People Think Smart Home Tech is Too Expensive (usatoday.com) 124
According to new research commissioned by smart home software and hardware brand Wink, 34 percent of Americans believe it would cost $5,000 or more to turn their home into a smart home. An article on USA Today adds: It's a stark contrast from Wink's real world user data: Of the company's 2.7 million users, the average person starts with just 4 smart devices, and spends about $200. The information comes from a report Wink has dubbed their Smart Home Index, released today, in which more than 2,000 U.S. adults were surveyed by a team at Harris Poll. Aside from the cost misconception, a few other key insights rose to the top. For example, the adoption rate disparities across gender lines and income lines have almost disappeared. 43 percent of connected device buyers are now women, and 20 percent of all households with income under $50,000 per year have purchased a connected product. Of those that did purchase a smart home device, energy savings was the most frequently cited reason for doing so, followed by security. Only 33 percent of buyers expressed a desire to monitor or control their homes while away.
think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Think.
They're basing how expensive it is on their subjective, probably underinformed view. If they knew the real costs of actually securing and maintaining the "smart" technology, let alone the costs of dealing with the ramifications of unsecured devices, they'd run screaming instead of merely thinking it's pricey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: think (Score:2)
I was going to bring up X10, but the protocol and not the company. I just threw out probably 20 various modules with an average cost of around $20 each back in the 90s when I outfitted my home. Someone could have done X10 cheap on that old gear.
I've since switched to zwave and reduced the number of controlled devices. My dedicated controller is Arduino based. I spent under $700 total.
Re: (Score:2)
Awful? It is/was relatively cheap way to control lights. Heck, I should probably find my modules so I can turn on/off my bedroom lights remotely that way.
Re: (Score:1)
Awful? It is/was relatively cheap way to control lights. Heck, I should probably find my modules so I can turn on/off my bedroom lights remotely that way.
He was referring to the company x10.com that sold x10 devices, not the protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
let alone the costs of dealing with the ramifications of unsecured devices
You mean of making an extra key once every couple years? You're right, the cost of blanks is up lately.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because I could program my light to come on anytime the temperature rises above 72F. I bet your house can't do that.
No, it can't. But why would I want it to?
Re: (Score:3)
I have a $9 device from a hardware store that I plug into a wall and it turns on whatever I plug into it at a preset temperature. I use it to turn on a space heater in a cabin on my property to keep it from freezing. I really can't think of any use for the tech beyond that.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a long stick that costs ten cents that I use to push the button when I'm too tired to stand up.
Re:People think Smart Home Tech is too Unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when I was a teenager I played with X10 stuff a bit. As a teenager it seemed cool that I could turn lamps and radios on and off through my computer.
Then the novelty wore off and I realized that at least for those things in the room with me, controlling them remotely didn't matter, and for those few things that could benefit me to be controlled in some fashion, it wasn't in the cards.
I'll admit, having a system that can tell when i'm leaving work in order to turn the water heater back on that's been off since the morning, or could turn on the air conditioning or heat woul be pretty cool, but on the other hand I leave work at roughly the same time every afternoon so it wouldn't really help all that much. Perhaps something to determine if I'm home and use occupancy to keep these systems from being idled would be handy, but on the other hand I can just go flip a switch on the water heater timer and it's on again, and I can turn down my thermostat easily enough on my own.
The one bit of kit that would actually be useful to me would be an HVAC thermostat that didn't require me to switch between heat and cooling modes for the heatpump. Just let me set upper and lower thresholds and have it automatically switch between modes. That requires no computing outside of the termostat itself.
Re:People think Smart Home Tech is too Unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
...Then the novelty wore off...
Sums up the entire value-add right there.
Also sounds a lot like 99.9% of smartphone apps in existence today that get downloaded and used once...
Ranges for heating and cooling (Score:2)
The one bit of kit that would actually be useful to me would be an HVAC thermostat that didn't require me to switch between heat and cooling modes for the heatpump.
Plenty of thermostats have a range feature including ones like Nest. I use that feature every spring and fall (and some parts of summer) when the temperature is normally reasonable so the furnace or AC only kick on if it gets too cold or hot for comfort. Usually I have about a 15 degree range which keeps it off most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, having a system that can tell when i'm leaving work in order to turn the water heater back on that's been off since the morning,
Why bother? Any water heater made in the last decade is so insulated that it shouldn't be running the burner or heating element at all unless you're gone for days at a time.
Bingo! Any passive regulation in a case like this is so much better than some dumbass App. As an example In the first hot tub I bought, there was an energy saving feature where you would turn off the heater at say midnight, then turn it back on at say 1 in the afternoon so that you would enjoy a nice soak in the evening. Of course, if you wanted a soak in mid afternoon you were SOL. My latest one is insulated well enough that you just leave it on all the time. And I'm paying a lot less in 2017 dollars t
Re: (Score:2)
hot tub ... After a breaker tripped during an electrical storm this past winter, I discovered it a day and a half later...
Stick one of these alarms [amazon.com] in your hot tub's equipment bay and you won't need to "discover it" a day later.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll admit, having a system that can tell when i'm leaving work in order to turn the water heater back on that's been off since the morning
The only reason to put a water heater on a timer is to save money by consuming energy off peak when it is cheaper. These schemes do not save any measurable amount of energy unless your away from home weeks at a time.
or could turn on the air conditioning or heat woul be pretty cool
The one bit of kit that would actually be useful to me would be an HVAC thermostat that didn't require me to switch between heat and cooling modes for the heatpump
Micro-managing temperature to save money when you have a heat pump accomplishes the exact opposite result. The most efficient operation comes when you set a temperature and don't mess with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Back when I was a teenager I played with X10 stuff a bit. As a teenager it seemed cool that I could turn lamps and radios on and off through my computer.
Then the novelty wore off and I realized that at least for those things in the room with me, controlling them remotely didn't matter, and for those few things that could benefit me to be controlled in some fashion, it wasn't in the cards.
I've used X-10 to control anywhere from 2 to 9 lamps for the last 15 years. Mostly just 2. I've gotten so accustomed to the lamps turning on and off automatically in the evening that if something goes wrong and it doesn't work, for whatever reason, it's mildly shocking.
I like it because, being computer controlled, it can be more sophisticated than a dumb timer. I've got a cron job that launches a tiny program that recalculates sundown at my latitude each day and issues the turn-on command appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
The thermostat has a 7-day schedule capability. I do occasionally have to override it when what I need no longer lines up with the schedule.
Useful doesn't require necessary (Score:3)
How hard is it to set your thermostat or flip on a light switch?
Impossible if you aren't standing right next to them. On the other hand it's pretty nice to be able to turn up the thermostat from the airport after you've landed the plane or even do it from the other side of the house without having to get out of bed.
I realize we can't spent all the extra time and $$ on "connecting" all of our otherwise mundane devices, but seriously, why is this needed?
For the same reason we have so many other devices and bits of technology in our home. Why do you "need" a smartphone when you have a perfectly good desktop PC? Same reason. Convenience, comfort, and in some cases fun.
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is it to set your thermostat or flip on a light switch?
Impossible if you aren't standing right next to them.
A miracle we've survived this long! 8^)
On the other hand it's pretty nice to be able to turn up the thermostat from the airport after you've landed the plane or even do it from the other side of the house without having to get out of bed.
While I am very sympathetic to these first world problems, exactly what is the unacceptable inconvenience of walking to the thremostat when you get hme and turning on the heat. I'm not getting it. Do most people faint or die or something if the temp isn't 70?
It isn't that I don't want people to have the ability to open and shut their window blinds, or if they reglarly have hot flashes and want the temperature to be 1.75 degrees less right after dinner, its just a lit
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a IoT sensor that senses i I've been on the couch to long and tells me to "get offf the couch and do something, ya lazy douch!"
That's called a fitbit.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a smart phone with bad voice quality because they don't sell dumb phones with good voice quality anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost anything, in fact. Money is useless except as a way to acquire goods and services. Spending money on A is not so much a decision that the buyer prefers A over money, but a decision that A now is better than something in the future and that A now is better than B (of the same price) now.
Re: (Score:1)
I also still miss the thermostat and fan-switch for the air conditioning in my office. Instead of having to touch it maybe 2-3 times a year when the season changes, I now have to fiddle with an annoying touch screen multiple times a day to keep the temperature at least somewhat comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you do realize that without IoT, people would have to stop stuffing their faces and actually get out of the chair in order to adjust the thermostat?
Consider the convenience of integration with either Amazon Echo or Google Home:
You: OK Google, can you please adjust the f---ing thermostat?
Google: Sorry, I can only adjust ordinary thermostats.
You: I just can't seem to get a f---ing break.
Google: Is that better than other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't actually need most of the stuff that I have. I have it because I want it. That being said, I see a lot of people giving reasons why they don't want smart devices, and projecting to conclude that nobody else should have them either. I understand not wanting things personally, but I don't project my preferences onto everybody else.
Re: People think Smart Home Tech is too Unnecessar (Score:2)
Hey, I saw that movie about you -- The Omega Man. I could swear the vampires killed you off in the end...
Re: (Score:2)
The point of home automation, when done right at least, is that it makes life easier/more fun.
I too, derive much pleasure and a sense that life is worthwhile when I push a button.
Re: (Score:2)
I too, derive much pleasure and a sense that life is worthwhile when I push a button.
Because when you live in a place where you need a security system, the only fun thing to do is make your security system "smart." I want your life. Mine's feels dull now.
Ok, do you guys have something against home automation, or are you simply missing the point? I said nothing about "worthwhile" - what I said is EASIER and MORE fun.
The problem of course, is that we have already been treated to IoT Botnets, and we not only haven't addressed the inherent insecurity of these things, we're rushing headlong to install more of them.
I for one, have never found the LulZ in DDoS and botnets.
Or do you really think it's easier to run around the house making sure all the lights are off and doors locked before you leave than it is to just push one button and KNOW all the lights are off and doors are locked?
I've been in computers since before the PC, and the internet since the early 90's. You can rest assured that even if I had a 1 button do everything app, I would damn well go around to check everything afterwards. If you wouldn't, you don't understand the
Don't Forget Complex (Score:4, Insightful)
There is elegance in simplicity. If I want to make something smarter, I put it on a timer.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. You're almost guaranteed to get crap security. You buy these "smart devices" for your home, and the crooks will just use a backdoor/vulnerability to remote login to check if you're home or not, turn off any "security" devices and have a field day.
Simple is not always elegant (Score:2)
There's something to be said for simplicity.
Sure if it works well and does what you want. Complexity gets introduced when one or both of those conditions is no longer met. Early car engines were much simpler than modern ones but they also didn't work as well, were less reliable, got less power, polluted more, and had worse fuel economy. The cost of those improvements was complexity. Simplicity did not equal elegance in that case - it just equaled simple.
There is elegance in simplicity. If I want to make something smarter, I put it on a timer.
There is elegance in simplicity only if it solves a problem more efficiently than other soluti
Re: (Score:2)
My non-smart thermostat is programmable. I can set it to 70F before I get home, and it's at least close to that by the time I get there. That part is good. I don't need remote capability. Just being able to set it to crank up the heat at a given time is "complex" enough for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet your non-smart thermostat can't switch between cool and heat automatically. That usually requires the press of a button.
True, but that's only a couple times in the spring and fall. Not enough to bother me.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something to be said about buying it again and again and again and off into infinity. Easiest example, making coffee. You do not buy a coffee making machine just once but have to keep buying it, whether it drips or spurts, it is only going to last a wee bit longer than it's warranty, down to as low as 90 days and you will be buying it again. This versus say buying a French press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], which until you physically break it, will not need replacing. Yet the French press mak
It's ok if you don't want it (Score:2)
Why do they assume I want this??
They don't. But they know for a fact that many people do. If you aren't one of them nobody is going to lose any sleep over that. Chose what works for you and let others chose what works for them.
Really... When I retire I'd like a log cabin in the middle of nowhere with maybe a wood stove, small 12V PV system to charge some batteries and small electronics. Stream behind the house with fish, etc.
A lovely notion though I suspect you'll find it less pleasant in reality then you imagine. Living out in the middle of nowhere with minimal technology tends to be a surprising amount of work.
Re: (Score:2)
Work will set you free. Which is only true of traditional chores. Ain't no Amish on SSRIs.
Lack of SSRI prescriptions may be more about culture [advanceweb.com], genetics, and a tradition of avoiding commercial health insurance than anything to do with "traditional chores".
Recent studies have found that Amish mental illness is greatly under-diagnosed, and the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County have a lower incidence of mental illness than the general population, but a much higher incidence of bipolar disorder, Bipolar disorder is treatable, however social attitudes within the community and a general distrust o
Another Smart Home Story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another batch of would-be luddites decrying the inevitable embracing of technology by the masses for all purposes, simple and complex.
They are not embracing it, because it's expensive and it doesn't interoperate.
Lacks value != expensive (Score:2)
"Smart" homes don't have value to most people. If the value people received from the services were worth the money, people would purchase. People are concerned about the invasive nature of the tech (rightly so), and see any potential cost savings as trivial at best. Turning a dial on the thermostat is not that hard, and it's not like you are going to work on winter days and asking "Did I leave the thermostat 20 degrees off my normal?".
Smart homes are like VR, Apple Watches or Fitbits. A niche market whi
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. When I was young (80s) I thought a smart home would be way cool: I imagined hooking everything up to my microbee 32k to do "cool stuff" like control the lights, run intercoms between rooms, control ac/heater, turn on the toaster and generally turn me into the tech-nerd god-emperor of my domain.
Then I worked in the tech industry for decades, including designing, installing and maintaining such systems, and my desire for "smarts" evaporated. Based on experience I'd say they just add complexity for comp
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are addicted though. I have a friend who struggles to make ends meet financially. Yet he keeps seriously considering getting smart lighting only because he loves anything new in tech (which is why he finds it hard to make ends meet financially). He think it's cool, and he's baffled why other people don't. If it's tech and it's new he wants it; if it's tech and from last year then it's on a pile in his bedroom.
economics 101? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fragmentation & Value (Score:5, Informative)
There's just a complete disconnect between manufacturers and users when it comes to value as well. A good recent example: for the same price, I can get a Lutron smart bridge, which only supports Lutron's smart lights and blinds, or I can grab a Wink which supports Lutron's stuff plus Z-Wave, ZigBee, BLE and Thread. There's half a dozen smart hubs on the market with the same kind of problem. Even the more generalist hubs like Vera or SmartThings tend to miss at least one thing which means you'd have to have many of them to fully cover everything (namely, Lutron's stuff, because they decided they'd have their own proprietary communication method). Philips Hue poses a similar issue: it's proprietary and doesn't integrate unless you also grab their hub.
Basically, they all want to lock you into their system, even though no given system has everything you want. On top of that, they make extension and customization really limited, often preventing integration (Lutron sells a telnet enabled bridge, but only to professional installers, otherwise it's fully locked down). I really shouldn't have to run Home Assistant on my home server to make Wink not suck, but if I just stick with Wink's app (no PC app, no website), the automation basically amounts to a dumb timer and making switches do something.
Smart homes should feel smart, almost magical. Right now you just end up with 10 bloody plastic boxes which all do one thing not all that well and rarely want to work together properly, and if you lose internet... tough luck (next to no smart devices support local control). If you want to do all the stuff they show in ads, you better be ready to start hacking, because none of them really do that without integrating into a third-party system like Home Assistant or OpenHAB.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it costs $200 for 4 fixtures (an outlet, 2 switches and a light), replacing all the outlets, switches and lights will cost you a significant chunk of money not to mention the electrician's/permitting cost for such an overhaul.
$5k is a low estimate especially in older homes and that is IF you get it to work once it's all in. A lot of power line communication doesn't work (well) across both halves of the breaker box or sometimes even across circuits and a lot of houses don't have the requisite two le
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in addtion to that, you need to replace the whole thing every 5 years when the IoT service falls into the corporate abyss.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, when they ask the question people think of "smart home" like the computer on Star Trek being able to control everything.
They naturally presume it would cost a lot of money, certainly over $5000, and they would be correct.
Just because there are consumer devices for sale that cost $200 and do $20 worth of work, and connect to the internet, doesn't make those devices into a "smart home."
Re:My home is SMART ENOUGH (Score:4, Funny)
"OK, Self. Open the refrigerator and grab me a beer."
Works every damn time.
Obligatory XKCD:
https://xkcd.com/149/ [xkcd.com]
Just give it 10 years... (Score:2)
...and it'll be 10 times cheaper, 10 times better, and looked at with 10 times the inflated sense of entitlement than today.
Re: (Score:2)
You can self host with multiple different programs. I use Home Assistant [home-assistant.io] running on a Pi in the basement.
I pay $0 in recurring costs.
Is that per year? (Score:1)
34 percent of Americans believe it would cost $5,000
What they don't mention is that, that's what the average cost will be per year for ransomware when some teenager in Romania hacks your thermostat and demands payment to turn the heat off in the middle of summer, or it on in the winter. Or the hacker in China that demands payment to stop turning you lights off in the evening, and strobing them while you're trying to sleep.
How to Lie with Surveys (Score:2)
34 percent of Americans believe it would cost $5,000 or more to turn their home into a smart home
Which is probably true, since "a smart home" is defined by most people as "All (or most of) my lights and devices connected to an automation system and controllable." At $30-45 per light switch, power outlet, or device-controller, it adds up quickly in even a small home. (My home is not small, and I would easily go over $5k if I wanted to swap out just switches)
the average person starts with just 4 smart devices, and spends about $200.
Yeah, starts with a hub (Usually just under $100 by itself) and a couple of lights or sensors. They generally expand beyond that.
I work in a very ne
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably true, since "a smart home" is defined by most people as "All (or most of) my lights and devices connected to an automation system and controllable." At $30-45 per light switch, power outlet, or device-controller, it adds up quickly in even a small home. (My home is not small, and I would easily go over $5k if I wanted to swap out just switches)
Agreed, though I would say the survey isn't a lie. It is indeed a matter of definition, and most people are underestimating the cost to have a full smart home, at current prices. The per socket, per switch, and per fixture cost is outrageous.
the average person starts with just 4 smart devices, and spends about $200.
Yeah, starts with a hub (Usually just under $100 by itself) and a couple of lights or sensors. They generally expand beyond that.
Do they, though? I have a sneaking suspicion a great many people never do. A smart home sounds great, but you don't get a smart home for $200; you get 2, maybe 3 controllable devices, and you quickly decide that you're not getting anything remotely like the utility
Reliable good smart homes? yes (Score:2)
Because you are using high end stuff like Crestron and AMX. the other crap are simply toys. If it's cloud based it will not work a LOT of the time.
So yes they are correct, good robust and reliable smart homes ARE expensive.
Save yourself cash -- Don't buy Insteon products (Score:2)
All of them have stopped working -- conveniently, after their warranty (some only 2-3 months after).
Insteon refused to refund/replace any of them, despite several emails/videos showing them how many stopped working.
Creating a "Smart" home is already pretty expensive, but even more-so if (WHEN) the devices break every few years.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that they'll stop working when the manufacturer goes bust and their 'cloud' server goes away. Or when Amazon's 'cloud' goes down again. Or when the manufacturer stops supporting them and shuts down the 'cloud' server that controls them.
Insteon is NOT inherently dependent on cloud (Score:2)
Don't forget that they'll stop working when the manufacturer goes bust and their 'cloud' server goes away. Or when Amazon's 'cloud' goes down again. Or when the manufacturer stops supporting them and shuts down the 'cloud' server that controls them.
Most residential Insteon deployments use controllers which are not cloud based, and all Insteon devices support local linking (e.g. you can associate a light switch to a motion detector simply by pressing a button on one, then the other -- no app required, no cloud service involved.
It is possible to deploy Z-Wave without relying on cloud services, you just need to choose your controller carefully. You can also purchase a local programmable controller which speaks multiple protocols, so you can use local RE
I like my smart lights (Score:2)
I like my smart lights ... but not for any of the things that make them "smart." The thing I like about them is the ability to have them changes from cool light in the morning to warm light in the evening. This is something you could feasibly do without "smart" bulbs but is easier to set up with them.
But just about everything else that's supposed to be "smart" is just annoying.
Have someone over who wants to turn on the lights? Haha, they can't, not without the app! Want to turn on a light in one room? Bette
Thermostat (Score:3, Interesting)
There are only two "smart home" features I've actually cared to put in:
* Occupancy sensor lights in bathrooms and other places that one frequently enters and exits a lot of times per day.
* A smart thermostat with remote access
Both were more about saving money than adding convenience.
Nothing else is really worth the cost because the usability is utter shit and the interoperability is almost nil. Give me Star Trek level functionality ("computer, lights; computer, play ; computer, we're about out of TP, order some more") with cost effective equipment/install (wiring your house for automation, audio, etc. is insanely expensive, wireless stuff is still shitty) and I might change my mind, but we're a long, long way from that level of UX. Alexa, etc. notwithstanding. Also, it would require non-invasive implementations that don't collect data and/or otherwise spy on me.
Re: (Score:2)
nah, just have stinky little half watt LED night light so you can see and find the light switch.
I like thermostat with programmable temps for each 4 hour part of normal day, high tech late 1980s shit there! when leaving home override and turn the heat down (similar argument for AC). I've found in less than 20 minutes home can be heated up again when returning so really the hype of remote control is just coolness wankery.
for extended leave a couple lights on random timers
really, why come home from IT jo
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, the "4 x 7" programmable thermostat (4 cycles per day, wake, leave. arrive, sleep) is more than adequate and I just can't see where remote control would be useful.
I live in Minnesota and even on a very cold day, 20 minutes or so is more than adequate to take the chill off the house with forced air. When I moved into my house in '99 I thought a setback during the day for A/C would be useful, but my experience has been that it's not -- recovering cooling takes too long. I think home A/Cs a
Re: (Score:2)
we close blinds and then curtains over those for all the windows when leaving in summer for hours to "keep the cool in".
you bring up another thing that simplifies life, instead of carpet that traps dirt and crud, hardwood floors are so much superior. we've nothing but that and tile (for kitchen and bathrooms).
Re: (Score:2)
Our house is two levels, a main and a walkout/basement level.
My sense is the lower level wasn't really designed to be a full-time living space as the floor is concrete slab and the ceiling height really isn't tall enough for a meaningfully insulated subfloor, which is why we had carpet in there to begin with. Without it it would be like skating rink cold.
We toyed with the idea of tile or polishing the concrete, both could have allowed us to put in electrical in-floor heat but it got to be kind of a big job
You can't have a "Smart Home" for $200 (Score:1)
You can have a couple of lights that you can turn on/off OR change your temperature from your Smartphone, not both. To have a truly automated home likely would cost about $5000. People are not so dumb. Wink would like you to think you can get real automation for $200 to sell you their $100 hub.
34% seems high (Score:3)
34 percent of Americans believe it would cost $5,000
Apparently 34% of Americans are actually aware of the security implications of a "Smart Home" and know if would cost over $5,000 in leaked personal data.
2 p3rvy and 2 expensive (Score:2)
Look, most "smart home" tech is always on, wasting electricity. Stuff you need:
1. home temperature or floor temperature feedback for heating/cooling that can be programmed. this is also very useful in second homes, and saves lots of energy.
2. security system ... LOL, jk. No seriously, most motion and heat detectors will rack up big charges from the local police, who can't even get there in under 45 minutes, no matter what the commercial says, so get rid of those. Better bet - lights tied into home motion
I don't care if its free (Score:3)
How long to they last ? (Score:2)
I can go to my local hardware store and buy an Light Switch [diy.com] for £2.25 ($2.80) and it will sit, maintenance free, in my living room wall for several decades and uses zero electricity for the switch itself. Unless you are outside my house and can see the light that it controls you have no idea if it is switched on or off and thus if I am probably at home.
I can order one and buy one that connects via my wifi [belkin.com] for $49.99 (£40.20) that I control via my mobile 'phone, so always using a not-disclosed am
Expensive and proprietary (Score:2)
It seems like all the proprietary stuff is expensive. I bought little wifi power adapter switches (The Orvibo S20) for $20 each and an infrared blaster to control my TVs and HVAC for $30. I couldn't be happier. I did it for cheap and my stuff never goes out to the internet. I have full control and I can program them however I want! The Orvibo has a nice simple Python library that somebody wrote.
Surveillance Marketed As Revolutionary Technology (Score:2)
The value of IoT is explicitly not derived by normal exchanges of value for cash it's derived by leveraging the customer on the back end to sell their data and push advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
The value of IoT is explicitly not derived by normal exchanges of value for cash it's derived by leveraging the customer on the back end to sell their data and push advertising.
If that were true, the devices would cost a lot less. A dumb light switch costs 46 cents. A "smart" light switch costs $46.
They're gouging you on the initial purchase and selling your data.
Privacy costs too (Score:2)
Smart devices usually don't work without an internet connection and without registering on manufacturer's website. Then they will collect all your usage data.
Also this makes you dependent on the manufacturer for the rest of the life time of the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart devices usually don't work without an internet connection and without registering on manufacturer's website. Then they will collect all your usage data.
Also this makes you dependent on the manufacturer for the rest of the life time of the device.
That is not necessarily true. Yes, cheap smart devices are tethered to their cloud service provider. Zigbee, Insteon, UPB and Z-Wave devices don't even require a TCP/IP network, much less Internet connectivity. You just have to be a smart consumer.
It's the way home tech is marketed (Score:2)
I see two totally separate marketing modes currently in use for this technology: the hobbyist market, home of the X-10 coffeemaker that you can sort of get working if you do enough fiddling with your wiring assisted by the advice of obscure online hacker forums, and the high end market for "smart homes" that you order as a turnkey package from a builder or a security company. Nobody cares about the X-10 hobbyists because they are invisible, so to the general public home tech is associated with the Smart Hom
How to get Smart Home Cheaply (Score:1)
Get Smart + Get back Home = Smart Home
It's super cheap and you won't have to worry about a wifi kettle being hacked.
Smart home? Or dumb? (Score:2)
I am all for using clever technology if it gives me something of actual value, but I have yet to hear about any IoT gadget that does anything that I would benefit from in my home. I have used remotely comtrollable gadgets (like networked powerstrips) in server rooms, and that clearly is useful, but I wouldn't spend money on any of the silly gadgets that are on offer, and certainly not if they can only communicate directly to the wider internet - for me to let any gadget in to my home, it must have the optio
Are we not fat enough already? (Score:1)
It does not compute.
We use every labor saving device possible so we can either balloon up or spend all the time hungry or at gym.
I'll continue spitting, stacking and feeding my wood stove, shoveling my driveway and getting up to to adjust the lights.
Really don't mind feeding and walking my 90lb security system, or sweeping the floors.
I'm no Luddite but it's nuts to save so much labor only to pay for the gym. Maybe a manual push mower is a better idea
Voice controlled home automation for $130 (Score:1)