Re: Stupid design decisions

From	Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: Stupid design decisions
Date	2017-02-03 21:40 -0600
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o73i7k$1hs$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <43c79cd9j3mcmkikno8v9n8h04mcqavbro@4ax.com> <o70jvf$fus$1@dont-email.me> <1jb89cl5h0jli3naf1cnadr6bb3b44ga3u@4ax.com> <o71vmm$qm1$1@dont-email.me> <o72dmb$hgt$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Thread

Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-05 21:14 -0600
  Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-06 12:27 -0700
  Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 14:51 -0500
  Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-06 20:22 +0000
    Re: Stupid design decisions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-08 17:11 +0100
      Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 17:10 -0500
        Re: Stupid design decisions Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-01-09 11:30 +0200
          Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 04:58 -0500
            Re: Stupid design decisions Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-01-09 13:10 +0200
            Re: Stupid design decisions Clive Arthur <cliveta@nowaytoday.co.uk> - 2017-01-09 11:15 +0000
            Re: Stupid design decisions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-09 13:48 +0100
        Re: Stupid design decisions Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 17:40 -0500
      Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 21:42 -0600
  Re: Stupid design decisions Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-01-06 15:33 -0600
  Re: Stupid design decisions Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 12:28 -0800
    Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 13:52 -0700
      Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-30 20:55 +0000
        Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 14:18 -0700
          Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-30 21:20 +0000
            Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 14:31 -0700
              Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 23:37 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 23:20 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 22:29 -0800
                Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 02:10 -0500
        Re: Stupid design decisions Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-01-30 22:30 +0100
        Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 02:00 -0500
      Re: Stupid design decisions Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 22:18 -0800
        Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 23:36 -0700
        Re: Stupid design decisions jladasky@itu.edu - 2017-01-31 16:01 -0800
          Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 09:47 +0000
            Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 06:35 -0500
              Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 16:26 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:49 -0500
                Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 01:27 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-03 07:18 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 10:14 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2017-02-03 10:12 -0800
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 14:10 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 11:15 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 13:52 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-02-05 04:36 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:55 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 21:39 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:55 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 23:38 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 21:25 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-04 17:26 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:56 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-03 21:40 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 21:48 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 11:03 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 13:00 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 01:49 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 10:43 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 21:31 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:22 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 23:24 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-02-06 03:51 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 10:11 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 20:07 -0500
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 21:08 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2017-02-04 14:42 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 02:00 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 09:11 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 03:51 -0600
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:10 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 22:22 +0000
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:01 -0700
                Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:03 -0700
    Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 23:44 -0600

csiph-web