Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet of Way Too Many Things

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 266 posts

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#151

Post by Joeri »

antr wrote: post #2

I just bought a home, and just started a considerable renovation. I'm putting in new water pipes, new electrical wiring, etc. I thought of putting "smart" devices (i.e. switches, alarms, thermostats, etc.) given the "advantages" these promise. After considerable research, it's not worth the hussle or money. Let's put aside the fact that these are considerable more expensive, and won't breakeven in years (some devices…

There is a standard for home automation with thousands of devices in the market. It's called KNX. The problem is that setting up a KNX network is extremely technically involved, and the nice looking devices cost a lot of money. I looked into a smart doorbell for our new home. The KNX system cost nearly ten times what the ring video doorbell cost and required me to put in KNX wiring. So I got the ring doorbell, even though it's a closed system.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#152

Post by gwern »

legulere wrote: post #130
s_baby wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still run cat6 as if I was going to use smart devices. You're already inside the walls.

Empty conduits seem like a better idea than cables. Tech changes way to fast to put cables directly into the wall (except for 110/230V~ power which seems to stay stable until now)

I don't know about that. Cat6 Ethernet started being manufactured in... what, 2001? 14 years ago? And few consumers have yet to find its support for 10GB Ethernet to be limiting or an issue. I can't think of what other cabling you might need to run, so if you're putting in conduits, it sure seems like a good idea to put in that Ethernet.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#154

Post by detaro »

gwern wrote: post #152
legulere wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empty conduits seem like a better idea than cables. Tech changes way to fast to put cables directly into the wall (except for 110/230V~ power which seems to stay stable until now)

I don't know about that. Cat6 Ethernet started being manufactured in... what, 2001? 14 years ago? And few consumers have yet to find its support for 10GB Ethernet to be limiting or an issue. I can't think of what other cabling you might need to run, so if you're putting in conduits, it sure seems like a good idea to put in that Ethernet.

Except a lot of the automation devices don't use Ethernet, but other bus protocols, and maybe central low-voltage power. Which you might be able to send over Cat6, but I wouldn't bet on it, especially if you want to get it professionally installed.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#155

Post by icebraining »

ars wrote: post #83
ccozan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I suggest adding also USB plugs to be able to load your devices without extra bulky part?

People suggest this a lot, but it only makes sense aesthetically (and even then only sometimes). From an environmental point of view it doesn't make any sense to do this.

Isn't the draw negligible nowadays? Even my cheap unbranded USB chargers remain at room temperature when nothing is plugged in. And you could always get sockets with switches.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#156

Post by jsingleton »

narrowrail wrote: post #115
wpietri wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not krisdol, but I presume the "empty plastic boxes" is a reference to the fact that the amount of hardware necessary to stream video is now miniscule. My Roku is the size it is not because it needs to be that big to hold components, but so that it looks substantial to consumers and doesn't get lost in a ball of cables. And interop for me would mean that instead of N proprietary platforms that must be targeted se…

I agree with your take, but I don't see that happening; I prefer to take care of media acquisition on my own because I don't trust these companies to do any differently than the media companies they seek to, ultimately, replace. Roku has the private channel feature that I think makes it more interesting than the other players, and I wish more effort was exerted to explore the possibilities with private channels. Have…

I picked up a new Sky Now TV box for 8 GBP (with cashback). It's basically a re-branded Roku but you can't get all the channels. Still, quite the bargain considering it even comes with an HDMI cable. It has all the standard catchup apps such as BBC iPlayer but no Netflix (Sky are competitors).

It also has a developer mode which may be what you are referring to. I managed to side-load Plex onto it. If the Netflix app code was available then I guess that could be side-loaded too. Only one development app can be loaded at a time though.

I also looked at doing some development but the VBScript brings back too many bad memories. :)

http://digiex.net/guides-reviews/guides-tutorials/media-guid...

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#157

Post by zck »

joshstrange wrote: post #142
cortesoft wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

I'm not sure how this plays in at all... Could you please expand on that?

I'm not the person you responded to, but survivorship bias is what you were originally responding to -- a claim like "we survived without the baby monitor, so it's unnecessary" falls flat because the people that didn't survive without it aren't here to tell you it would've saved them.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#158

Post by CydeWeys »

Joeri wrote: post #151
antr wrote: post #2

I just bought a home, and just started a considerable renovation. I'm putting in new water pipes, new electrical wiring, etc. I thought of putting "smart" devices (i.e. switches, alarms, thermostats, etc.) given the "advantages" these promise. After considerable research, it's not worth the hussle or money. Let's put aside the fact that these are considerable more expensive, and won't breakeven in years (some devices…

There is a standard for home automation with thousands of devices in the market. It's called KNX. The problem is that setting up a KNX network is extremely technically involved, and the nice looking devices cost a lot of money. I looked into a smart doorbell for our new home. The KNX system cost nearly ten times what the ring video doorbell cost and required me to put in KNX wiring. So I got the ring doorbell, even t…

It sounds like KNX isn't good enough then, and may never be if the standard truly does require special wiring. Another standard with cheaper devices and that operates over standard WiFi would probably have a much better shot.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#159

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

elsewhen wrote: post #145
Animats wrote: post #75

I went to an Internet of Things meeting in SF about two years ago, and it was about like this. A Samsung executive was touting an Internet-enabled refrigerator, which was basically just a refrigerator with a tablet built into the door, with no special sensors, costing more than a refrigerator plus a tablet. I asked him why they'd built the product, and got an honest answer. He said the market was three types of peopl…

what do you mean by "granite kitchen counter crowd"? is it the case that granite counters are not particularly functional and primarily there for show (i'm genuinely asking).

That's exactly what I got from that.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#160

Post by CydeWeys »

metaphor wrote: post #95
narrowrail wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been considering replacing my media PC with a Roku, so I'm curious why you would call them "empty plastic boxes" considering the Roku can stream from my local server and I block all outbound requests at my router (firewall). The advantage I see is the 5W power draw vs. my current 20W. I'm also unclear on what interoperability would mean for one of these devices. I don't think 2 Roku on the same network have any…

Assuming $50.00 for a Roku, electricity at $0.15/kWh, and 16 hours average daily usage, breakeven point is in ~3.8 years vs. an existing 20W solution.

16 hours daily usage?! Whoa nelly, that's a lot of TV watching! I suspect a lot of people on here (like me) watch less than one hour a day. The US national average is five hours, which is still startlingly high, but doesn't get you close to 16 hours per day even with multiple people in a household (as their viewing times will tend to overlap).

I suspect that stand-by power usage may be more important than active power usage for such a device. And I don't know how Roku fares for that, nor its alternatives.

Post reply on HN