Here's what I want in a wireless lighting system: Wifi, every bulb should have master capable hardware (i.e. there should be no master bulb. Read: simplicity not complexity), simple, well design software, setting up a new bulb should be just about as easy as putting in a regular bulb, physical light switches should still work as expected (software should allow for this), even setting up the first bulb you buy just after downloading the app should be up and running in 15 seconds with no geek required (it literally should be a case of popping in the bulb opening the app and typing in your wifi password), no base station hardware (comically called a bridge), the bulb should be the only hardware, just like the current solution.
The first company to provide this has my business. End of discussion. I've seen all the solutions out there, including LifX: they all suck!
The problem you'll run into with no master hardware is more complex initial setup. Having the bulb talk to a dedicated repeater that connects to your network is the simplest of all solutions. It has all the brains. Imagine if you had to enter a WIFI password into each bulb before you use it. And how are you going to do that again??
Making the physical light switches work with the bulb without any changes couldn't happen unless a battery was included in the bulb. Turning off the light switch cuts power to the bulb. Unless you go to the switch and turn it on, you've just lost remote control capabilities. Now, if you replace the light switches with smart switches, you can wire them so power goes to the light all the time, and the switch is just a signal sender. This technology is readily available and reliable, although at about $50 per switch, it's not what I'd consider 'cheap' But they to use a bridge to connect. A bridge is definitely the right way to handle this, as WIFI technology is changing faster than you'd want to replace all of the lighting electronics in your house.
That's true, there are many cheaper alternatives. You can check the same item at http://www.applamp.nl, it's Dutch but the same product. Not sure what the shipping costs to Ireland are though...
This is closer to what I'm looking for, but not there. I particularly like the option of purchasing white bulbs. And obviously the price is appealing. $16 for a white bulb. This is a good starting price for this relatively new tech. The existence of the bridge sucks, however. And I don't want to hear someone saying it's not possible without a bridge. LifX (a product I'm not fond of for other reasons) has no bridge hardware.
But sadly it's around $100 to get a starter kit shipped to Ireland, which essentially consists of 2 bulbs. I don't count the bridge for reasons I've stated, and I would use the app.
Check out what happens if I order 1 white Limitless bulb:
1) The bridge is only necessary if you want to use the app.
With their $7 remote, you can directly control up to four groups of light bulbs, each with up to 100 bulbs.
You can use as few or as many remotes as you want, and you can control the same bulbs with different remotes.
It takes 3 seconds to program each bulb to a remote - much simpler than configuring the bridge by dicking around with IP addresses and passwords and firewalls.
Personally I find it ridiculous to have to unlock my phone and open an app every time I want to change the lighting.
A dedicated remote makes much more sense.
2) Shipping is from New Zealand, so yes it's expensive, but...
The trick is to buy a larger quantity. If you calculate how many bulbs you need for your home and only order bulbs and remotes without any bridges or starter kits, the overall cost per bulb will still be much cheaper than the Phillips option.
3) The white bulbs are better than the RGB bulbs
because the colored ones aren't as bright. Anyway, I consider the colored versions a gimmick.
Also, the remotes let you control the white bulbs' brightness and color temperature (warm to cool.)
At $60 a bulb, and they claim it's selling, I guess someone has to have their gadgets. There's always a niche market for something. I only want warm white.
I still haven't bought an bulb replacement style LED light, it seems too much more money for too little of an improvement. I've retrofit fixtures for linear fluorescent bulbs to LED for not much more than the cost of replacing the bulbs and ballasts, which they needed anyway.
There are cheaper alternatives available to the Phillips bulbs, and I think the ability to control the lights via a remote is a pretty substantial improvement.
The problem you'll run into with no master hardware is more complex initial setup. Having the bulb talk to a dedicated repeater that connects to your network is the simplest of all solutions. It has all the brains. Imagine if you had to enter a WIFI password into each bulb before you use it. And how are you going to do that again??
Making the physical light switches work with the bulb without any changes couldn't happen unless a battery was included in the bulb. Turning off the light switch cuts power to the bulb. Unless you go to the switch and turn it on, you've just lost remote control capabilities. Now, if you replace the light switches with smart switches, you can wire them so power goes to the light all the time, and the switch is just a signal sender. This technology is readily available and reliable, although at about $50 per switch, it's not what I'd consider 'cheap' But they to use a bridge to connect. A bridge is definitely the right way to handle this, as WIFI technology is changing faster than you'd want to replace all of the lighting electronics in your house.
The switch could have an electronically controlled solenoid to keep its manual functionality. No batteries needed. Like how your car locks might have manual and remote control abilities.
There are cheaper alternatives available to the Phillips bulbs, and I think the ability to control the lights via a remote is a pretty substantial improvement.
I much prefer Tallest's suggestion of making the switch smarter, a switch with WiFi or BlueTooth control means you don't have to throw away those wireless circuits when the bulb goes bad. There's enough circuitry in some of the "dumb" bulbs as it is. A smart switch would cost a lot less than all the smart bulbs you have to run on the circuit. To have each bulb independently controlled and particularly independently color adjustable on a wireless network is (I think) of dubious value.
Comments
okay how long before there is an app for people in Colorado or Washington that controls their lighting based on their, um, "mood"
Yes, but in relation to my comment you replied to? And why all the rambling about landfills, etc.?
Originally Posted by Ireland
Yes, but in relation to my comment you replied to? And why all the rambling about landfills, etc.?
Whoop, quoted the wrong one. The post of yours quoted in the post below the post that replied to the post of yours that I quoted. The big one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Here's what I want in a wireless lighting system: Wifi, every bulb should have master capable hardware (i.e. there should be no master bulb. Read: simplicity not complexity), simple, well design software, setting up a new bulb should be just about as easy as putting in a regular bulb, physical light switches should still work as expected (software should allow for this), even setting up the first bulb you buy just after downloading the app should be up and running in 15 seconds with no geek required (it literally should be a case of popping in the bulb opening the app and typing in your wifi password), no base station hardware (comically called a bridge), the bulb should be the only hardware, just like the current solution.
The first company to provide this has my business. End of discussion. I've seen all the solutions out there, including LifX: they all suck!
The problem you'll run into with no master hardware is more complex initial setup. Having the bulb talk to a dedicated repeater that connects to your network is the simplest of all solutions. It has all the brains. Imagine if you had to enter a WIFI password into each bulb before you use it. And how are you going to do that again??
Making the physical light switches work with the bulb without any changes couldn't happen unless a battery was included in the bulb. Turning off the light switch cuts power to the bulb. Unless you go to the switch and turn it on, you've just lost remote control capabilities. Now, if you replace the light switches with smart switches, you can wire them so power goes to the light all the time, and the switch is just a signal sender. This technology is readily available and reliable, although at about $50 per switch, it's not what I'd consider 'cheap' But they to use a bridge to connect. A bridge is definitely the right way to handle this, as WIFI technology is changing faster than you'd want to replace all of the lighting electronics in your house.
You can check the same item at http://www.applamp.nl, it's Dutch but the same product.
Not sure what the shipping costs to Ireland are though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
This is closer to what I'm looking for, but not there. I particularly like the option of purchasing white bulbs. And obviously the price is appealing. $16 for a white bulb. This is a good starting price for this relatively new tech. The existence of the bridge sucks, however. And I don't want to hear someone saying it's not possible without a bridge. LifX (a product I'm not fond of for other reasons) has no bridge hardware.
But sadly it's around $100 to get a starter kit shipped to Ireland, which essentially consists of 2 bulbs. I don't count the bridge for reasons I've stated, and I would use the app.
Check out what happens if I order 1 white Limitless bulb:
1) The bridge is only necessary if you want to use the app.
With their $7 remote, you can directly control up to four groups of light bulbs, each with up to 100 bulbs.
You can use as few or as many remotes as you want, and you can control the same bulbs with different remotes.
It takes 3 seconds to program each bulb to a remote - much simpler than configuring the bridge by dicking around with IP addresses and passwords and firewalls.
Personally I find it ridiculous to have to unlock my phone and open an app every time I want to change the lighting.
A dedicated remote makes much more sense.
2) Shipping is from New Zealand, so yes it's expensive, but...
The trick is to buy a larger quantity. If you calculate how many bulbs you need for your home and only order bulbs and remotes without any bridges or starter kits, the overall cost per bulb will still be much cheaper than the Phillips option.
3) The white bulbs are better than the RGB bulbs
because the colored ones aren't as bright. Anyway, I consider the colored versions a gimmick.
Also, the remotes let you control the white bulbs' brightness and color temperature (warm to cool.)
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
At $60 a bulb, and they claim it's selling, I guess someone has to have their gadgets. There's always a niche market for something. I only want warm white.
I still haven't bought an bulb replacement style LED light, it seems too much more money for too little of an improvement. I've retrofit fixtures for linear fluorescent bulbs to LED for not much more than the cost of replacing the bulbs and ballasts, which they needed anyway.
There are cheaper alternatives available to the Phillips bulbs, and I think the ability to control the lights via a remote is a pretty substantial improvement.
The switch could have an electronically controlled solenoid to keep its manual functionality. No batteries needed. Like how your car locks might have manual and remote control abilities.
I much prefer Tallest's suggestion of making the switch smarter, a switch with WiFi or BlueTooth control means you don't have to throw away those wireless circuits when the bulb goes bad. There's enough circuitry in some of the "dumb" bulbs as it is. A smart switch would cost a lot less than all the smart bulbs you have to run on the circuit. To have each bulb independently controlled and particularly independently color adjustable on a wireless network is (I think) of dubious value.