-60 range. The Nest Protect (smoke+CO+WiFi) is $99. One of complaints about the whole IoT thing is not that I disbelieve people are going to put WiFi (or something) ports on the back of billions of items (I'm certain they are), it's that they'll be able to charge big markups for something like that. I'm pretty sure I won't pay $99 for a smoke/CO2 detector. So I suspect that we will have billions of IoT devices, but the average BOM for the "IoT" bit is going to be well under a dollar.
Reply by ●February 3, 20172017-02-03
Robert Wessel wrote:> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:49:27 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/2/2017 5:26 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: >>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:35:38 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2/2/2017 4:47 AM, Paul wrote: >>>>> In article <bbf94f2b-607b-4fa0-8e7c-d0a7a59d19fa@googlegroups.com>, >>>>> jladasky@itu.edu says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:58 PM UTC-8, Ed Prochak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I had TWO detectors: one smoke, one CO, located about 12 feet apart >>>>>>> with the furnace in between and a shelf in between. And I could not >>>>>>> tell which was chhirping! >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, that's a real problem that I have also experienced. The very >>>>>> short chirp of a smoke detector, when it echoes off a bare wall or >>>>>> floor (I still have acoustical "oatmeal" ceilings in my house), can be >>>>>> harder to locate than you might imagine. >>>>>> >>>>>> I used to have only one smoke detector in the whole house. It was easy >>>>>> then. When we remodeled two bathrooms, the city's code inspector came >>>>>> through and made us add a LOT of detectors. Including the carbon >>>>>> monoxide sensor, now I have nine of them! >>>>> >>>>> What they need is a latching elctromechanical like I have on some RCD >>>>> outlets, where by you have a small hole/window through which you >>>>> can view something solid which has two colour labels like Red and Green >>>>> so you can inspect if necessary with a torch. >>>>> >>>>> That way even if the battery has died completely it can be SEEN if >>>>> battery is OK or not on that unit. >>>>> >>>>> You still inspect the however many but you >>>>> >>>>> Don't have to wait for chirrup >>>>> >>>>> CAn see if battery is completely dead >>>>> >>>>> Can regularly inspect status >>>>> >>>>> If clever enough can show battery fault because someone has removed >>>>> the battery to satisfy inspection regimes. >>>>> >>>>> Still have chirrup to say battery going but quicker to find the actual >>>>> one. >>>> >>>> I think this would be a great application for a spot of eInk if they can >>>> make it cheaply enough. That stuff takes a bit of power to change, but >>>> holds its state for a long time with no power. It would only need a >>>> quarter inch square or maybe a simple logo showing the battery dead. A >>>> battery with the slashed circle over it would do I suppose. >>> >>> >>> There are also a number of smoke detectors that are (or can be) >>> Internet connected. Many of those also avoid the need for wires to >>> interconnect multiple detectors in a house. >> >> That's gotta jack up the price. Isn't a smoke detector still in the $20 >> ballpark? I guess they can put a raspberry pi zero in for only $5. > > > The combination smoke+CO alarms seem to be more in the $40-60 range. > The Nest Protect (smoke+CO+WiFi) is $99. >Hasn't Google essentially savaged Nest already? I just read a thing about it a year or so back and wrote the entire line off.> One of complaints about the whole IoT thing is not that I disbelieve > people are going to put WiFi (or something) ports on the back of > billions of items (I'm certain they are),Yeauuuugh....> it's that they'll be able to > charge big markups for something like that. I'm pretty sure I won't > pay $99 for a smoke/CO2 detector. So I suspect that we will have > billions of IoT devices, but the average BOM for the "IoT" bit is > going to be well under a dollar. >In quantity, there's no reason to think the prices wound diverge that much. It's just that the deployment case for IoT devices isn't that clear because you have to then have other infrastructure in place. Just putting the SSID on all the lightbulbs in the house sounds exhausting. I know that for remote light switches, the IoT version is twice or more the price of just a non-IoT version, and you have to use a phone to run 'em. I have a few of the non-IoT remote light switches, and they are at disposable price levels. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●February 3, 20172017-02-03
On 2/3/2017 6:18 AM, Les Cargill wrote:>> The combination smoke+CO alarms seem to be more in the $40-60 range. >> The Nest Protect (smoke+CO+WiFi) is $99. > > Hasn't Google essentially savaged Nest already? I just read a thing > about it a year or so back and wrote the entire line off.Sounds familiar. But, other players are entering the market for other, more traditional, reasons. (AFAICT, Google wanted a beachhead to gather more "intelligence" about the customer; they might now have realized that this is not the way to do so -- "media consumption" is probably a more effective mechanism)>> One of complaints about the whole IoT thing is not that I disbelieve >> people are going to put WiFi (or something) ports on the back of >> billions of items (I'm certain they are), > > Yeauuuugh.... > >> it's that they'll be able to >> charge big markups for something like that. I'm pretty sure I won't >> pay $99 for a smoke/CO2 detector. So I suspect that we will have >> billions of IoT devices, but the average BOM for the "IoT" bit is >> going to be well under a dollar. > > In quantity, there's no reason to think the prices wound diverge that > much.For *wireless* devices, I imagine the cost difference will approach zero. "Quantity" is A Really Big Number for these sorts of devices.> It's just that the deployment case for IoT devices isn't that > clear because you have to then have other infrastructure in place. Just > putting the SSID on all the lightbulbs in the house sounds exhausting.The real issue is a lot bigger than the (physical) infrastructure and "initial configuration". These can all be addressed to minimize their practical and virtual costs (TCO).> I know that for remote light switches, the IoT version is twice or more > the price of just a non-IoT version, and you have to use a phone to run > 'em. I have a few of the non-IoT remote light switches, and they are > at disposable price levels.Exactly. There have been numerous attempts at "remote control" (even if "remote" is limited to just another room in the house) over the decades. None have "stuck" -- "remote control" isn't worth much. And, its a cognitive loading issue. Think of what its like when you approach a bank of 4 light switches. Even if you KNOW which switch controls which "light", there is an inherent pause as your mind sorts out which light it *wants* to illuminate/extinguish. Now, put EVERY "switch" (control/sensor) in your house on a 5" diagonal screen. It's easier to WALK to the switch in question and toggle it than it is to drag out your phone, FIND the control for THAT switch, inspect the current state of the "device/light" and toggle it as appropriate. Then, hope you NOTICE the fact that someone else has turned it on in the time following -- but preceding when you retire for the evening ("Ah, better check the lights again to see which ones are on *NOW*...") Yeah, you may find use for the feature if you live alone and want to keep the indoor temperature, lighting, etc. in a "deep sleep" sort of state until JUST before you return home from work/whatever. But, it's unlikely that you'll want to do much more than "turn the heat up" before heading home. Or, turn on the spa so it is up to temperature before you need it. And, not likely that your schedule will vary significantly from day to day that this couldn't be automated (minimizing the value of "remote control"). What if you FORGET?? Scant few of us live in homes that are so large that it's easier (more convenient) to open an app to verify that the garage door is closed vs. just walking over to someplace where you can directly/indirectly observe its state.
Reply by ●February 3, 20172017-02-03
On 02/03/2017 09:14 AM, Don Y wrote: > [snip IOT stuff> > Yeah, you may find use for the feature if you live alone and want > to keep the indoor temperature, lighting, etc. in a "deep sleep" > sort of state until JUST before you return home from work/whatever. > But, it's unlikely that you'll want to do much more than "turn > the heat up" before heading home. Or, turn on the spa so it is up > to temperature before you need it. > > And, not likely that your schedule will vary significantly from > day to day that this couldn't be automated (minimizing the value > of "remote control"). What if you FORGET?? >My $20 Honeywell thermostat already does a fixed schedule. If I happen to be out a couple hours later than expected, the heat turns on a couple hours before I get home and it's just fine.> Scant few of us live in homes that are so large that it's easier > (more convenient) to open an app to verify that the garage door > is closed vs. just walking over to someplace where you can > directly/indirectly observe its state.Built myself one of those. The key realization is that, it's not whether I want to know whether the garage door is open or closed, I just want it to be closed. An MSP430, a burglar alarm switch, and half a dozen discretes sip little enough power that I can run the whole thing off of the power the door opener runs to the pushbutton on the wall. If it's been open too long, it gets closed. No Internet/app/nonsense required. -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com Email address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix.
Reply by ●February 3, 20172017-02-03
On 2/3/2017 11:12 AM, Rob Gaddi wrote:> On 02/03/2017 09:14 AM, Don Y wrote: > >> [snip IOT stuff >> >> Yeah, you may find use for the feature if you live alone and want >> to keep the indoor temperature, lighting, etc. in a "deep sleep" >> sort of state until JUST before you return home from work/whatever. >> But, it's unlikely that you'll want to do much more than "turn >> the heat up" before heading home. Or, turn on the spa so it is up >> to temperature before you need it. >> >> And, not likely that your schedule will vary significantly from >> day to day that this couldn't be automated (minimizing the value >> of "remote control"). What if you FORGET?? > > My $20 Honeywell thermostat already does a fixed schedule. If I happen to be > out a couple hours later than expected, the heat turns on a couple hours before > I get home and it's just fine.Our HVAC needs are highly variable. Today, we're running the ACbrrr; last week, the heat. Other times we may call on the evaporative cooler one day and the ACbrrr the next. This is complicated by our "dynamic" (heh heh heh) lifestyles -- its hard to predict when the house will be occupied, when its occupants will be asleep vs. active, etc. Old thermostat supported two schedules (weekday & weekend) for heating and another two for cooling. But, if Monday's needs differ from Thursday, there's no way to compensate (beyond "manual"). And, if THIS Monday differs from NEXT Monday... <frown>>> Scant few of us live in homes that are so large that it's easier >> (more convenient) to open an app to verify that the garage door >> is closed vs. just walking over to someplace where you can >> directly/indirectly observe its state. > > Built myself one of those. The key realization is that, it's not whether I > want to know whether the garage door is open or closed, I just want it to be > closed. An MSP430, a burglar alarm switch, and half a dozen discretes sip > little enough power that I can run the whole thing off of the power the door > opener runs to the pushbutton on the wall. If it's been open too long, it gets > closed. No Internet/app/nonsense required.I'd be pissed if our garage door opted to close itself. I rarely carry keys on my person. And, often exit the house through the garage door (which may have been open because I just drove home, or SWMBO just departed, or I was carting the recyclables out, etc.) to visit with a neighbor (I'm within sight of the door so not likely someone will sneak into the house while it remains open). Or, to do some yardwork in the front yard. OTOH, if the current occupants of the house have retired (regardless of time of day), then, chances are, the door should be closed. Likewise, if the door was *commanded* closed but that action aborted (because something was detected in the path of travel *or* the motor load sense tripped), then we should be alerted to this fact and, if the day passes without us noticing it, the door should probably close itself (or attempt to do so), later. There are lots of similar "what if's" in a typical home. What if the house is unoccupied (or occupants "indisposed") but the stovetop is ON? Or, the water supply to the washing machine? Or, the porch light still burning despite the sun being up? Or... Being *able* to control each of those things doesn't necessarily result in a better "life experience".
Reply by ●February 3, 20172017-02-03
Don Y wrote:> On 2/3/2017 6:18 AM, Les Cargill wrote: >>> The combination smoke+CO alarms seem to be more in the $40-60 range. >>> The Nest Protect (smoke+CO+WiFi) is $99. >> >> Hasn't Google essentially savaged Nest already? I just read a thing >> about it a year or so back and wrote the entire line off. > > Sounds familiar. But, other players are entering the market for > other, more traditional, reasons. (AFAICT, Google wanted a beachhead > to gather more "intelligence" about the customer; they might now have > realized that this is not the way to do so -- "media consumption" > is probably a more effective mechanism) >I don't are what their problem is. They've rendered themselves low in reliability because of it.>>> One of complaints about the whole IoT thing is not that I disbelieve >>> people are going to put WiFi (or something) ports on the back of >>> billions of items (I'm certain they are), >> >> Yeauuuugh.... >> >>> it's that they'll be able to >>> charge big markups for something like that. I'm pretty sure I won't >>> pay $99 for a smoke/CO2 detector. So I suspect that we will have >>> billions of IoT devices, but the average BOM for the "IoT" bit is >>> going to be well under a dollar. >> >> In quantity, there's no reason to think the prices wound diverge that >> much. > > For *wireless* devices, I imagine the cost difference will approach > zero. "Quantity" is A Really Big Number for these sorts of devices. >Possibly.>> It's just that the deployment case for IoT devices isn't that >> clear because you have to then have other infrastructure in place. Just >> putting the SSID on all the lightbulbs in the house sounds exhausting. > > The real issue is a lot bigger than the (physical) infrastructure > and "initial configuration". These can all be addressed to minimize > their practical and virtual costs (TCO). > >> I know that for remote light switches, the IoT version is twice or more >> the price of just a non-IoT version, and you have to use a phone to run >> 'em. I have a few of the non-IoT remote light switches, and they are >> at disposable price levels. > > Exactly. There have been numerous attempts at "remote control" > (even if "remote" is limited to just another room in the house) > over the decades. None have "stuck" -- "remote control" isn't > worth much. >I use it for lamps that are behind furniture and hard to get to. It's fine. I think three outlets were $20. They're crappy - I turned off a power strip with one still on, and it roasted it. You have to turn the light off with the remote switch before removing power. But they're simple enough you could probably fix it.> And, its a cognitive loading issue. > > Think of what its like when you approach a bank of 4 light switches. > Even if you KNOW which switch controls which "light", there is an > inherent pause as your mind sorts out which light it *wants* to > illuminate/extinguish. > > Now, put EVERY "switch" (control/sensor) in your house on a 5" diagonal > screen. It's easier to WALK to the switch in question and toggle it > than it is to drag out your phone, FIND the control for THAT > switch, inspect the current state of the "device/light" and > toggle it as appropriate.Yep, yep, yep.> Then, hope you NOTICE the fact that > someone else has turned it on in the time following -- but preceding > when you retire for the evening ("Ah, better check the lights again > to see which ones are on *NOW*...") >But I could see where an "Alexa, check the lights for me" thing might help with that.> Yeah, you may find use for the feature if you live alone and want > to keep the indoor temperature, lighting, etc. in a "deep sleep" > sort of state until JUST before you return home from work/whatever.It's anything but clear that that will save money, and by extension anything else. Charging a big thermal mass always costs more than keeping it regulated.> But, it's unlikely that you'll want to do much more than "turn > the heat up" before heading home. Or, turn on the spa so it is up > to temperature before you need it. > > And, not likely that your schedule will vary significantly from > day to day that this couldn't be automated (minimizing the value > of "remote control"). What if you FORGET?? > > Scant few of us live in homes that are so large that it's easier > (more convenient) to open an app to verify that the garage door > is closed vs. just walking over to someplace where you can > directly/indirectly observe its state.I've gotten to where I sort of checklist everything so it's in a known state before it goes out of my sight. But it's not that far to walk to the garage. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●February 4, 20172017-02-04
On 2/3/2017 8:40 PM, Les Cargill wrote:> Don Y wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 6:18 AM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> The combination smoke+CO alarms seem to be more in the $40-60 range. >>>> The Nest Protect (smoke+CO+WiFi) is $99. >>> >>> Hasn't Google essentially savaged Nest already? I just read a thing >>> about it a year or so back and wrote the entire line off. >> >> Sounds familiar. But, other players are entering the market for >> other, more traditional, reasons. (AFAICT, Google wanted a beachhead >> to gather more "intelligence" about the customer; they might now have >> realized that this is not the way to do so -- "media consumption" >> is probably a more effective mechanism) > > I don't are what their problem is. They've rendered themselves low in > reliability because of it.IMO, this is the problem with the trend towards "selling services" and "ongoing relationships" -- instead of just selling a PRODUCT that has a defined functionality (that can be assessed at time of purchase).>> Then, hope you NOTICE the fact that >> someone else has turned it on in the time following -- but preceding >> when you retire for the evening ("Ah, better check the lights again >> to see which ones are on *NOW*...") > > But I could see where an "Alexa, check the lights for me" thing might help with > that.Yes -- but now you're looking for an *agent* -- who acts on your behalf. Not just an extension of the "power cord".>> Yeah, you may find use for the feature if you live alone and want >> to keep the indoor temperature, lighting, etc. in a "deep sleep" >> sort of state until JUST before you return home from work/whatever. > > It's anything but clear that that will save money, and by extension > anything else. Charging a big thermal mass always costs more > than keeping it regulated.That depends on what else impacts that mass. Surely, if I'm going to be out of the house during the peak cooling load -- but *returning* just as outdoor temperatures become "more reasonable" -- then it is silly to try to maintain the house at a cool/comfortable temperature and humidity throughout the day when I could QUICKLY bring it to a comfortable setting just by venting the house to the cooler evening air. Likewise, silly to maintain the indoor temperature overnight (in winter) at a "comfortable for waking uses" level when you can, instead, bring the house up to that temperature in a matter of minutes (GFA). Do you keep the house illuminated when unoccupied? etc.>> But, it's unlikely that you'll want to do much more than "turn >> the heat up" before heading home. Or, turn on the spa so it is up >> to temperature before you need it. >> >> And, not likely that your schedule will vary significantly from >> day to day that this couldn't be automated (minimizing the value >> of "remote control"). What if you FORGET?? >> >> Scant few of us live in homes that are so large that it's easier >> (more convenient) to open an app to verify that the garage door >> is closed vs. just walking over to someplace where you can >> directly/indirectly observe its state. > > I've gotten to where I sort of checklist everything so it's in a known > state before it goes out of my sight. But it's not that far to walk to > the garage.You're *capable* of making that "short trip" as well as REMEMBERING to make it! If you'd a physical/mental disability/deficiency, that might not be the case. How do you verify the doors are all closed AND LOCKED without physically inspecting them? The lights off without examining them? The stove/oven off, etc. I have a pot of water HEATING on the stove almost continually to address my "hot tea" habit. It's so "automatic" that I forget whether or not the stovetop is ON, presently -- or not. I rely on a "whistling" tea kettle to alert me to the fact: "Ah, I must have left the stove on cuz I can hear the kettle whistling..." Frequently, I'll hear the kettle when not expecting it -- simply because I put it on and then wandered off to continue my current activity, got preoccupied with that activity and was only reminded of the kettle by the subsequent "whistle". So common is this that my "checklist" before driving away from the house is: - verify garage door has been closed and has ACTUALLY closed - make sure the stovetop is off! Being able to remotely examine these states and/or control them only addresses part of the problem; if I *FORGET* to examine them "locally", am I really more likely to examine them REMOTELY?? Wouldn't it be wiser for an AGENT to notice that I've left the house and take corrective actions on my behalf?
