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

Smartphone ≠ smart home

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#41

Post by vitaflo »

coldtea wrote: post #35

> Smart homes are not a thing of the future anymore. Right now, 100 “things” per second are connecting to the internet. By 2020, more than 250 things will connect each second. Probably unpopular in a programming forum, but, aside for people with physical difficulties, did anyone (e.g. more than a few outliers, not literally anyone as in > 0) ever asked for a "smart home"? And before someone replies with the quote abo…

Depends how you phrase the question. Do I want a water sensor by my sump pump that will alert me if it overflows? Yes. Do I want to have my garage door close automatically if I forget to close it? Yeah that makes me feel safer. Do I want to be able to set the thermostat when I'm not at home? Yeah, that's handy.

Do I want to turn on lights, lock the doors, or raise the temp when I'm actually at home with a smartphone? No, that's just silly.

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#42

Post by markbao »

dangrossman wrote: post #36

Instead of a $99 custom button, what about a sub-$99 Android tablet? You can put them anywhere you'd put the button, and leave your home control app running with the screen set to never turn off. Turning on/off a light with a touch will then be no more effort than flicking a light switch -- there's nothing to take out of your pocket, no waiting for an app to open. This is how my home works. I built the app that runs…

This is really awesome and a good example of a cheap Android device as glass for software (what a world). Do you just have it instant-on when you push the power button? What about having it automatically wake up when you pick it up? (Since yours is a web-app, it might require you to use something like Tasker to do it.)

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#43

Post by dangrossman »

markbao wrote: post #42
dangrossman wrote: post #36

Instead of a $99 custom button, what about a sub-$99 Android tablet? You can put them anywhere you'd put the button, and leave your home control app running with the screen set to never turn off. Turning on/off a light with a touch will then be no more effort than flicking a light switch -- there's nothing to take out of your pocket, no waiting for an app to open. This is how my home works. I built the app that runs…

This is really awesome and a good example of a cheap Android device as glass for software (what a world). Do you just have it instant-on when you push the power button? What about having it automatically wake up when you pick it up? (Since yours is a web-app, it might require you to use something like Tasker to do it.)

I mounted the tablets on walls with $10 kits from Amazon that use those 3M removable strips to hold the mounts, and drilled small holes for charging cords. I have the screens set to never turn off, and leave the browser open. So all the buttons are always just there on the wall, ready to be pressed. Nothing needs to wake up first.

BTW, Windows 8 8" tablets are now under $100 at Wal-Mart and Best Buy, so you aren't even limited to Android for this kind of thing anymore.

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#44

Post by andars »

I feel like I must be missing something about the concept of a "smart home". Why can't I just leave the light switch (or any other controller) how it is and just have an additional Internet-based fancy control for automation or use when I am away from home? I don't see the need for any new control interfaces for things I can already control perfectly well.

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#45

Post by tmuir »

coldtea wrote: post #37
untog wrote: post #12

Smartphone controlled anything never feels great to me. If I have to type in code to unlock my keypad, then wait for an app to launch, just to change the temperature on the thermostat, it's already over. On a similar note, I wanted to love the Chromecast, but I found the phone to be a terrible controller. Now I use a Roku, which has a great remote. Instead of my girlfriend and I crowding ourselves around a tiny smart…

> Smartphone controlled anything never feels great to me. If I have to type in code to unlock my keypad, then wait for an app to launch, just to change the temperature on the thermostat, it's already over. For one, newer smartphones will mostly come with fingerprint sensors. So no code typing there. Second, apps launch almost instantly in any recent iOS or Android phone. It's not like you'll wait 1 minute for he app…

Some of the first world problems of HN users using technology are beyond the pale. I was arguing mouse vs remote/phone for playing media on a media server, and someone's retort was that a mouse would require them to have a surface upon which to use the mouse at their couch. I've spent way too much time envisioning this mythical surfaceless couch and person.

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#46

Post by walterbell »

coldtea wrote: post #38
lelandbatey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet all of those actions pale in comparison to just picking up a remote with nice tactile buttons and using it immediately, no weird navigation, no apps, nothing. I mean, I'd still use my smartphone as a remote for other reasons. But the parent does make a good point.

So, instead of the phone (which for most people is always with you), have an extra task-specific remote, to feed with batteries, lose, and go fetch from another room when you need it. Plus "nice tactile buttons"? 2005 called. Of all the things one would need those for, setting a thermostat (which takes like 5 seconds) is very low in utility...

Some people like using the human sense of touch. Just because there is not yet a billion-dollar corporation profiting from "tactile input devices" (http://research.nokia.com/publication/11833), doesn't mean we all have to buy into the marketing of "screens-and-rectangles" manufacturers who are optimizing for the visual sense.

When the iWatch launches, it will become "fashionable" to receive signals via vibration, i.e. tactile input. Apple and others will make sure we remember our sense of touch, because it has been monetized. We don't need to wait for each of our senses to be monetized, before recognizing that they are already useful with proven technology.

A special-function remote or panel has fixed positions and shapes that can be stored in motor memory, requiring minimal use of the visual sensory system, without the need for eye-hand coordination to push soft buttons on a smartphone.

Note: the act of getting up and sitting down is good for health, as astronauts will attest from experience in gravity-free environments.

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#47

Post by vmarsy »

coldtea wrote: post #37
untog wrote: post #12

Smartphone controlled anything never feels great to me. If I have to type in code to unlock my keypad, then wait for an app to launch, just to change the temperature on the thermostat, it's already over. On a similar note, I wanted to love the Chromecast, but I found the phone to be a terrible controller. Now I use a Roku, which has a great remote. Instead of my girlfriend and I crowding ourselves around a tiny smart…

> Smartphone controlled anything never feels great to me. If I have to type in code to unlock my keypad, then wait for an app to launch, just to change the temperature on the thermostat, it's already over. For one, newer smartphones will mostly come with fingerprint sensors. So no code typing there. Second, apps launch almost instantly in any recent iOS or Android phone. It's not like you'll wait 1 minute for he app…

I think the parent comment is right,

>For one, newer smartphones will mostly come with fingerprint sensors. So no code typing there.

You're here assuming that people own the latest phone. You could have smart lights for $150 at some point, it doesn't mean that you have the latest smartphone with fingerprint reader.

>Second, apps launch almost instantly in any recent iOS or Android phone. It's not like you'll wait 1 minute for he app to launch or anything.

Again you're assuming people have the latest smartphones, also even if the app launch immediately, it takes some times to get a connection between your smartphone and your IoT device

>Third, "it's already over" over typing and app-launching wait time? Oh, the humanity. I've lived in houses where the thermostat was in a specific room, or even in the basement next to the heater.

_today's_ user experience with a smartphone is sometimes worst than controlling the device, just because it was much worse some years ago doesn't mean we have to accept it. It is like saying "Get this new car with a maximum speed of 30mph, it's OK people use to ride a horse back in the time"

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#48

Post by tty7 »

dangrossman wrote: post #36

Instead of a $99 custom button, what about a sub-$99 Android tablet? You can put them anywhere you'd put the button, and leave your home control app running with the screen set to never turn off. Turning on/off a light with a touch will then be no more effort than flicking a light switch -- there's nothing to take out of your pocket, no waiting for an app to open. This is how my home works. I built the app that runs…

Nice, I've done similar but used a nexus 7 with a modded kernel so I can double tap the screen to turn it on.

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#49

Post by lucaspiller »

dicroce wrote: post #29

It's 2014 (almost 2015). It's time my house knows to turn the hallway light on FOR me because it's night time and I'm walking in that direction.

Using a system like Z-Wave you can already do this. The problem is that as you need a lighting controller, multiple motion sensors and a base station it's not cheap - mainly due to licensing fees.

Re: Smartphone ≠ smart home

#50

Post by minthd »

dangrossman wrote: post #36

Instead of a $99 custom button, what about a sub-$99 Android tablet? You can put them anywhere you'd put the button, and leave your home control app running with the screen set to never turn off. Turning on/off a light with a touch will then be no more effort than flicking a light switch -- there's nothing to take out of your pocket, no waiting for an app to open. This is how my home works. I built the app that runs…

Is there value in that context for a tablet with an e-ink display that's movable and could last long without recharging ?
Post reply on HN