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

Everything with a battery should have an off switch

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 613 posts

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#51

Post by m_eiman »

ggm wrote: post #31
nickff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ” How much extra cost does a hard on/off switch add to the bill of materials?” BoM cost is not the whole story; a physical switch can greatly complicate an assembly, and may require hand-soldered wires. In addition to those cost-related factors, external switches are usually quite ugly, and getting them right can be very challenging, so it’s much easier to just omit them.

I think this is special pleading. At the volume we're discussing a surface mount flow solder on off device is not going to kill the BoM, and could be designed not to be ugly. It's no different to any other bad design. It could be better. All phones and computers can be completely powered down. They're hardly ugly switches.

> All phones and computers can be completely powered down. They're hardly ugly switches.

iPhones (and I assume most Androids as well) can't be completely powered off. Neither can Macbooks. In fact, I'd guess that most modern digital things with non-replaceable batteries can't be powered off.

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#54

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

CRConrad wrote: post #32
kamranjon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s strange I have no issue reading posts like these but every time they come up someone complains about the format of twitter and I still have no idea what makes it so difficult for people and I definitely did not grow up with it.

Nowadays it cuts off threads and refuses to let you read to the end unless you're logged in.

I just tried and I could read that whole thread without being logged in. Maybe twitter lets you read the whole thing if you've ever logged in with that browser?

I guess if this is actually a problem, anyone who's bothered by it, who doesn't have a twitter login could look into rewriting twitter.com links to nitter.net instead.

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#55

Post by abofh »

ggm wrote: post #31
nickff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ” How much extra cost does a hard on/off switch add to the bill of materials?” BoM cost is not the whole story; a physical switch can greatly complicate an assembly, and may require hand-soldered wires. In addition to those cost-related factors, external switches are usually quite ugly, and getting them right can be very challenging, so it’s much easier to just omit them.

I think this is special pleading. At the volume we're discussing a surface mount flow solder on off device is not going to kill the BoM, and could be designed not to be ugly. It's no different to any other bad design. It could be better. All phones and computers can be completely powered down. They're hardly ugly switches.

Ermm, most phones and computers cannot be completely powered down. Either by nit-picking (CMOS clocks) or soft-switches (ACPI, soft button power-on), there's always some voltage in the system unless your PSU comes with an actual hard power switch (and even then, again, CMOS).

They consume a lot less power, but leave an 'off' phone in a drawer for a month starting at 100%, it will not be 100% when you 'turn it on'.

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#56

Post by reticulated »

Nanite wrote: post #4

Examples lying around in my house: Bathroom scale: lovely it powers up when you tap it, but eats up 2 button cells a year for a few dozen uses a year Kitchen scales, bit more use, at least once a day but again 2 button cells a year electronic caliper: Same, eats up 1 button cell a year, just sitting in my toolbox Strangely enough none of our kids toys with batteries seem to suffer from this problem How much extra cos…

Our kitchen scales have a single on button and auto power-off after a minute or so. I discovered completely by accident that holding the power button down for 3-4 seconds powers it off. Nowhere in any of the manuals was this mentioned (I went back and checked)

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#58

Post by icelancer »

CRConrad wrote: post #30
bonoboTP wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you came across this and you wouldn't have come across it if he just put it on his own website. Network effects and game theory...

We came across this by seeing it here on HN. Lots of people's own websites get posted here on HN, so we might well have come across it anyway.

Considering that foone's "website" (or blog) is entirely giant Twitter threads...

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#59

Post by carpenecopinum »

It's cool that they managed to make the device work for them.

But on the other hand, I think it should not be the job of the consumer to "fix" shitty design choices. If we accept devices that are borderline defective by design instead of sending them back to where they came from, what we'll end up with are more devices that are similarly broken for the sake saving a few cents.

The only way we can truly fix bad design choices is by making them unprofitable for the manufacturers.

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#60

Post by lultimouomo »

Nanite wrote: post #4

Examples lying around in my house: Bathroom scale: lovely it powers up when you tap it, but eats up 2 button cells a year for a few dozen uses a year Kitchen scales, bit more use, at least once a day but again 2 button cells a year electronic caliper: Same, eats up 1 button cell a year, just sitting in my toolbox Strangely enough none of our kids toys with batteries seem to suffer from this problem How much extra cos…

> electronic caliper: Same, eats up 1 button cell a year, just sitting in my toolbox

Had the same problem; got a good Vernier caliper, never looked back. Some things just don't need batteries!

Post reply on HN