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

161–170 of 266 posts

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#161

Post by CydeWeys »

detaro wrote: post #154
gwern wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd be very surprised if the standard IoT ecosystem that ultimately wins out doesn't use standard 110 V lines already in the walls for power and WiFi for data. Realistically I am not seeing it being worth it for the average person to spend many thousands of dollars to rewire their entire homes when the alternative is to simply get much cheaper devices that use the wireless network you already have and plug into the wiring and outlets you already have.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#162

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

fallingmeat wrote: post #67
rollback wrote: post #21

Commentary about the silliness of the avalanche of IOT devices being created right now aside (99% of consumer internet startups are based on dumb ideas and fail, but that doesn't mean there is no market or trend!), it's inevitable that this stuff is going to get traction in the market and it's a vast market. I doubt it's going to happen based on a bunch of edge-case $99 devices though. The big trend here is the cost…

"...wifi-enabled microcontroller for _$3_..." have been available (in volume) for, at least, a few years now. I'm not sure why, all of a sudden, this is such a promising solution on the most trivial of problems. As an engineer in this industry, these companies often seem like carpetbaggers, attempting to enter niche markets they know little of, with a solution who's only merit is it's hype.

The important part is what you parenthetically dismiss (in volume).

I know they've been around in volume for years, but most of the stuff I build doesn't come close to triggering that kind of volume. Therefore, the guy who wants me to send data from his forklifts to a central server in the warehouse can get it done at a cost he can more easily stomach when the hardware cost is under $20 as opposed to being around $100.

Price matters!

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#163

Post by grey-area »

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…

While smart devices are inchoate at present, and likely to be difficult to get right (I see why you're not interested right now), I think it's a mistake to dismiss the concept based on current tech.

Long term probably most of the devices/materials we own will be networked in some way, acting as sensors, reacting to local conditions by changing, updatable with software. That's all a bit fuzzy, but specifically things like heated floors and lighting which sense presence, windows which react to lighting conditions or insolation requirements, voice controls, panels which turn into display surfaces or speakers and a desk which could charge and update objects wirelessly when placed on it would all be very useful and far more powerful if driven by software which was updatable. Software will eat the world, one object/material at a time.

I don't know if the revolution will be in one OS which runs your home (though corporations would love to sell you that), it might be more in our tools, clothes and structures gradually becoming networked and part of a global computer. Specific operating systems seem to me to be declining in importance as the network grows and a constellation of devices which talk to each other arises. There are of course potential downsides like security and privacy but I think those will be outweighed by the obvious benefits.

Do we need any of this? No, and our ancestors lived without it. Will we want any of it? Probably, if on balance it improves our quality of life.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#164

Post by CydeWeys »

tptacek wrote: post #96
tedunangst wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not possible to lay an infant on its back if it's wearing a dumb onesie?

14-16 years ago, it wasn't even possible to get out of a hospital without having this explained to you in detail. I can only imagine what it's like now. "Smart onesies" are silly.

Biometric monitoring for at-risk individuals is patently not silly. As a percentage, more babies are at-risk than young adults.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#165

Post by Joeri »

CydeWeys wrote: post #158
Joeri wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

KNX can be used over wifi, it is both a protocol and a wiring standard. Many KNX devices are not wifi-enabled however, which means you still have to use some wiring to connect things. I agree KNX is not good enough, even if it's the only home automation standard worth anything. The biggest problem however is not the wiring, which is preferable to wifi due to the reliable connectivity, but the consortium-made KNX ETS software. You use that software to change the configuration of your devices, it has no alternatives, and it is absolutely horrible.

Anyway, if all those IoT smart home vendors would just implement KNX support, and a group of open source developers would get together to build some proper management software to replace ETS, it would stand a chance. It at least has the benefit of being an ISO standard and having lots of device choice in the market.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#166

Post by ballsohardy »

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…

i think we are in the trough of disillusionment with regards to IoT devices

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#167

Post by CydeWeys »

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).

Well, a real stone countertop is probably more functional than formica because it won't age as quickly and thus lasts longer. I'm not sure if the increased cost justifies that.

When I hear "granite kitchen counter crowd", I think of people who spend a lot of money on their house to have nice things, either because they genuinely like the aesthetic or they want to keep up with and show off to the Joneses.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#168

Post by alkonaut »

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…

> After considerable research, it's not worth the hussle or money.

Agree. There is no point in making a 75% smart home. A 10% smart home is fine, it feels like a nifty gadget here and there. It can be clever to automate just a few things, maybe get a nest or make it possible to start watering plants remotely when on holiday. But the dream of the full smart home isn't here yet. If you have 9 lights switchable on your phone, that tenth light just feels like a hassle. If you try, you end up spending more time fiddling with your smart stuff than you would ever spend walking to light switches.

I have a shortlist of demands for "smart home" things (specifically the simplest things like switches and other fixtures).

1) It should be as reliable as a regular dumb switch. It can't work 99% of the time, or take 100ms from switching to lighting.

2) It should require no extra cabling. If I can run ethernet over my power lines already, surely I should be able to reliably route around some smart home packets too-

3) It should work as far as possible with existing fixtures. I don't want to replace my switch, I just want to add a smart relay behind the switch. Switches are pieces of interior design, I don't want to be limited to a choice of 2 colors of extremely expensive "smart switches".

4) I don't want any products backed by a single/small company. It should be a reasonably big consortium or an open standard. Z-wave checks that box, barely (and it fails horribly at item 1).

If I were to build a house today I would probably try to make some good decisions in "dumb" power cabling such as trying to put all lighting together behind some central master relay to be able to do the hotel style switch-all when leaving, and also put Cat6+PoE sockets everywhere (both high and low on walls) as to be able to put sensors (motion, smoke, whatever) without ugly cable routing or using wireless.

> if my siblings an I were brought up just fine in the 80's without being in a "smart onesie", I'm sure we can do just as fine today

That's really the same argument as "we were brought up in asbestos houses with smoking people and we're fine..." isn't it :)

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#169

Post by jahnu »

guybrushT wrote: post #53
freehunter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, Xiamoi makes everything interoperable by making it themselves. And Apple makes HomeKit. And Google makes their own. And Microsoft makes their own. And HP makes their own. And... See the problem?

I do. And you are right. I think we will get to a place where one company does it right, before we agree on an interoperable standard.

Like file systems and network shares!

weeps for the future he'll never see

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#170

Post by simoncion »

guybrushT wrote: post #53
freehunter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, Xiamoi makes everything interoperable by making it themselves. And Apple makes HomeKit. And Google makes their own. And Microsoft makes their own. And HP makes their own. And... See the problem?

I do. And you are right. I think we will get to a place where one company does it right, before we agree on an interoperable standard.

We haven't seen this with instant messaging. For some inexplicable reason, the big players find great value in maintaining walled gardens.

Why would we expect things to be any different in the world of hardware?

Post reply on HN