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

How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

blog.astro.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#41

Post by nitrogen »

Cowen wrote: post #38
jaynos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sprinkler systems (and the people who don't use them properly) are indeed in need of "automation" as you say. I see so many sprinklers on in the middle of the day (as opposed to early morning, when they should be on) or during a rain storm. It's not that hard to properly set the timer, but people still don't do it. Get the 80% cases right on sprinklers and the fact that people don't manually override is fine.

I've never cared for a lawn in my life, so purely out of curiosity, why should a sprinkler system be on in the early morning? Wouldn't morning dew take care of watering grass around those hours?

A lawn doesn't need a constant mist, it needs a couple of inches of water a couple of times a week. Dew is unlikely to accumulate to that depth. Watering in the morning reduces evaporation.

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#42

Post by ghaff »

schiffern wrote: post #37
mark-r wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now there's a product idea: a backup thermostat that takes over when the house temperature drops toward freezing.

This should do the trick (plus some heat tape): http://www.amazon.com/Farm-Innovators-TC-3-Thermostatically-...

Interesting. I do have a couple piping runs near the wall in the basement that might not be a terrible idea for. Just like with computer systems, I'm always debating the depth of backup and types of failure modes it's worth spending money on.

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#43

Post by getsaf »

Cowen wrote: post #38
jaynos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sprinkler systems (and the people who don't use them properly) are indeed in need of "automation" as you say. I see so many sprinklers on in the middle of the day (as opposed to early morning, when they should be on) or during a rain storm. It's not that hard to properly set the timer, but people still don't do it. Get the 80% cases right on sprinklers and the fact that people don't manually override is fine.

I've never cared for a lawn in my life, so purely out of curiosity, why should a sprinkler system be on in the early morning? Wouldn't morning dew take care of watering grass around those hours?

Morning dew is not enough to consider your lawn watered. Typically you want a few inches of saturated soil for watering.

As for why it's not "ideal" to run sprinklers in the middle of the day, the idea is that if you water early in the morning, then all of your sunlight hours beat on watered grass. If you just started watering in the afternoon, your grass has already been in prime morning sunlight without the watered soil to boost growing. It's not necessarily bad, it's just not ideal.

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#44

Post by gboss »

Cowen wrote: post #38
jaynos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sprinkler systems (and the people who don't use them properly) are indeed in need of "automation" as you say. I see so many sprinklers on in the middle of the day (as opposed to early morning, when they should be on) or during a rain storm. It's not that hard to properly set the timer, but people still don't do it. Get the 80% cases right on sprinklers and the fact that people don't manually override is fine.

I've never cared for a lawn in my life, so purely out of curiosity, why should a sprinkler system be on in the early morning? Wouldn't morning dew take care of watering grass around those hours?

It's because the rate of evaporation is highest during the noon hours. Water utilities regularly ask people to water their lawns in the early morning or evening to reduce wasting water to evaporation before it can be soaked in by the grass itself.

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#45

Post by fma »

joshuaheard wrote: post #19

The article didn't mention the biggest reason people aren't buying Nest, and the reason I didn't buy one: cost. The Nest thermostat runs around $200 - $250, while a basic thermostat can be had for around $20. It's the same for the Nest smoke detector: $99 versus less than $10 for a basic one. As one experienced in the real estate market, I can say that home builders usually go with the cheapest solution. And, I don't…

I bought a honeywell version that's half the cost. I'm not that lazy that I need a thermostat to tell me when I'll be home and when I won't. I can preemptively adjust the thermostat schedule as my schedule changes - rather than wait for Nest to figure it out (and waste energy bill). Through the web interface or app it's so easy even a caveman can do it.

Also, maybe I'm the only person who is not in love with the design of the nest. One of my friends has one and my eyes instantly drew to it - not because it was beautiful but because it stuck out like a sore thumb.

The honeywell version looks like a regular thermostat. I don't need something that tells my guests I have disposable income.

About the smoke detector: You can purchase a smoke alarm that would alert you, or the fire department. It costs $30. http://simplisafe.com/smoke-detector

Admittedly the Nest also includes a Carbon monoxide, which costs $50 from Simplisafe. However (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) you don't need as many Carbon Monoxide detectors as Smoke Detectors.

The Simplisafe requires a monthly fee for the monitoring - but anyone who wants an automated house is probably looking for an automated security monitoring system and it doesn't cost extra to add more components.

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#46

Post by FireBeyond »

minikites wrote: post #16
S_A_P wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases, a Nest may not be a good investment. However, my home was built in the late 1970s where energy efficiency was not in the builders lexicon. I literally cut my electric bill by 50% with the nest vs the dial based thermostat that was included in the house. This paid for both of my nests in 2 months.(upstairs and down). Since then, I have saved that amount consistently all summer. Now I live in Houston, so…

But the Nest isn't competing with a dial thermostat, it's competing with a $20 programmable thermostat which will save you the same amount of money for 1/10th the cost.

That's a bit of a simplification. Things the Nest can do that a $20 programmable can't:

- use the thermostat, and the Protects, as occupancy sensors and do auto-away when it determines no-one is in the house - have a 'never below' temperature to prevent freezing of pipes, even if everything else says the heating should be off - learn about cooling and heating rates so that if I say I want the house to be 68F at 0600, it knows when to switch on based on what temperature the house cooled to the night before.

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#47

Post by nitrogen »

tonyarkles wrote: post #26

Time for a small rant. I mostly agree with the premise of the article (that most home automation products are too tech-user targeted), but I have an even bigger complaint: Automation doesn't mean that you can control it from your fucking iPhone. Automation means that I don't have to think about it. It happens automatically . I was looking at "automated" systems for underground sprinklers this summer and it drove me i…

it'd be really awesome if the lights in the living room dimmed when I started playing a movie (of course, with the option of turning them back up if I'm trying to do something else).

What do you think of the approach from this older video of mine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jeJSdJPpk

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#48

Post by saosebastiao »

jrcii wrote: post #2

tldr Home automation products tend to offer a lot of features to woo early-adopter technical investors likely to be on Kickstarter whereas simpler products would gain more traction long term

Entirely true, but I think the consumer's version of simplicity conflicts with the developer's view of it. Simplicity to the consumer often introduces a complexity to the developer on a whole new level of discomfort when compared to snazzy technical features. Technical features are for people that know how to communicate what they want to the system, but simple features often mean inferring what people want, without them telling the system and without even being able to communicate it at all.

The sprinkler use case above (tonyarkles) is an easy example, because there is a knowable science to healthy lawns. The light dimming is much more complex. How do you infer if someone wants the lights to brighten when they walk into the kitchen momentarily for a snack, even when a movie is on and you normally want them dimmed?

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#49

Post by S_A_P »

minikites wrote: post #16
S_A_P wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases, a Nest may not be a good investment. However, my home was built in the late 1970s where energy efficiency was not in the builders lexicon. I literally cut my electric bill by 50% with the nest vs the dial based thermostat that was included in the house. This paid for both of my nests in 2 months.(upstairs and down). Since then, I have saved that amount consistently all summer. Now I live in Houston, so…

But the Nest isn't competing with a dial thermostat, it's competing with a $20 programmable thermostat which will save you the same amount of money for 1/10th the cost.

I disagree- most of my savings come from the ability to a) shut off when we leave the house. You can program a thermostat to your work schedule and weekend schedule, but ours varies by enough that I would never be diligent enough to keep up with it(and I shouldnt have to be) b) take in consideration the external temperature and the properties of my house to know when to start cooling it down.

Re: How I Learned the Smart Home Industry Needs to Change, part 2

#50

Post by feld »

ghaff wrote: post #17
feld wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Automating turning off AC/Heat when you're not there saves a ton of money and is very low effort. Especially if you don't have a programmable thermostat at all. I cut my bill enough to cover the Nest in less than 3 months and I purchased it shortly after launch. For me it was the 80% and now I continue to work on fixing the rest of the problems with my AC/heat related costs.

Some level of programmability is probably worthwhile although you can get a lot of the same effect by manually turning the thermostat up and down which I do a lot anyway. And if I didn't have a programmable thermostat I might well spring for the extra dollars on the Nest if only for the cool factor. As it is I have a programmable thermostat that mostly works just fine. A lot of people are likely in that situation. I'…

Yes, because the average person has the willpower to go walk over to their thermostat all the time -- especially when they leave / come home.

Not a chance.

Post reply on HN