These devices are out there already, and, you are right, they are very expensive. Prices of items like this fall as they gain more and more acceptance. The first iPods were 5GB and cost $499 (I think), but a current nano with 4GB and better in almost every other way is now $149. Prices on these remote control outlets out to go from ~$40 to the ten dollar range.
As far as heating and AC are concerned, you will change the thermostat settings remotely.
Nevertheless, home automation today looks like personal computers did in the mid seventies: expensive and impractical. Look what Apple did for the universal acceptance of personal computers everywhere. I think they can do similarly for home automation.
But is that necessary in order to achieve what you want.
A $20 coffee maker has a clock that will turn on the coffee maker in the morning. A $300 dishwasher has a 4 hour delay button. A simple $50 controller can water your lawn at night. How hard it is to make a clothes dryer with a time delay button?
A cheap digital thermostat can already program to make your home colder or warmer when you are not home in the day time or after you fall asleep. Is it necessary to spend thousands of dollars on a smart thermostat so you can phone in by SMS and change your home's temperature by 1 degree because you have nothing to do in the office?
I don't think people will "fine tune" their home's thermostat remotely by their mobile phone to delay heating up the furnace from the normal 5pm schedule to 5:30pm because they decided to stop by the local supermarket after work that day. I don't think people will "fine tune" their lawn watering schedule because they saw on the weather channel that it will rain tomorrow.
As with your ipod example --- people spent a lot of money on structured wiring so that they can have audio in the whole house or route dvd's from the living room to the bedroom. But the price of a ipod drop so much that your entire music library can be store into a $100 ipod and you can buy a dvd player for $20 from walmart --- don't need to spend thousands of dollars on structured wiring. Same thing with the tivo's and blu-ray players in a couple year's time --- it's going to be so cheap that you can have one in every room.
What I saw was people wondering whether it has sufficient benefit over what's already there. Like it or not, similar software needs something really special to be viable against competition that's already installed.
In another sub-discussion, you mentioned X10. Have you tried it? I have and I wasn't impressed.
Years ago, I designed a bunch of systems around it using Atari ST's. They were pretty good systems. You could do almost anything. Since I'm not really into the total house control thing, I haven't done one for myself.
Nah, that is way too long. It is much shorter than that with companies such as KPCB (but more than 10 days, I'l grant).
This fund is just only getting started, and I'll bet the applications don't all come in at once. how many people do you think they have going over this? They need phone technology experts, software experts, business experts, etc. I really don't think they have that many.
While KPCB is certainly experienced, this is only one small area of operation from them. It will get a percentage of their people, and not that many, surely not at first.
I don't really see the need for venture capitalist funding in the first place. For starters does it really take much funding, if any to actually develop iPhone apps in the first place? Many developers will be doing it out of their homes, in their spare time. You don't need offices, staff, or even any kind of real setup, since Apple will be doing the hosting and order processing.
Second, won't most apps be free? Even if a paid app becomes popular, there will be a rush of free clones diluting its value. And because of the minimalist nature of the iPhone (screen size, memory, CPU, storage, etc), there won't be the huge difference you get with, say, a program like Photoshop compared to Gimp. I don't forsee many programs that will generate a lot of revenue, except for mini versions of established programs (Quicken, MS Office) that offer tight integration with the desktop versions. And those companies don't need funding. I could see some games becoming big sellers, but again many will come from well established companies that doesn't need funding. There will be some breakthrough indie titles no doubt, but how likely is the VC going to distinguish these?
Pretty much no to all of that.
What you're stating is a idealized version of the way things work.
No, most apps won't be free. most people want to make a living off their work, or at least suppliment their income.
No, most apps won't be written in people's homes. Sure, some of it will.
No, there will be a lot of phones out there after two three, and more years. The hope is that there will be apps that can sell in the low millions. If Apple has 40 million phones out there, which will certainly be happening after another two years or so, that level of sales becomes very possible. Selling an app at the low phone app price of about $20, could lead to $20 to $50 million in sales over some time.
That ain't peanuts, and is why the funding is happening.
Small developers may want, and need, a small amount, say $10,000. Others might need $100,000. It depends.
No, most apps won't be free. most people want to make a living off their work, or at least suppliment their income.
Selling an app at the low phone app price of about $20, could lead to $20 to $50 million in sales over some time.
I watched Steve's SDK presentation and I believe he said he expected most to be free. You would think most programmers would want a return on their work, but look around the internet- there are countless free programs, many very good. Again, because of the minimal nature of the iPhone, there will be a much smaller gap between free and paid programs. I don't understand why so many release their work for free, but they do.
$20 actually seems kind of high for an iPhone app. I figure most that aren't free would sell for $5-10. I think the majority of iPhone users will never pay for an app or at at most buy one or two cheap apps. Some will never even download a free one- they're pefectly happy with the iPhone as it is. Most people don't obsess about technology the way people on forums like this do- they want their computers or iPhones to do a small range of tasks (email, web surfing, music) and that's it.
Apps intended for small vertical business markets will sell for more, but their appeal will be limited.
I watched Steve's SDK presentation and I believe he said he expected most to be free. You would think most programmers would want a return on their work, but look around the internet- there are countless free programs, many very good. Again, because of the minimal nature of the iPhone, there will be a much smaller gap between free and paid programs. I don't understand why so many release their work for free, but they do.
$20 actually seems kind of high for an iPhone app. I figure most that aren't free would sell for $5-10. I think the majority of iPhone users will never pay for an app or at at most buy one or two cheap apps. Some will never even download a free one- they're pefectly happy with the iPhone as it is. Most people don't obsess about technology the way people on forums like this do- they want their computers or iPhones to do a small range of tasks (email, web surfing, music) and that's it.
Apps intended for small vertical business markets will sell for more, but their appeal will be limited.
I don't remember getting that impression at all.
What he did say is that companies would have free applications to give away.
We see that now for the Mac. A fair number of companies with commercial applications also have free ones. Adobe has several, so do many others.
Then there will be, hopefully, shareware. Then also some freeware.
I don't really see the need for venture capitalist funding in the first place. For starters does it really take much funding, if any to actually develop iPhone apps in the first place? Many developers will be doing it out of their homes, in their spare time. You don't need offices, staff, or even any kind of real setup, since Apple will be doing the hosting and order processing.
Second, won't most apps be free? Even if a paid app becomes popular, there will be a rush of free clones diluting its value. <snip> There will be some breakthrough indie titles no doubt, but how likely is the VC going to distinguish these?
As for the "most apps for free" part, it depends on how you look at it. Sure there may be a thousand apps written by hobbyists in their spare time that do simple and maybe even ingenious things. Several may become very poopular and maybe many, many of them will be free.
But in the area of apps that charge more and make more money, it may be a different picure--you may see more established software vendors putting out more accomplished products. New startups aiming to compete in this arena may need real money go get things going. Of course, it is all speculation at this point.
In terms of not needing VC, did you look at the two proposals mentioned in the article? Whether you agree that these ideas are going to be popular or not, they are not the type of software that someone produces in their spare time. They are looking to coordinate vast ammounts of information (Pelago) or possibly create a whole new standard in home automation (iConorol). These are going to take time and staff to develop, and they are likley to need years to catch on (assuming that they do) even after the first versions are produced.
Sure, Johnny will not need funding to write that iPhone countdown timer to WWDC 2009 app.
And Microsoft will not need funding to bring Word's clutter to the small screen.
But some apps will need funding and the VCs are assuming that at least a few of them will be able to sell many for a real price!
But is that necessary in order to achieve what you want.
A $20 coffee maker has a clock that will turn on the coffee maker in the morning. A $300 dishwasher has a 4 hour delay button. A simple $50 controller can water your lawn at night. How hard it is to make a clothes dryer with a time delay button?
But each requires that you RTFM and figure out how to work each gadget's particular system. These features tend to go unused by the vast majority of consumers, even if it would make their lives a little bit better. These kind of timers will be used more often if they can be set with a simple, intuitve consistent UI from the comfort of your friendly Mac. BTW, people often unplug coffee makers for thorough cleaning, so to continue using the timer, you have to set the time AND the timer all over again.
Quote:
A cheap digital thermostat can already program to make your home colder or warmer when you are not home in the day time or after you fall asleep. Is it necessary to spend thousands of dollars on a smart thermostat so you can phone in by SMS and change your home's temperature by 1 degree because you have nothing to do in the office?
I don't think people will "fine tune" their home's thermostat remotely by their mobile phone to delay heating up the furnace from the normal 5pm schedule to 5:30pm because they decided to stop by the local supermarket after work that day.
Have you set one lately? It is a pretty harrowing affair! Also, you are neglecting that factors other than time of day can be used to adjust your home's climate. The presence of people is one that comes to mind. Instead of letting the indoor temperature to rise in the summer at a set time, it waits until everyone leaves. It might kick on when it "sees" you are five miles away and approaching.
And don't bother me with trivial examples. Suppose I notice that someone turned my thermostat down to 76F on a day where its going to be near 100F and left the house. If I let the temp go to 83F, I'll save a lot of money on A/C. It's not going to cost thousands of dollars -- existing models are still too expensive in the $200 range.
Quote:
I don't think people will "fine tune" their lawn watering schedule because they saw on the weather channel that it will rain tomorrow.
What if the lawn watering schedule adjusted itself by measuring the moisture level of the soil, tracking barometric pressure and humidity trends and tracking weather forecasts to water only when needed and not watering before a storm? Water is not expensive, per se, but we are becoming more and more aware of how important it is to use it wisely.
Quote:
As with your ipod example --- people spent a lot of money on structured wiring so that they can have audio in the whole house or route dvd's from the living room to the bedroom. But the price of a ipod drop so much that your entire music library can be store into a $100 ipod and you can buy a dvd player for $20 from walmart --- don't need to spend thousands of dollars on structured wiring. Same thing with the tivo's and blu-ray players in a couple year's time --- it's going to be so cheap that you can have one in every room.
And what about the poor bastards that ran Ethernet cable throughout the house only to see the advent of 802.11n that is fast enough for almost everyone? I guess some people need Gigabit Ethernet, but I don't know any of them.
Your point is, essentially, why pay infinity dollars for trivial functionality? My point is that with a pitched effort, Apple can make home automation have great functionality for a reasonable price.
Your point is, essentially, why pay infinity dollars for trivial functionality? My point is that with a pitched effort, Apple can make home automation have great functionality for a reasonable price.
I wouldn't say it's trivial functionality, but I would say that it's trivial payback.
You either care about saving energy or not. If you care about it --- you buy energy star products (most people buy energy star appliances because there is a government rebate) and you read the manual. And if you follow the manual, you already save 95% of the energy (i.e. by delaying the dishwasher until 10 pm at night or by raising/lowering temperature when you go to work or go to sleep) or water (watering the lawn at night on a schedule suitable for your grass species).
Personally, I like to take the clean dishes out of the dishwasher before I go to bed --- so normally I don't use the delay button on the dishwasher. However, whenever there is a heatwave warning and electricity shortage warnings --- I do use the delay button then.
I don't think people will care about the other 5% energy and water savings enough in order for them to spend the extra money on these smart home control systems.
I don't want to be living in your house --- it's like seinfeld living in the soup nazi regime (you mess with my thermostat, no heat for you). Are you going to yell at your kids just because they mess up with the thermostat for that single day? I could just imagine your kids wearing thick thick sweaters in your house in the winter time because you put in a parental lock on the thermostat. Anytime somebody requests a change on your thermostat, a SMS is sent to your cellphone for your approval.
I wouldn't say it's trivial functionality, but I would say that it's trivial payback.
You either care about saving energy or not. If you care about it --- you buy energy star products and you read the manual. And if you follow the manual, you already save ... of the energy (i.e. by delaying the dishwasher until 10 pm at night...
While you MIGHT save a few percent on your bill if you don't wash your clothes or dishes until late at night, you won't be saving any energy. Where did you come up with that? It takes the same energy no matter when you do it.
While you MIGHT save a few percent on your bill if you don't wash your clothes or dishes until late at night, you won't be saving any energy. Where did you come up with that? It takes the same energy no matter when you do it.
Of course you are right. You only save energy if you use the dishwasher's smart programs (i.e. sensors telling the dishwasher that there is not a lot of dirty dishes so the dishwashing cycle is shortened --- thus saving energy).
Of course you are right. You only save energy if you use the dishwasher's smart programs (i.e. sensors telling the dishwasher that there is not a lot of dirty dishes so the dishwashing cycle is shortened --- thus saving energy).
I don't want to be living in your house --- it's like seinfeld living in the soup nazi regime (you mess with my thermostat, no heat for you).
I'm not so sure I want to be living here, either. I don't mind the house being cool -- when there are people there, but I want to keep my electricity consumption to an absolute minimum when it's EMPTY!
About your apparent violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics pointed out by melgross: I'm guessing you live in a place where the power has different rates depending on the time of day (and/or day of week), so the number of kilowatt-hours your dishwasher uses is always the same, but the amount you pay is less. Am I right?
While you MIGHT save a few percent on your bill if you don't wash your clothes or dishes until late at night, you won't be saving any energy. Where did you come up with that? It takes the same energy no matter when you do it.
It is true that the energy use is probably the same unless outdoor temperatures are a factor.
But as for the savings, as I understand with a conversation I had, in some places, off-peak power use vs. on-peak power use can be over 25% difference because the cost of electricity changes based on when the power is used.
I'm not so sure I want to be living here, either. I don't mind the house being cool -- when there are people there, but I want to keep my electricity consumption to an absolute minimum when it's EMPTY!
About your apparent violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics pointed out by melgross: I'm guessing you live in a place where the power has different rates depending on the time of day (and/or day of week), so the number of kilowatt-hours your dishwasher uses is always the same, but the amount you pay is less. Am I right?
I was assuming he misspoke, but didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.
It is true that the energy use is probably the same unless outdoor temperatures are a factor.
But as for the savings, as I understand with a conversation I had, in some places, off-peak power use vs. on-peak power use can be over 25% difference.
Oh, Jeff, come on. Who leaves their dishwasher or washing machine outside? Even though most of the better ones heat the cold water coming in rather than use the hot water from the heater, that water temperature remains the same day and night, and only changes slowly, with the seasons. Washing machines and dishwashers are insulated, so the temperature difference in the house is of no import. It doesn't vary enough to make a difference anyway. That's easily calculated. And if it did make a very small difference, it would go up at night, not down.
Monetary savings is something else. We all agree that if it varies with overall usage in your area by time, then you could save money.
The ROI on any Home Automation system is going to be poor. There's just not enough of an ecosystem in place to make HA pay for itself. Thus the prime motivator for HA will be one of convenience.
Being able to control lighting, control motorized blinds and other creature comforts will probably play a bigger role in HA than going Green and conserving power.
I'm thinking about ways of making home life more efficient though.
Comments
These devices are out there already, and, you are right, they are very expensive. Prices of items like this fall as they gain more and more acceptance. The first iPods were 5GB and cost $499 (I think), but a current nano with 4GB and better in almost every other way is now $149. Prices on these remote control outlets out to go from ~$40 to the ten dollar range.
As far as heating and AC are concerned, you will change the thermostat settings remotely.
Nevertheless, home automation today looks like personal computers did in the mid seventies: expensive and impractical. Look what Apple did for the universal acceptance of personal computers everywhere. I think they can do similarly for home automation.
But is that necessary in order to achieve what you want.
A $20 coffee maker has a clock that will turn on the coffee maker in the morning. A $300 dishwasher has a 4 hour delay button. A simple $50 controller can water your lawn at night. How hard it is to make a clothes dryer with a time delay button?
A cheap digital thermostat can already program to make your home colder or warmer when you are not home in the day time or after you fall asleep. Is it necessary to spend thousands of dollars on a smart thermostat so you can phone in by SMS and change your home's temperature by 1 degree because you have nothing to do in the office?
I don't think people will "fine tune" their home's thermostat remotely by their mobile phone to delay heating up the furnace from the normal 5pm schedule to 5:30pm because they decided to stop by the local supermarket after work that day. I don't think people will "fine tune" their lawn watering schedule because they saw on the weather channel that it will rain tomorrow.
As with your ipod example --- people spent a lot of money on structured wiring so that they can have audio in the whole house or route dvd's from the living room to the bedroom. But the price of a ipod drop so much that your entire music library can be store into a $100 ipod and you can buy a dvd player for $20 from walmart --- don't need to spend thousands of dollars on structured wiring. Same thing with the tivo's and blu-ray players in a couple year's time --- it's going to be so cheap that you can have one in every room.
What I saw was people wondering whether it has sufficient benefit over what's already there. Like it or not, similar software needs something really special to be viable against competition that's already installed.
In another sub-discussion, you mentioned X10. Have you tried it? I have and I wasn't impressed.
Years ago, I designed a bunch of systems around it using Atari ST's. They were pretty good systems. You could do almost anything. Since I'm not really into the total house control thing, I haven't done one for myself.
But there are good parts out there, and bad ones.
Nah, that is way too long. It is much shorter than that with companies such as KPCB (but more than 10 days, I'l grant).
This fund is just only getting started, and I'll bet the applications don't all come in at once. how many people do you think they have going over this? They need phone technology experts, software experts, business experts, etc. I really don't think they have that many.
While KPCB is certainly experienced, this is only one small area of operation from them. It will get a percentage of their people, and not that many, surely not at first.
I don't really see the need for venture capitalist funding in the first place. For starters does it really take much funding, if any to actually develop iPhone apps in the first place? Many developers will be doing it out of their homes, in their spare time. You don't need offices, staff, or even any kind of real setup, since Apple will be doing the hosting and order processing.
Second, won't most apps be free? Even if a paid app becomes popular, there will be a rush of free clones diluting its value. And because of the minimalist nature of the iPhone (screen size, memory, CPU, storage, etc), there won't be the huge difference you get with, say, a program like Photoshop compared to Gimp. I don't forsee many programs that will generate a lot of revenue, except for mini versions of established programs (Quicken, MS Office) that offer tight integration with the desktop versions. And those companies don't need funding. I could see some games becoming big sellers, but again many will come from well established companies that doesn't need funding. There will be some breakthrough indie titles no doubt, but how likely is the VC going to distinguish these?
Pretty much no to all of that.
What you're stating is a idealized version of the way things work.
No, most apps won't be free. most people want to make a living off their work, or at least suppliment their income.
No, most apps won't be written in people's homes. Sure, some of it will.
No, there will be a lot of phones out there after two three, and more years. The hope is that there will be apps that can sell in the low millions. If Apple has 40 million phones out there, which will certainly be happening after another two years or so, that level of sales becomes very possible. Selling an app at the low phone app price of about $20, could lead to $20 to $50 million in sales over some time.
That ain't peanuts, and is why the funding is happening.
Small developers may want, and need, a small amount, say $10,000. Others might need $100,000. It depends.
No, most apps won't be free. most people want to make a living off their work, or at least suppliment their income.
Selling an app at the low phone app price of about $20, could lead to $20 to $50 million in sales over some time.
I watched Steve's SDK presentation and I believe he said he expected most to be free. You would think most programmers would want a return on their work, but look around the internet- there are countless free programs, many very good. Again, because of the minimal nature of the iPhone, there will be a much smaller gap between free and paid programs. I don't understand why so many release their work for free, but they do.
$20 actually seems kind of high for an iPhone app. I figure most that aren't free would sell for $5-10. I think the majority of iPhone users will never pay for an app or at at most buy one or two cheap apps. Some will never even download a free one- they're pefectly happy with the iPhone as it is. Most people don't obsess about technology the way people on forums like this do- they want their computers or iPhones to do a small range of tasks (email, web surfing, music) and that's it.
Apps intended for small vertical business markets will sell for more, but their appeal will be limited.
I watched Steve's SDK presentation and I believe he said he expected most to be free. You would think most programmers would want a return on their work, but look around the internet- there are countless free programs, many very good. Again, because of the minimal nature of the iPhone, there will be a much smaller gap between free and paid programs. I don't understand why so many release their work for free, but they do.
$20 actually seems kind of high for an iPhone app. I figure most that aren't free would sell for $5-10. I think the majority of iPhone users will never pay for an app or at at most buy one or two cheap apps. Some will never even download a free one- they're pefectly happy with the iPhone as it is. Most people don't obsess about technology the way people on forums like this do- they want their computers or iPhones to do a small range of tasks (email, web surfing, music) and that's it.
Apps intended for small vertical business markets will sell for more, but their appeal will be limited.
I don't remember getting that impression at all.
What he did say is that companies would have free applications to give away.
We see that now for the Mac. A fair number of companies with commercial applications also have free ones. Adobe has several, so do many others.
Then there will be, hopefully, shareware. Then also some freeware.
I don't really see the need for venture capitalist funding in the first place. For starters does it really take much funding, if any to actually develop iPhone apps in the first place? Many developers will be doing it out of their homes, in their spare time. You don't need offices, staff, or even any kind of real setup, since Apple will be doing the hosting and order processing.
Second, won't most apps be free? Even if a paid app becomes popular, there will be a rush of free clones diluting its value. <snip> There will be some breakthrough indie titles no doubt, but how likely is the VC going to distinguish these?
As for the "most apps for free" part, it depends on how you look at it. Sure there may be a thousand apps written by hobbyists in their spare time that do simple and maybe even ingenious things. Several may become very poopular and maybe many, many of them will be free.
But in the area of apps that charge more and make more money, it may be a different picure--you may see more established software vendors putting out more accomplished products. New startups aiming to compete in this arena may need real money go get things going. Of course, it is all speculation at this point.
In terms of not needing VC, did you look at the two proposals mentioned in the article? Whether you agree that these ideas are going to be popular or not, they are not the type of software that someone produces in their spare time. They are looking to coordinate vast ammounts of information (Pelago) or possibly create a whole new standard in home automation (iConorol). These are going to take time and staff to develop, and they are likley to need years to catch on (assuming that they do) even after the first versions are produced.
Sure, Johnny will not need funding to write that iPhone countdown timer to WWDC 2009 app.
And Microsoft will not need funding to bring Word's clutter to the small screen.
But some apps will need funding and the VCs are assuming that at least a few of them will be able to sell many for a real price!
But is that necessary in order to achieve what you want.
A $20 coffee maker has a clock that will turn on the coffee maker in the morning. A $300 dishwasher has a 4 hour delay button. A simple $50 controller can water your lawn at night. How hard it is to make a clothes dryer with a time delay button?
But each requires that you RTFM and figure out how to work each gadget's particular system. These features tend to go unused by the vast majority of consumers, even if it would make their lives a little bit better. These kind of timers will be used more often if they can be set with a simple, intuitve consistent UI from the comfort of your friendly Mac. BTW, people often unplug coffee makers for thorough cleaning, so to continue using the timer, you have to set the time AND the timer all over again.
A cheap digital thermostat can already program to make your home colder or warmer when you are not home in the day time or after you fall asleep. Is it necessary to spend thousands of dollars on a smart thermostat so you can phone in by SMS and change your home's temperature by 1 degree because you have nothing to do in the office?
I don't think people will "fine tune" their home's thermostat remotely by their mobile phone to delay heating up the furnace from the normal 5pm schedule to 5:30pm because they decided to stop by the local supermarket after work that day.
Have you set one lately? It is a pretty harrowing affair! Also, you are neglecting that factors other than time of day can be used to adjust your home's climate. The presence of people is one that comes to mind. Instead of letting the indoor temperature to rise in the summer at a set time, it waits until everyone leaves. It might kick on when it "sees" you are five miles away and approaching.
And don't bother me with trivial examples. Suppose I notice that someone turned my thermostat down to 76F on a day where its going to be near 100F and left the house. If I let the temp go to 83F, I'll save a lot of money on A/C. It's not going to cost thousands of dollars -- existing models are still too expensive in the $200 range.
I don't think people will "fine tune" their lawn watering schedule because they saw on the weather channel that it will rain tomorrow.
What if the lawn watering schedule adjusted itself by measuring the moisture level of the soil, tracking barometric pressure and humidity trends and tracking weather forecasts to water only when needed and not watering before a storm? Water is not expensive, per se, but we are becoming more and more aware of how important it is to use it wisely.
As with your ipod example --- people spent a lot of money on structured wiring so that they can have audio in the whole house or route dvd's from the living room to the bedroom. But the price of a ipod drop so much that your entire music library can be store into a $100 ipod and you can buy a dvd player for $20 from walmart --- don't need to spend thousands of dollars on structured wiring. Same thing with the tivo's and blu-ray players in a couple year's time --- it's going to be so cheap that you can have one in every room.
And what about the poor bastards that ran Ethernet cable throughout the house only to see the advent of 802.11n that is fast enough for almost everyone? I guess some people need Gigabit Ethernet, but I don't know any of them.
Your point is, essentially, why pay infinity dollars for trivial functionality? My point is that with a pitched effort, Apple can make home automation have great functionality for a reasonable price.
Your point is, essentially, why pay infinity dollars for trivial functionality? My point is that with a pitched effort, Apple can make home automation have great functionality for a reasonable price.
I wouldn't say it's trivial functionality, but I would say that it's trivial payback.
You either care about saving energy or not. If you care about it --- you buy energy star products (most people buy energy star appliances because there is a government rebate) and you read the manual. And if you follow the manual, you already save 95% of the energy (i.e. by delaying the dishwasher until 10 pm at night or by raising/lowering temperature when you go to work or go to sleep) or water (watering the lawn at night on a schedule suitable for your grass species).
Personally, I like to take the clean dishes out of the dishwasher before I go to bed --- so normally I don't use the delay button on the dishwasher. However, whenever there is a heatwave warning and electricity shortage warnings --- I do use the delay button then.
I don't think people will care about the other 5% energy and water savings enough in order for them to spend the extra money on these smart home control systems.
I don't want to be living in your house --- it's like seinfeld living in the soup nazi regime (you mess with my thermostat, no heat for you). Are you going to yell at your kids just because they mess up with the thermostat for that single day? I could just imagine your kids wearing thick thick sweaters in your house in the winter time because you put in a parental lock on the thermostat. Anytime somebody requests a change on your thermostat, a SMS is sent to your cellphone for your approval.
I wouldn't say it's trivial functionality, but I would say that it's trivial payback.
You either care about saving energy or not. If you care about it --- you buy energy star products and you read the manual. And if you follow the manual, you already save ... of the energy (i.e. by delaying the dishwasher until 10 pm at night...
While you MIGHT save a few percent on your bill if you don't wash your clothes or dishes until late at night, you won't be saving any energy. Where did you come up with that? It takes the same energy no matter when you do it.
While you MIGHT save a few percent on your bill if you don't wash your clothes or dishes until late at night, you won't be saving any energy. Where did you come up with that? It takes the same energy no matter when you do it.
Of course you are right. You only save energy if you use the dishwasher's smart programs (i.e. sensors telling the dishwasher that there is not a lot of dirty dishes so the dishwashing cycle is shortened --- thus saving energy).
Of course you are right. You only save energy if you use the dishwasher's smart programs (i.e. sensors telling the dishwasher that there is not a lot of dirty dishes so the dishwashing cycle is shortened --- thus saving energy).
Or waiting until it's full before washing them.
Or waiting until it's full before washing them.
The sensor is still useful --- a full load of pots and pans is different than a full load of dishes.
I don't want to be living in your house --- it's like seinfeld living in the soup nazi regime (you mess with my thermostat, no heat for you).
I'm not so sure I want to be living here, either. I don't mind the house being cool -- when there are people there, but I want to keep my electricity consumption to an absolute minimum when it's EMPTY!
About your apparent violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics pointed out by melgross: I'm guessing you live in a place where the power has different rates depending on the time of day (and/or day of week), so the number of kilowatt-hours your dishwasher uses is always the same, but the amount you pay is less. Am I right?
While you MIGHT save a few percent on your bill if you don't wash your clothes or dishes until late at night, you won't be saving any energy. Where did you come up with that? It takes the same energy no matter when you do it.
It is true that the energy use is probably the same unless outdoor temperatures are a factor.
But as for the savings, as I understand with a conversation I had, in some places, off-peak power use vs. on-peak power use can be over 25% difference because the cost of electricity changes based on when the power is used.
I'm not so sure I want to be living here, either. I don't mind the house being cool -- when there are people there, but I want to keep my electricity consumption to an absolute minimum when it's EMPTY!
About your apparent violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics pointed out by melgross: I'm guessing you live in a place where the power has different rates depending on the time of day (and/or day of week), so the number of kilowatt-hours your dishwasher uses is always the same, but the amount you pay is less. Am I right?
I was assuming he misspoke, but didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.
It is true that the energy use is probably the same unless outdoor temperatures are a factor.
But as for the savings, as I understand with a conversation I had, in some places, off-peak power use vs. on-peak power use can be over 25% difference.
Oh, Jeff, come on. Who leaves their dishwasher or washing machine outside? Even though most of the better ones heat the cold water coming in rather than use the hot water from the heater, that water temperature remains the same day and night, and only changes slowly, with the seasons. Washing machines and dishwashers are insulated, so the temperature difference in the house is of no import. It doesn't vary enough to make a difference anyway. That's easily calculated. And if it did make a very small difference, it would go up at night, not down.
Monetary savings is something else. We all agree that if it varies with overall usage in your area by time, then you could save money.
Oh, Jeff, come on. Who leaves their dishwasher or washing machine outside?
That's why the statement was hedged so, if you didn't notice.
That's why the statement was hedged so, if you didn't notice.
It would really be odd.
The ROI on any Home Automation system is going to be poor. There's just not enough of an ecosystem in place to make HA pay for itself. Thus the prime motivator for HA will be one of convenience.
Being able to control lighting, control motorized blinds and other creature comforts will probably play a bigger role in HA than going Green and conserving power.
I'm thinking about ways of making home life more efficient though.