Nest suspends sales of Protect smoke & carbon monoxide alarm over safety concerns

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 67
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,087member

    I purchased two Nests (pre-Google).  The thing fucking does not even have a "temperature hold" feature.  It drives me fucking nuts when it changes changes temperatures on its own 

     

    $3,200,000,000 for this garbage  

  • Reply 22 of 67
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,087member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

     

     

    Kind of like using an aluminum band on a phone when you are explicitly told it interferes with reception.

     

     


    LOL.  You decide to reach back to 2010 to a disproven issue to try to counter me.   What is your IQ, seriously? 

  • Reply 23 of 67
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 764member
    To all the people hating on this product because it's so "obvious" that an alarm should not have a silencing function...be aware that the original intent was to combat the "crying wolf" effect of overly annoying, hard-to-silence alarms. It's even more useless if people take the batteries out when they're cooking and leave it sitting in the junk drawer.

    Obviously the implementation needs tweaking, but it's a great idea to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio. My condo's fire alarm goes off so frequently, we usually just put on our shoes and plug our ears.
    :) with regards to the quote you responded to, it is my experience that it is often the grinders in life who have the most to say but have actually created very little of anything consequential in life. Anyone who has done any serious production work knows that there are going to be problems. Thing about companies like Apple and Nest is that unlike these grinder types they actually deal with funding solutions. Apple fired the Maps guy for refusing to apologize while many on these type if boards where trying to defend his poor work prior to Tim Cook coming out and saying that there was room for improvement with Maps. Apple gave out free bumpers to those affected by "antenna gate" etc.
  • Reply 24 of 67
    mistercowmistercow Posts: 157member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

     

    LOL.  You decide to reach back to 2010 to a disproven issue to try to counter me.   What is your IQ, seriously? 


     

    Because 2010 was so long ago?  A stupid move is a stupid move regardless of how long ago it was.    

     

    130 to answer your question.

  • Reply 25 of 67
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,087member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

     

     

    Because 2010 was so long ago?  A stupid move is a stupid move regardless of how long ago it was.    

     

    130 to answer your question.


     

    Touche mistercrow... Have a good night 

  • Reply 26 of 67
    harmonharmon Posts: 48member

    Two things:

     

    (1) It does appear that Nest is doing the responsible thing here.  Hopefully it is because it is the right thing to do, but it could just as easily be driven by liability concerns.  One lawsuit from a deadly fire where the smoke alarm was accidently disabled could cost them millions in damages and millions more in lost sales from the negative press.

     

    (2) Add me to the list that saw a red flag when reading about that wave feature.  There are some devices that should be simple.  Adding a lot of convenience features that could fail or be inadvertently misused to a smoke/CO2 alarm seems inherently risky.

  • Reply 27 of 67
    timmymantimmyman Posts: 31member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

     

     

    Kind of like using an aluminum band on a phone when you are explicitly told it interferes with reception.  


    *yawn* The vast majority of the call dropping was due to a software glitch calculating the bars of reception incorrectly. The radio stack in the iPhone 4 was actually 8dB more sensitive than previous models.

     

    Quote:


    This change actually presented itself in our numeric signal strength reports - there’s more dynamic range in these numbers too. Previously, the absolute lowest value any iPhone would report was -113 dBm. With iOS 4.0.1/4.1, the value is now a shockingly low -121 dBm. In the iPhone 4 review, I talked a lot about how although the phone is prone to dropping signal from being held wrong, it was measurably more sensitive in weak signal areas. I was shocked that calls and data worked seemingly unfazed at -113 dBm. It seems as though this increased 8 dBm of range below -113 dBm was meant to show really how much more sensitive the radio stack is - it undeniably is more sensitive. Both Anand and I were able to hang onto calls all the way down at -121 dBm.


     

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3821/iphone-4-redux-analyzing-apples-ios-41-signal-fix

  • Reply 28 of 67
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mistercow wrote: »
    130 to answer your question.

    1) I don't think you should have answered his rhetorical question, but even so there is no way to verify that so it makes any value meaningless.

    2) IQ scores are meaningless values without knowing the test that was administered. Out of curiosity do you recall the name of the test?
  • Reply 29 of 67
    sevenfeetsevenfeet Posts: 465member

    I have four of these.  So far things have been good except for an odd false alarm last week.  Resetting the unit seems to be fixed it..for now anyway.  Otherwise we've been pleased with them and if I really burn something in the kitchen, it works as advertised and wave works too.

     

    I'm happy that they proactively decided to announce this, disable the feature and offer refunds.  As for me, I'm sure the engineers will get the algorithm right in the end.  They continue to function for their primary purpose.

  • Reply 30 of 67
    mistercowmistercow Posts: 157member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) I don't think you should have answered his rhetorical question, but even so there is no way to verify that so it makes any value meaningless.



    2) IQ scores are meaningless values without knowing the test that was administered. Out of curiosity do you recall the name of the test?

    Nope, I'm full of shit.  Don't know what my IQ is.  Just felt like egging him on a bit.

  • Reply 31 of 67
    Whew. Dodged that bullet. Imagine if Apple had bought Nest we'd now be looking at a 10% overnight stock drop.
  • Reply 32 of 67
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Would knowing the name of the test make his unverifiable answer any more verified?
  • Reply 33 of 67
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    1) I don't think you should have answered his rhetorical question, but even so there is no way to verify that so it makes any value meaningless.

    2) IQ scores are meaningless values without knowing the test that was administered. Out of curiosity do you recall the name of the test?

    You should have known that geniuses don't go around creating usernames named after dumb farm animals with a title.
  • Reply 34 of 67
    mistercowmistercow Posts: 157member
    crowley wrote: »
    Would knowing the name of the test make his unverifiable answer any more verified?

    I'd guess the question was just to see how hard I was trolling. I would assume he already knew I was lying and just wanted to see how far I'd carry it.
  • Reply 35 of 67
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    crowley wrote: »
    Would knowing the name of the test make his unverifiable answer any more verified?

    It wouldn't, but note that I clearly separated my first and second statement. Not being verififiable doesn't affect my interest.

    mistercow wrote: »
    I'd guess the question was just to see how hard I was trolling. I would assume he already knew I was lying and just wanted to see how far I'd carry it.

    I didn't consider if you were lying. It's not like you had chosen a 180 or higher IQ. You didn't even choose a value that is considered genius level. Just curiosity coupled with what I thought was sage advice.
  • Reply 36 of 67
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member

    I don't have this product, but I can say that living in an apartment, almost whenever I cook, it sets off the smoke alarm and I have to take a broomstick to hit the button to stop the thing from blaring.   Usually five minutes later it triggers on again.    And I find that to be a pain.   So I would like one that I could wave off, but obviously it should only wave off once it's been triggered on.

     

    As far as their thermostats not actually saving energy, that's going to be completely dependent upon how you set it.  If you set it to a temperature that's going to keep the heat (or AC) on all the time, it's obviously not going to save any energy.    I certainly don't see this as a fault of the product.    

  • Reply 37 of 67

    Wouldn't a simpler smoke and CO detector be better? What's next, a Google-Nest fire extinguisher with Google voice control and G+ integration so your online friends can share your emergency?

  • Reply 38 of 67
    libertyforalllibertyforall Posts: 1,418member
    The thermostat is great, but this detector seems way overpriced to me, and the wear components should be end-user replaceable, i.e. the detection elements.
  • Reply 39 of 67
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,254member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

     
    We... are not aware of any customers who have experienced this, but the fact that it could even potentially happen is extremely important to me and I want to address it immediately.

     

    Hi Tony, we've got another cadaver on the line. Yeah... um.... he says his house burned down because a moth flew in front of his NEST. Do you want me to patch him through or put him on hold with the others?

  • Reply 40 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neil Anderson View Post



    Whew. Dodged that bullet. Imagine if Apple had bought Nest we'd now be looking at a 10% overnight stock drop.



    I'd imagine we'd be looking at a message board full of posts blaming the users.

Sign In or Register to comment.