Philips reverses decision to close the Hue Platform • Hacker News Board

Re: Philips reverses decision to close the Hue Platform

#161

Post by jads » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #119

masukomi wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, selection bias but the fact that he had a constant stream of people thinking that proves the point that many folks just don't have a freaking clue about how computers work or what's responsible for what.

No one is disputing that there are many people like that; the question is, how many in relation to more savvy customers, and whether this amount is in any way significant for the company.

Since tech-savvy folks tend not to contact support, I'd wager this would've been viewed as significant.

Re: Philips reverses decision to close the Hue Platform

#162

Post by jads » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #83

jads wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in tech support for many years, and the vast majority of people would blame the PC manufacturer or the operating system for the problems. I spent many years on the Genius Bar (back in the PowerPC and early Intel days) and, in almost, every interaction, the device was to blame - as far as the customer was concerned. In some cases, they were right, in others it was due to outdated software, buggy third-part…

It's true, but wouldn't you receive extraordinary amount of misplaced calls anyway? I remember discussing with a website support guy who would get calls about printers not working, screen flickering and claims about some other unrelated websites that he didn't even know existed. There is of course tweaks that can be made to a product to reduce the amount of support calls, but misplaced blame should be par for the cou…

True, but limiting their system to first-party bulbs will likely mean a higher resolution rate and avoids the dreaded "sorry, you're going to have to speak to the bulb manufacturer". There's nothing more toxic to a customer support experience than two separate companies saying the other is to blame.

Re: Philips reverses decision to close the Hue Platform

#163

Post by jads » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:47 PM UTC

emp_zealoth wrote: post #84

jads wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in tech support for many years, and the vast majority of people would blame the PC manufacturer or the operating system for the problems. I spent many years on the Genius Bar (back in the PowerPC and early Intel days) and, in almost, every interaction, the device was to blame - as far as the customer was concerned. In some cases, they were right, in others it was due to outdated software, buggy third-part…

Well, the printers part is kind of wrong - of course it is a printers fault - if it sabotages the cartridges

Actually, this statement is kind of wrong - it's only the printers fault if it sabotages the cartridges. What if it doesn't? It could be the case that the cartridge was faulty, I wouldn't assume all printers sabotage cartridges (I use third-party epson ones all the time, have had the occasional faulty one).

Not disputing that some printers just refuse to work with third-party carts, but it's not the case with most printers I've used.

Re: Philips reverses decision to close the Hue Platform

#164

Post by fastball » Fri, Dec 18, 2015, 1:16 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #99

fastball wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples and oranges. Pure hardware is a lot easier to make compatible consistently than hardware+software.

Huh? There's a lot of software involved in wired networking. Way more than for lightbulbs, I'd suspect. And yet they all interoperate via open standards, and any vendor that tried to sell equipment that only worked with their own equipment would be laughed at of the market.

An ethernet cable does not contain any software. A smart lightbulb does.

Re: Philips reverses decision to close the Hue Platform

#165

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 11:41 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #164

CydeWeys wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? There's a lot of software involved in wired networking. Way more than for lightbulbs, I'd suspect. And yet they all interoperate via open standards, and any vendor that tried to sell equipment that only worked with their own equipment would be laughed at of the market.

An ethernet cable does not contain any software. A smart lightbulb does.

But now you've drawn an irrelevant comparison. The power line and socket that the smart lightbulb is connected to don't contain any software. Those are the parts that are analogous to a simple Ethernet wire (which is really just eight separate leads instead of three). The smart lightbulb itself is analogous to a router.

Re: Philips reverses decision to close the Hue Platform

#166

Post by yourapostasy » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 11:35 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #149

yourapostasy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speak with tech support for other vendors enough, and the same picture emerges. As computers and software take on a greater utility role with more users, this is likely to be expected. Steve Jobs' early instinct to deliver a walled garden experience to consumers was correct. My guess is we'll see a widening bifurcation of the market, where consumers go ever-deeper into a walled garden, while professionals/commercial…

The reverse seems to be true now with the closed gear commanding outsized prices I see no particular reason why this should be reversed. Factually I think we should forbid selling devices we are forbidden to touch and avoid the whole issue.

I hope you are right, and I'm wrong. I suspect this is a temporary, happy circumstance that we enjoy today, due to the segment of history we inhabit, but am concerned it will be reversed due to physics, further market segmentation, and an ongoing miniaturization mania.

As semiconductor fabrication processes get smaller, die sizes larger, and operating frequencies higher, I think we will see the hardware become more opaque. Already the test equipment to hack on cutting edge workstation- and server-class processors is spendy; just a 2GHz 10GS/s oscilloscope is 5 figures USD $ even used and just-calibrated. As manufacturers head towards greater integration on the die to differentiate themselves in a furiously- and constantly-commoditizing industry, we'll likely see more binary blobs at first, then market segmentation hits those of us who want open/powerful gear with a double-whammy. We enjoy the fruits of commodified hardware components now, but I'm not sanguine that state of affairs will last indefinitely due to the aforementioned integration trends.

As everyone noticed that personalized gear enjoys outsized margins, we're seeing ever-increased pressure to further integrate and miniaturize into smaller packaging; repairability and accessibility to the hardware not invited at all to the design party. I really wish this specific trend would reverse.

I suspect that the PC as we know it will morph into a greater walled-garden device in the next several decades, and if we want open/powerful gear we will find ourselves in a tiny market segment. At best, paying very high prices for the small volumes catered to, and at worst, in a technology ghetto.

For now, I agree with you, but the long-term constraints are not promising to me further openness of the hardware.