Slashdot Mirror


Smartest Light Bulbs Ever, Dumbest Idea Ever?

An anonymous reader writes "A spate of smart LED bulbs and light sockets are coming to market and seeking crowdfunding, following the (apparent) success of Philips Hue. But do they really make sense for lighting control? Here's a comprehensive roundup of 13 products and the pros and cons of the category." I like the idea of controllable, long-lasting light bulbs, but I haven't yet been tempted enough to pay $50 apiece.

235 comments

  1. Dumbest story title, ever? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, not by a large margin. Also not "dumbest idea ever", but putting this in the title _is_ pretty dumb. Seems somebody is craving attention at any cost.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by pla · · Score: 1, Troll

      Seems somebody is craving attention at any cost.

      Nah, just the stock Slashdot "we hate energy efficiency" rant applied to the next generation of products.

      CFLs? Every Slashdotter needs to walk into a room and instantly have 6500K light or people... will... die !
      Solar panels? Take more energy to make than they'll ever produce, and it lowers property values to have free electricity.
      IGPs? Sure, I only play cheesy online Flash solitaire, but I NEED A quad 7990 and an external 3KW PSU just to feed it.
      Electric cars? They "had to" push it home on that show with the car guys. And Elon Musk eats Christian babies.

      And LED bulbs? Still new enough that you have the uninformed Luddites bitching that they cost $60 each, despite the fact that you can now buy them for under $20 regularly and around $10 on sale - Still pretty damned expensive, but in the "worth it" range for the handful of lights you use the most.

    2. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      No doubt about the attention seeking, it's always something. Either daddy touched them too much or not enough.
      Buncha whining about nothing I found a bulb half that price immediately. http://www.walmart.com/ip/21618983?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227000000000&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=21486607510&wl4=&wl5=pla&veh=sem

      Damn I can even get LED freaking grow lights for less than $50.
      Where is this guy, on the moon?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CFLs? Every Slashdotter needs to walk into a room and instantly have 6500K light or people... will... die !

      Fluorescent lights give me a headache. I don't care if this is supposed to be medically possible, since it happens to me. They all do it, though some are substantially worse than others. So-called "daylight" fluorescents are the worst, e.g. ott-lite. Those give me a headache in record time.

      Solar panels? Take more energy to make than they'll ever produce, and it lowers property values to have free electricity.

      Only idiots believe that solar panels take more energy to make than they will produce, which has been false since the 1970s.

      IGPs? Sure, I only play cheesy online Flash solitaire, but I NEED A quad 7990 and an external 3KW PSU just to feed it.

      My problem with IGPs is that they are from intel in which case they really are shit (I actually play games in 3d, this is no longer a corner case since the majority of the population of the USA plays video games) or from AMD in which case the drivers are shit. I've owned several systems with embedded nVidia graphics. That's in the chipset, though.

      Electric cars? They "had to" push it home on that show with the car guys. And Elon Musk eats Christian babies.

      There's at least as much support for EVs here as against.

      And LED bulbs? Still new enough that you have the uninformed Luddites bitching that they cost $60 each, despite the fact that you can now buy them for under $20 regularly and around $10 on sale

      How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT. You must spend real money on an LED lamp to get one that even has current limiting, let alone power regulation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Sounds plausible. As I am using mainly CFLs and beginning to replace them with LED bulbs, I am just not really equipped to understand that stance.

      There are quite a few people complaining about CFLs that never bothered to find out anything about them. Like "too white","too yellow": Use a different color temperature? Take some time to get to full intensity: So what? Cannot be dimmend: Wrong, just buy those that can be. Etc.

      Or my favorite: Will poison you with a lot of mercury when dropped! Unfortunately, there is almost no mercury in a modern CFL. I have several that lists the amount and it is something in the 1...5mg range. Just air out the room after dropping one and remove the shards not with a vacuum cleaner but an old-fashioned brush and shovel and you are fine. In fact, do nothing and you are very likely still fine and will get less mercury exposure than from one sushi-dinner.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      I have not found any LEDs that I have liked yet. CRI is way off even the cheapest CFLs, in the mid 70%. They also haven't figured out quality control, one bulb will have a green tint the other yellow. LED also gets very inefficient when you get to high powers.

      I've even tried fixtures worth thousands of £'s in photography. The discontinuous spectra is a massive problem, and CRI values cannot really be used. Give this a look, the Academy of Motion Picture and Sciences did some tests on LEDs: http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/ssl/index.html

      CFLs are good now. Good ones are difficult to find on the high street though, and I think that this is the problem that people buy crap bulbs. High CRI (95%+), instant on, dimable, efficient. I just wish more came in 4000K rather than 3200K.

    6. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      I don't see that much power savings between LED and CFL for a large increment in cost. Is there something else I'm missing, or is it just about the life of the bulb?

    7. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Simulant · · Score: 1

      My anecdotal experience:

      I've been replacing my (highly unreliable) CFLs with LED bulbs as I find deals, starting about a year and a half ago. I've seen decent, non dimmable bubs for as low as $10 and dimmables by Phillips for as low as $14. I've yet to have an LED bulb fail whereas there was always a flaky CFL or three, somewhere in the house. The light quality does vary a bit but none of the LEDs I've used are worse than CFLs in that regard. I've seen no flickering or significant turn on delays.

      I love the colored bulbs idea but will never pay $50/bulb. I suspect cheap LEDs will be ubiquitous in 2-4 years though.

    8. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Interesting

      CFLs? Every Slashdotter needs to walk into a room and instantly have 6500K light or people... will... die !

      I find the five minutes or so they take to "warm up" a bit annoying, but what I can't live with is the poor colour rendering and unbelievable amounts of RF noise they put out. The fact that they draw slightly more power than comparable incandescents (as measured by the fuel flow meter on the generator) just puts the icing on the cake, for me.

      Solar panels? Take more energy to make than they'll ever produce, and it lowers property values to have free electricity.

      I'd prefer an RTG, but no-one seriously cares that they take more energy to produce than they make. What they do is they make it possible to produce energy quietly a long way from existing energy sources. In any case, the "more energy to make than they produce" thing hasn't really been true for a couple of decades.

      IGPs? Sure, I only play cheesy online Flash solitaire, but I NEED A quad 7990 and an external 3KW PSU just to feed it.

      Some people do need fairly hefty machines that run all the time. I suspect that most of the properly geeky people on here have a couple of machines at home that run 24/7 and are always doing *something* - rendering, compiling, encoding video or audio or even just running Folding@Home.

      Electric cars? They "had to" push it home on that show with the car guys. And Elon Musk eats Christian babies.

      I'm coming round to the idea of electric cars. They still need to charge more quickly, and once we work out some way of breaking the laws of physics that will come. I actually *do* use 600 miles tank range quite often, and I can easily get through a couple of tanks of diesel in a week. If I'm driving a long distance I stop every couple of hours for a break, so if I could get roughly 200 miles at normal motorway speeds out of about 20 minutes of charging (time for a cup of tea, a bit of food and a pish) then that would work pretty well for me.

      LED bulbs rock, but they have the same poor colour rendering problem as CFLs. If they could get flatter spectrum phosphors they would be excellent. As it is, I keep incandescents around for working on electronic stuff because it's very hard to read the markings on tiny surface-mount components by CFL or LED.

    9. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT.

      Cree makes good bulbs because they are driving demand for their LEDs - Cree and Philips are probably neck-and-neck for the lead position in the LED market.

      They've got a 40-watt equivalent for $10 at Home Depot and a 60-watt for $14.

      http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?356710-Cree-A19-9-5w-60w-800lm-2700K-for-13-97

    10. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Informative

      And LED bulbs? Still new enough that you have the uninformed Luddites bitching that they cost $60 each, despite the fact that you can now buy them for under $20 regularly and around $10 on sale

      How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT. You must spend real money on an LED lamp to get one that even has current limiting, let alone power regulation.

      Microcenter has "40W" house-brand Inland LED bulbs for $6.99, dimmables for a buck more. They work great in my house, and I haven't had a single one go bad or burn out in the year or two since I started getting them. They seem to be well built, and have nice solid heat sinks, though the one here in my desk lamp is cool enough to touch (and by touch, I mean put your fingers on it and hold them there) anywhere on the lamp body.

      Our kitchen uses two of these bulbs in the fixture, and its as bright as it's ever been with any other bulbs.

      On the subject of 'smart lighting' - $50~70 is too much for a bulb, but it speaks to the X-10 enthusiast in many of us to be able to control lighting at the source... but the price needs to come way down. I expect that to happen as production ramps up. Given a cheap interface chip, China could pump the components out for less than a dollar premium on a BOM for a smart bulb. Tie that in with efficient, color-changing LEDs and you could sell them all day long at Wal*Mart for $15 each and make a good profit.

      Realistically, "smart lighting" is the way to get people to buy the more expensive LED bulb, anyway.... there is more perceived value in buying a consumable product that can also do cool things. Forget the fact that LED bulbs are far cheaper, in the long run, simply based on lifespan, let alone energy cost, to purchase over any other type of bulb. CFLs don't help the cause of buying energy efficient lighting, since they sometimes last no longer than regular bulbs, yet cost two or three times as much (again, forgetting energy cost savings). Give consumers a neat capability with that expensive cost, and they'll be far more interested as they see more "value" in buying LED bulbs... but that doesn't happen at a $50 price point for 99% of the consumers out there. At $15, yes, it probably becomes more viable for people to start lighting their homes with LEDs.

    11. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I have some cree flashlights, and those are cool. The Cree LED lamps look credible so perhaps I will give them a try. Cree flashlights certainly use flicker to dim, but these have big caps so perhaps they have a real power supply in there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fluorescent lights give me a headache. I don't care if this is supposed to be medically possible, since it happens to me. They all do it, though some are substantially worse than others. So-called "daylight" fluorescents are the worst, e.g. ott-lite. Those give me a headache in record time.

      Have you tested this with a double-blind test? Or do you just go around claiming headaches when you step into grocery stores?

      Have you worked out if it is a frequency issue, or a matter of the light?

    13. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    14. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod Parent Up - he knows what he is talking up!

    15. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what happens if s/he stops playing 3D games?

    16. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT.

      I've been buying the Phillips candelabra 3.5 watt LEDs at Home Depot as my kitchen lights burn out. They go for around $15 each, and they aren't bad. I go from 200 watts to 28 watts. I tried various CFL candelabra bulbs... not THOSE are "all shit". :)

      Now, payback period is another matter... it'll take 5800 hours of run time just to break even (on electricity.... yes, I'm neglecting the non-zero cost of replacement incandescents) at $0.12/kw-h. That's 5 years at 3 hours per day! So my investment strategy is not great, but honestly I'm just tired of replacing bulbs :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by PNutts · · Score: 1

      I also tried CFLs and went back to incandescent. Last year when good quality LED bulbs became commonplace I got over my sticker-shock and bought a bunch of LEDs. I appreciate that when a kid leaves a light on it's only using 9 watts instead of 60. Folks don't realize LED bulbs pay for themselves in about two years and last about 10 so the upfront cost shouldn't be a consideration. Even with the Phillips Hue at US$59 will more than pay for itself in energy savings before it stops working.

    18. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by PNutts · · Score: 1

      I wish those had been at Home Depot when I bough a bunch of LED bulbs. Does the yellow visible inside mean that they are using remote phosphors like the Philips Ambients? If so these are a winner.

    19. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by PNutts · · Score: 2

      No, your investment strategy is sound. They will last longer than 5800 hours so you eventually come out ahead. In fact, they're probably rated for 50,000 hours. But before I decide which grandchild gets mine, :) during winter the lights in my home's common area are on for more than 3 hours a day. Assuming 8 hours a day is just over 17 years and break even becomes less than 2 years. It's also nice to see the porch light using less than 10 watts.

    20. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by PNutts · · Score: 1

      If you only consider energy cost, the quick answer is "yes" (and LEDs are slightly more efficient). LEDs have other benefits that make them much more attactive, e.g., suitable for applications where CFL are not, color temperature, light distribution pattern, etc.

    21. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      Nice to finally see someone posting here who actually grasps the value of a high CRI.

      I'm sick of dimwits blindly recommending a lower or higher color temperature when someone complains about the low light quality of current energy saving bulbs. Color temperature isn't the big problem: our brain easily adapts to a different white balance. Whole swats of spectrum missing is, as that makes a lot of pigments look dull.

      So let's hope for lamps that can produce a continuous weighted spectrum from 650 to 400 nm with 90% of the theoretical peak efficiency.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    22. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by randallman · · Score: 1

      I've bought many LEDs over the past two years. You can now get good A19 bulbs for $10 to $15 and good br30 for $20 to $25. Things are moving fast in led lighting. In addition to established brands Toshiba and Phillips I've been impressed with bulbs from Kobi and G7. There are too many companies entering the market to count and plenty of junk to avoid (stuff at Lowes), but LEDs are certainly improving quickly.

    23. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      OK i have to say this about Intel GPUs. I just picked up a Ivy Bridge Celeron 1610 for $35. And yes, it plays Crysis, and Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Torchlight II, TF2, Fallout 3 etc. I was pretty much shocked at how powerful it is, relatively speaking.. Haswell w/GT3 is going to be interesting.

      --
      Good-bye
    24. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Art+Challenor · · Score: 2

      CFLs? Every Slashdotter needs to walk into a room and instantly have 6500K light or people... will... die

      It does drive me crazy that we are expending effort and technology to emulate the yellow color of incandescent bulbs. Are buggy whips still mandatory in modern cars?

    25. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And LED bulbs? Still new enough that you have the uninformed Luddites bitching that they cost $60 each, despite the fact that you can now buy them for under $20 regularly and around $10 on sale - Still pretty damned expensive, but in the "worth it" range for the handful of lights you use the most.

      You missed the point. This wasn't about LED bulbs. This was mainly about "smart" bulbs... networked or color-changing or both.

    26. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by ebh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem I have with Crees is th form factor. We have recessed lighting in our kitchen, mostly R30, and the fixtures are 40 years old, certainly superseded by newer standards. Regular R-30 bulbs fit perfectly. The Cree equivalents take some work to fit right, especially the ones with the built-in bezels.

      That said, I love the light they produce. It's a bit brighter, and only slightly whiter than the light the 65W incandescents put out, at a fifth the power consumption.

      I have one question for the pick-your-color manufacturers: Have you ever consulted an interior designer? The colors of paint, fabric, etc. in a room are all picked with specific lighting in mind, both natural and from lamps. Start futzing with it, and things will start looking crappy. Ever wonder why a hotel room looks fine under CFLs but the same CFLs in your bedroom make everything an ashy grey? It's because the colors in the hotel room were picked specifically because they complement the color spectrum put out by the CFLs.

      I'm looking forward to the day not far off when I can have all LED lighting in the house, but I have no desire to make radical color changes (except for special applications people have mentioned ike aids for the deaf).

    27. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT."

      The $4 GU-10 LED bulbs I bought are fucking top-notch quality.

      Don't buy them from crappy places like Home Depot and such, and go direct to the manufacturer, usually in China.

      Alibaba and Aliexpress are your friends.

      Oh, and it helps to actually KNOW SOMETHING about the technology.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    28. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have one question for the pick-your-color manufacturers: Have you ever consulted an interior designer? The colors of paint, fabric, etc. in a room are all picked with specific lighting in mind, both natural and from lamps. Start futzing with it, and things will start looking crappy.

      Thanks for this post. I was running out of material for my "First World Problems" meme generator. But this is pure gold :)

    29. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "Cree and Philips are probably neck-and-neck for the lead position in the LED market."

      Not even close, Cree wins. I just got hold of their MK-R diodes. At 100ma, not bad. At 300mA, it starts to hurt your eyes and it lights up fairly nicely. At 500mA you need to start shielding your eyes. Here's video of it, 500mA, lighting my nearly-dark living room/dining room. (camera auto-adjusted some, hence all the extra video noise and artificially-high starting light levels.)

      At 500mA, that's 6w. 6w nearly lights up (~2ft above the floor, pointed upwards) a 14' x 20' room. If this were on the ceiling, in the center, all of the kitchen would be included as well. At a full 15w that the MK-R is capable of handling, That would easily be the only light I'd need in that entire section of the house excepting some additional kitchen lighting. The bedrooms would EASILY be fine just using these at 6w, ditto the bathrooms.

      What I've seen from Philips, not even close. I haven't seen anything even close from any other manufacturer that has given me samples of their supposed best. Cree won this round, and will likely continue to do so once they incorporate the new S3 tech into the MK-R line and push past 240 lumens per watt (when driven at 1w.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    30. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you work at Cree, tell your people to get in touch with me so I can show you guys the next step in dominating the optoelectronic market.

      Because, seriously, I have plans for your MK-R. And they are BIG.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    31. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Slightly more efficient?

      Typical CFL - ~70-80 lumens per watt.

      Cree MK-R LED - 200+ lumens per watt. At typical junction temps, 160+ lumens per watt.

      And killer color rendering.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    32. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Protip: Those $50 LED grow lights don't work very well and aren't constructed for shit, and use low-binned diodes.

      Source: I make LED growing panels to target different crops. That's one of my jobs.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    33. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They will last longer than 5800 hours so you eventually come out ahead.

      Probably, if I get that life. The bulb is probably never going to burn out - but the converter could quit before 50,000 hours... In any event, these $15 bulbs will probably be a dollar by then - which is part of the reason I feel financially stupid buying them now. As I redo rooms in this 60s house, I'm stringing low-voltage wiring to the same locations as AC so that I can use a single high-quality DC power supply. I'm pretty sure whatever lighting tech rules the next 30 years will be DC, and the DC wire is cheap. Already they sell under-cabinet and recessed DC lighting. My house even has halogen under-cabinet lights that run on DC.

      I have 4 outdoor lights that previously ran a combined 240 watts and now they run 60 watts, so that's fine with me. They run all night, let's say an average of 12 hours. Payback is probably about half a year.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    34. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Will poison you with a lot of mercury when dropped!

      I find that the people who complain about mercury in CFLs are probably the same people who played jedi light sabers with the fluorescent kitchen bulbs when they were a kid, and probably has fluorescent tubes in their kitchen right now.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    35. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by PNutts · · Score: 1

      The Philips Hue bub addresses a lot of those concerns. Another nice thing about them is you can intentionally change the color of the room. At my Home Depot they have four different temperature lights next to each other and it's interesting to see how much difference there is on objects illuminated by them.

    36. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by PNutts · · Score: 1

      I'll worry about that when the Oscars are in my livingroom. The color changing LEDs will produce any temperature or hue you want and white ones are up to 100 watts.

    37. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see an 1800 lumens LED bulb for sale in a brick an morter store. At about $20 and 1800 lumens is where I will stop buying other kinds of bulbs. Obviously I hope that they can get down to the $1 to $2 range, but that isn't necessary. Today, LED is the lighting tech that many of us are impatiently waiting for.

    38. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      So what's it cost per square foot to reproduce the sun where you work?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    39. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The killer electric car feature for me would be a generator trailer. If I could drive around on all electric 90% of the time, and when I want to do a 2000 mile road trip, I just good the gas generator trailer to the back and drive 300+ miles between fill-ups, I would be all over the electric car.

    40. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You and me both. I hate the horrible light that incandescent bulbs put out.

    41. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Depends on the crop. Most leaf crops like lettuces, basils, etc., grow excellently with roughly 1/8th the sun's intensity in just targeted spectrum, and thus the cost per square meter is quite low.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    42. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT. You must spend real money on an LED lamp to get one that even has current limiting, let alone power regulation.

      Abso-freaking-lutely. I too have wasted good money on rubbish el-cheapo bulbs that produced bugger all light back and die in no times - the "50 crappy white LEDs in a downlight case" types for example were completely bogus. But things are improving. For example, $30 will get you one of these, which I've had in the kitchen for a while now and it's worked flawlessly. Mind you, decent LED downlights are still damned expensive. We have four of these in our dining room. They work beautifully, even with the dimmer, and came with a pretty good warranty, but at $100AU a pop you'd damn well hope they did!

    43. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thing to note during winter months: Those LED bulbs won't throw as much heat. The difference in efficiency will affect your heating bill, if you live in a cold enough area.

    44. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They've got a 40-watt equivalent for $10 at Home Depot and a 60-watt for $14.

      To be fair, these may or may not even be available at HD today - Cree itself says they were back-ordered until Mid-March. The OP was right until yesterday or next week, depending on when the truck arrives.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    45. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      maybe offices just give you an headache?-)

      bt control on a led bulb? that's a gimmick. even if the chips to make it happen cost just two dollars.

      personally, I just want the highest lumens I can fit on the lamp.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    46. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      I'd rather spend $5 on gas than $10 on electricity to get the same heat.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    47. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      I work at Cree.

      Where do I buy these in Europe? Home Depots are pretty thin on the ground in these parts. Cree's Italian site only has downlights, not the type in the links you provided.

      If the Home Depot ones work at 230V/50Hz I'll have someone send me some from the USA. But none of the info I've found includes that level of spec details.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    48. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      What's the spectrum coverage if you install one LED and one CFL in adjacent sockets? Does that solve much of the problem, or do they have the same gaps?

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    49. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not exactly apples to apples. At 7mm x 7mm a Cree MK-R is more than 4x the die size of a Lumileds Luxeon LED. Maybe sometimes it's nice to have a single giant LED instead of multiple smaller ones, but in a lightbulb I'm not sure it matters so much.

      However Cree is definitely winning the PR contest. Every LED bulb or flashlight I look at either says it uses Cree LEDs or doesn't say who makes their LEDs.

    50. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That's good but really we want to get away from having one massive light in the middle of the room and move to many smaller lights where they are needed. You get better working light and fewer shadows that way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more like a retiree growing hydro strawberries in his heated barn for market over the winter.
      I know an old fellow who wants to play a little harder than he does now and looking at modern solutions.
      Some people just can't grab a rocker : )
      I would be betting that medical marijuana in legal states would be creating a demand as well with so many legal states popping up now.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    52. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I use LEDs for everything up to 60W equivalent. Above, LED is not yet there as efficiency drops, so I use quality CFLs for that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    53. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I agree that for photography, you want as full-spectrum as you can get. That is neither CFL nor LED as the technologies just do not support it. Maybe there will be a software option at some time that reconstructs a full-spectrum picture from CFL or LED shots, but not yet.

      As to temperature, I also would like a bit more selection. But we will get there as soon as things stabilize. At this time, CFLs are not quite a mature technology and are already being replaced by LEDs.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    54. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      CFLs are used for photography and video, either spiral 100-300W bulbs or tubes from Kino Flo. The problem with LEDs is the red, green and blue transmissions are not the same as the coloured filters on Bayer pattern on the camera sensors. CFLs have been designed to have the transmissions in the right part of the spectrum, with a CRI of 98%+ so they are pretty much wideband. They also work well mixed with HMI lights too.

      LEDs should get better over time, hopefully. They're currently only allowed for ENG use in TV

    55. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Interesting! So they have gotten the light-mix right finally. But i wonder what the problem with white LEDs is then, they are using the same principles as CFLs, not an RGB mix. The RGB mix is just done on LED displays and "Rainbow" lights. Maybe just optimizing for light-output at the moment and better mixes coming.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    56. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      True, initially I was going to cite their recessed lighting products at HD that regularly sell for $25 and have been available for probably close to two years. $25 is more than $20 though and I didn't feel like it was worth arguing whether the inclusion of an entire fixture was worth at least $5.

      FWIW, the Philips L-Prize bulb and its not-quite-so-efficient siblings are also in the $10-$20 range at Home Depot nowadays and are definitely on the shelves.

    57. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      There's only demand for LED in marijuana from smart people. Stupid people all over cannabis forums go "HPS HAS MORE LUMENS!" when the MK-R is pushing 200+ lumens per watt and an HPS at best only does roughly 140-150, and even then, lumens per watt doesn't matter for plants.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    58. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm kinda seeing advances in L.E.D. being the future of lighting. everywhere.
      I've been mildly interested in the skylights that utilize silvered stovepipe and a fisheye lens-like collector. I saw these at a home show and thought to myself that these would offset lighting costs. I notice a lot more small hydro food producers supplying big box stores and grocers with fresh produce in off seasons. I'm guessing an old retired farmer with some outbuilding space could still indulge himself profitably with less physical stress and a small investment.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    59. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Obviously, your cone cells have the same medium/green and low/red peaks as the majority (as many as ~90%, possibly as few as ~65%). Those of us with deuteranopic green, protanopic red, or both, aren't so lucky. An "energy-efficient" LED that tries to get by with 3 narrow peaks, or a 6500k CFL that sprinkles just a few bands (and neglects the yellowgreen-orangered region where deutan/protan peaks lie) looks like complety intolerable *shit* to us.

      A lot has been learned about deuteranomaly in particular over the past ~5 years, in no small part because LED mfrs. (like Osram, in particular) were trying to figure out why a small (but increasingly vocal) subset of customers found them to be so incredibly objectionable. To us, "energy-efficient" LED lights feel kind of like we're sitting under a pair of orange sodium-vapor and bluegreen mercury lights (not exactly, but you get the idea).

      Companies like Osram & GE *do* have broad-spectrum LED light designs that look even better than halogen... but their energy-efficiency is a lot lower than other LED lamps, because they can't game the lumen ratings by packing brightness into aresa where the formula rewards them the most... and because augmenting the uv-excited "white" phosphor gaps with additional discrete LEDs to fill in the holes takes more power.

      Osram, in particular, has realized that LED lights MUST have a BARE MINIMUM of 6 peaks (or augment standard blue-excited white phosphors with amber and yellow-green discrete LEDs) to be remotely acceptable to both normal and deuteranomalous trichromats (the white paper I saw didn't address protan defects or dichromats), and even 6 is on the low side.

      What we really need is for manufacturers to be required to make their lamp spectra details available online, so we can avoid buying lamps that skimp on spectrum. I literally have a pile of CFL and LED lamps at home that I bought, but couldn't stand to use, but can't just throw away, because they were so goddamn expensive.

      For the record, there's a good reason why 5000k+ lights usually look so dreadful compared to warmer color lights... they have the same number of spectral peaks, and starve the yellow-orange region to add more green & blue peaks.

    60. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Mentioning the benefits of heat in the winter without mentioning the cost in summer seams disingenuous.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    61. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Philips L-Prize bulbs (CRI >90, 2700K, 10 watts, 940 lumens) are currently $15 USD at home depot.... They're fantastic.

    62. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by lsatenstein · · Score: 2

      CFLs? Every Slashdotter needs to walk into a room and instantly have 6500K light or people... will... die !

      Fluorescent lights give me a headache. I don't care if this is supposed to be medically possible, since it happens to me. They all do it, though some are substantially worse than others. So-called "daylight" fluorescents are the worst, e.g. ott-lite. Those give me a headache in record time.

      Solar panels? Take more energy to make than they'll ever produce, and it lowers property values to have free electricity.

      Only idiots believe that solar panels take more energy to make than they will produce, which has been false since the 1970s.

      IGPs? Sure, I only play cheesy online Flash solitaire, but I NEED A quad 7990 and an external 3KW PSU just to feed it.

      My problem with IGPs is that they are from intel in which case they really are shit (I actually play games in 3d, this is no longer a corner case since the majority of the population of the USA plays video games) or from AMD in which case the drivers are shit. I've owned several systems with embedded nVidia graphics. That's in the chipset, though.

      Electric cars? They "had to" push it home on that show with the car guys. And Elon Musk eats Christian babies.

      There's at least as much support for EVs here as against.

      And LED bulbs? Still new enough that you have the uninformed Luddites bitching that they cost $60 each, despite the fact that you can now buy them for under $20 regularly and around $10 on sale

      How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT. You must spend real money on an LED lamp to get one that even has current limiting, let alone power regulation.

      ===
      Last week at our local Costco, the lights were on sale for $4.00 for a 850 lumen led array. That was the price with a coupon from our electric company. Montreal is a city that 95% of all homes and establishments are electrically heated. My electricity rate varies from 4 per kwh to 7.2 With those rates, gas, and oil cannot compete. We are not allowed to burn wood in our fireplaces, because of the polution. I am happy to live in a city where the snow is white from the time it falls until the spring when it melts.
      LEDs were available in strips at IKEA, and I bought some for the kitchen counter lighting. I never turn them off as I calculated my electrical costs at $1.84 per year. Interestingly, the bulk price of a single LED before soldering in place is in the fraction of a penny.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    63. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Easily an older farmer could do it. This is one of the huge benefits of things like vertically-stacked hydroponics systems utilizing LED (and in some cases, no light at all.) Less physical stress, conservation of resources, lowered operating costs, higher yields, and faster ROI.

      We've had systems available for a couple of years, now. A company I contracted with in the UK builds such systems.

      This is our testing facility, but you can get a production facility very similar to this one for just shy of a quarter-million dollars, and you can have that paid back within a year and a half for typical crops (and the first harvest for legal/medical marijuana crops.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    64. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      All black body radiators suck as light sources.

      Yellow eye is the worst, it burns.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    65. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      Where it's legal, smart people use free light.

      Only dweebs grow indoors anymore. Nothing in the world less green then burning coal to make light to grow crops.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    66. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      LED lighting is more efficient photosynthetically than sunlight, due to targeted-wavelength action.

      That's why we're moving to LED. What takes the sun 1,000w per square meter for growing a crop we can do with like 60w per square meter, which means we can stack these systems atop each other and what takes sunlight one acre of land to produce we can do with LED and 1/10th of an acre.

      Smart people use solar to power their LEDs and use the excess power to run atmospherics and pumps, like my UK testing facility.

      Oh, and some crops, no light needed at all - like this

      Smart people know what wavelengths and how much photon flux crops need and only give them that.

      Also, smart people know that outdoor gardening is typically ungodly wasteful, especially when it comes to water and fertilizer.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    67. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      60W/meter? I call BULLSHIT!

      I know many people that tried all manner or LED grow lights. Put a plant, minimum thermal distance from a HPS and any LED panel. Watch which one it grows towards under veg. I saved my money, light and water a nearly free (pumping cost).

      Last I looked there where something like 2 reds, 2 greens and 2 blues. Nothing like complete spectrum coverage. Good luck with your bullshit. I hope you find lots of suckers. Aren't you the person who also works in a porn shop? UK test facility? You have a sucker in the UK?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    68. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The porn shop job was to add R&D money to my already meager R&D budget set forth by my investors. Now that they're putting more money into R&D since they see that I know what I'm doing and can do it with a very modest increase in funding, I quit the porno shop job.

      Yes, we can do 60w per square meter. See we have light-moving technology. And the iteration in that video is actually 90w using older-gen LED tech. If we were to use something on the class of the MK-R LED but tuned for growth, we'd hit likely 45w consumption to light up that whole area. Many plants don't need the light shining steadily upon them at full intensity.

      See, some crops don't respond very well to large levels of light. Those types of crops such as leafy crops (basil, lettuce, the wheatgrass you saw growing under practically zero light in the prior video) tend to bolt at higher light levels and go to shit as far as a commercially usable product goes. Also, under targeted LED, plants tend to pack more nutrition in them per unit of fertilizer, simply because of the enhanced action.

      "Last I looked there where something like 2 reds, 2 greens and 2 blues. Nothing like complete spectrum coverage"

      You haven't put a white LED under a spectrometer, then, in at LEAST 4 years. We've had output similar to blackbody radiation for years, now.

      Got any more outdated information you'd like to share and have dispelled?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    69. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      You don't use the lights as much in the summer because the days are longer, so the balance isn't even. Your point is still valid though.

    70. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      And Elon Musk eats Christian babies.

      No he doesn't. He forcibly converts them to !Kung animism before he fricassees them. Don't you read anything?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    71. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT. You must spend real money on an LED lamp to get one that even has current limiting, let alone power regulation."

      Just for referance... I saw a 40W equivilent LED for sale for $10 at Home Depot yesterday.

      Your Mom called, she says to come up for breakfast and your laundry is done.

    72. Re:Dumbest story title, ever? by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      Not as much as you think. Using lightbulbs to heat the air near the ceiling, where hot air naturally convects to anyway, is just a waste. Only if you have a way to efficiently recirculate air from around the light fixture to where you're at will you see a benefit. Otherwise, most of it will be lost up to the attic and then outside.

  2. Smartest Light Bulbs Ever by rachelle66321 · · Score: 0

    Great Content.. Thank you for sharing

  3. Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *facepalm*

    I can't think of anything worse than a bulb that's at the mercy of your WiFi router. My router falls over roughly twice a week and needs rebooting.
    Congratulations, you just took one of the most reliable appliances in the home and made it grotesquely unreliable.
    That's real progress...right there.

    1. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Flozzin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No idea why you got downvoted. But.. It's going to be a cold day in hell before I get this crap. Just because you can hook it to the net should it be? Do you want it hacked? Do you need another wifi signal degrading signal in your home? Taking up bandwidth? Wake up and want to piss at night, fumble for your phone or hit a switch? It boggles my mind why they think people want this.

      --
      "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
    2. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Knuckles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *facepalm*

      I can't think of anything worse than a bulb that's at the mercy of your WiFi router. My router falls over roughly twice a week and needs rebooting.
      Congratulations, you just took one of the most reliable appliances in the home and made it grotesquely unreliable.
      That's real progress...right there.

      Fix your router?

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    3. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think smart light bulbs are a good idea because that puts the smarts in the wrong place. Smart wall sockets are a good idea and being able to put light switches anywhere and tell them which socket or sockets to control is pretty cool. Turning things on and off with a remote, cellphone, tablet or your laptop is cool too. Let's not forget about the thermostats and home alarms! Image a house where if you don't like the way things are wired together, you can change it all around. Very flexible, indeed. Bandwidth will not be a problem. Hope we can say the same about security.

    4. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You're doing something wrong. I regularly get 6 month uptimes before I have to reboot my router.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Flozzin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok. Slightly better. But why wireless? Why internet? If you are not home do you need to control lights? If you are that bad about not turning off lights when you leave are you really going to remember once your gone? You need more than a dimmer switch? Really? Why? Why not wire all the lights to a central keypad in the home(think dedicated tablet computer). Can't wait for these to be wide spread enough to where you can drive down the street at christmas time, hack the entire blocks house lights and turn it into a spectacular light show for yourself set to music.

      --
      "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
    6. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While getting into 'smart lightbulbs' is probably going to be a highly personal choice...

      Do you want it hacked?

      It's fairly unlikely that the light (I say light because some are bulbs, some are sockets) itself would be hacked, but rather your router - and although pranksters making your house look haunted would probably get old real quick, and e.g. flicker-induced epilepsy would be pretty bad, you'd probably have other issues at that point.

      Do you need another wifi signal degrading signal in your home?

      That makes very little sense.

      Taking up bandwidth?

      As does this. Are you suspecting these lightbulbs of serving up Linux torrents 24/7?

      Wake up and want to piss at night, fumble for your phone or hit a switch?

      I'd have to ask at what point you removed the switch. There's nothing preventing you from having a switch, and even a dimmer (depending on bulb being okay with it), in addition to the 'smart' application.

      It boggles my mind why they think people want this.

      Maybe they want their smartphone to slowly increasing lighting levels based on the time of day. Perhaps they want the light to come on automatically when they enter a room (having the smartphone on them). They may want mood lighting control outside of the expensive brand names and better than the $15 ebay solution.
      You could probably waste a few minutes searching the web for what people do with these and find dozens of applications.

      Just because you and I don't find them all that appealing (hey, I have the $15 ebay solutions.. they work well enough for what I want out of RGB lights), doesn't mean your mind need boggle.

      My main complaints with these are that they're almost exclusively bulbs which are going to be expensive to replace. I'd prefer them to be sockets. Unfortunately this would require a new standard in order to deal with RGB (and beyond) bulbs - and more likely than not, this would be proprietary solutions at first; why make a simple set of connector rings when you can use a serial interface with a proprietary encoding so that only your bulbs work with your sockets, right?
      Similarly, they all disagree on what wireless standard to use - even if they use the same wireless standard, the actual protocols or specifics of implementation may differ.

      I'll wait for some level of standardization, let the early adopters deal with the growing pains, and enjoy the cheapo ebay things for now. If I really wanted them to be 'smart' right now, I'd throw an Arduino or something at the problem.

    7. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Ultra64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > My router falls over roughly twice a week and needs rebooting.

      Then it's broken and needs to be replaced.

    8. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by tbird81 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wake up and want to piss at night, fumble for your phone or hit a switch?

      That problem is easily solved. You just buy old iPhones, keep the app running, and mount them permanently with a power supply onto your wall. This way you've got a convenient way of switching the light on and off from a known location.

    9. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2

      Wireless is just the easiest way of networking them. As for "internet" why not? Once you are on a network, it is only marginally more complicated for internet control on top of the already implemented intranet control.

      Programmable lighting in general is great stuff. Especially for RGB bulbs. If the risk of hacking was so over-whelming, we wouldn't put anything on the net at all. You've assumed the worst-case scenario is the baseline scenario, and that isn't a particularly useful way to do risk evaluation.

    10. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's nothing preventing you from having a switch, and even a dimmer (depending on bulb being okay with it), in addition to the 'smart' application.

      Yes there is. Unless the "switch" has been replaced with something smarter, or the bulb has a second source of electric power, turning the ligth off at the switch means you cannot turn it back on again wirelessly.

    11. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're blaming a broken router on these bulbs. It's not their fault that you're unable to fix your shit.

    12. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, your router is either a piece of crap, or it's been pwned. You should replace it as soon as possible--yesterday, perhaps.

    13. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wifi isn't the best idea, a central physically connected network would be best. Perhaps everything should have a USB connection? Just a thought.... But Your wifi problem is likely that your router isn't fetching the new IP address correctly. So try release / renew from your router's terminal. It may not fix it but doesn't hurt to throw that idea

    14. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with lighting... or hell everything...

      Is all the damn stupid power supply bricks.

      Lighting is the last item in the house that can be made energy efficient, but the way we're doing it isn't by throwing away all the cheap sockets, no we're doing it the inefficient way by adding stuff to the sockets so that there is both a AC to DC conversion at every socket, plus the wireless has to stay awake to accept signals. So this goes from replacing a 60 watt bulb with a 6 watt LED to a 15 watt device that 6 watts are sucked away by the LED light and 9 are by the loss induced by the power conversion and the wireless bits.

      Ask yourself why your WiFi router sucks away 20 watts. Just what the hell is it doing when idle?

    15. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by nblender · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Admittedly not a lot of people want this but .... We have a place out in the forest... Sometimes when we arrive, it's late at night and it's _dark_ out there... I mean, if it's overcast and the middle of the winter, you can't see _anything_... So we have a yard light that I control remotely via crappy unreliable X-10.. The house is already internet connected via cellphone so I have various scripts on my webserver to let me control things like the thermostat and the X10 yard light. yeah; you could keep the car headlights on until you can get up to the door, unlock it, and turn the lights on.. The remotely controllable yard light also works well in conjunction with the security camera.. Infrared mode doesn't work all that well.

      No, not life changing but a small matter of convenience.

    16. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by aurispector · · Score: 2

      What we need is a system whereby simple consumer products can made "smart ready". Clearly every light bulb does not need to be on the internet, at least at present; it's a waste of bandwidth and merely another source of interference for existing wifi networks. A better place to start might be smart sockets that use existing wiring to network the house.. That would be modular allowing homeowners only to change the sockets that they really need. It would also avoid the boondoggle of expensive whole house systems.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    17. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2

      Clearly every light bulb does not need to be on the internet, at least at present; it's a waste of bandwidth and merely another source of interference for existing wifi networks.

      Your premise is silly. It isn't like these bulbs are chattering away - other than the occasional "I'm here" broadcast packet like once a minute or so they won't be generating any traffic unless explicitly polled.

    18. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Ah your thinking like an engineer and not a consumer.

      You don't get smart sockets until you get a device that can be put into smart sockets. You build wireless bulbs today. You build wireless switches today. in a couple of years you introduce a low bandwidth intent over powerline for light bulbs. That way you can renovate and build new your home with such things already in place and know they work.

      I don't know about you but the average person doesn't rip their walls down every 10 years to upgrade the wiring inside. You have to be able to trust the tech your installing to last. the internet itself is barely legal to drink in the USA.

      Also at least with the philips bulbs they are very much usable from regular switches right now. you just get fancier features if you use a fancier remote.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    19. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Fix your router?

      A thousand times this. I have a 20 dollar belkin router on a ups running tomatousb. Uptime, well over a year. Runs fine.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    20. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >My router falls over roughly twice a week and needs rebooting.

      Dude, what? How, why?
      I have a BELKIN router and even mines dies less than that does, what router do you have that is worse than a BELKIN?!
      I'd be lucky if mines dies once in a month. And even then, the thing RESTARTS when it does if anything hangs for any unreasonable amount of time. (I know because I tested this by DOSing the router page, which was enough to hang one part for long enough to restart it, as you can tell I try not to piss off angry russians or chinese, they have it bad enough as it is)

    21. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one would ever need more than 1 dimmer

    22. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by pla · · Score: 1

      Clearly every light bulb does not need to be on the internet, at least at present

      You've overlooked the real driver for these.

      Consider: Utilities around the world have made a massive push for "smart" meters, despite massive customer resistance. They can spend billions deploying these easily hackable pieces of crap, yet can't upgrade their infrastructure to properly handle truly distributed generation. Now that you have a smartmeter, they offer discounts if you install major appliances the meter can communicate with - So when it hits 110F, the utility can shut off your AC and refrigerator and send that electricity to cubicle farms that really need it to power floor after floor of garish fluorescent lights.

      This takes the logical next step - Until now, the utilities had no convenient way to tell you how much of that electricity you pay for can go toward your lighting - Did you know some people still insist on using halogen lights??? But with this, the power company can just keep dialing the brightness down as needed, you damned flat-rate residential parasites! ;)

    23. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. He is justifying his disinterest in a gadget by providing an example of a possible problem and a relatively common one at that. I made a picture for you.

      Ever lived in an apartment? With so many transmitters wifi is horrible. Ever been to a concert and been unable to get Facebook to load? Same thing. try living in a place like Chicago or New York. It's also possible he just has a router that is beyond fixing with tomato or openwrt. I own two that fall into that category.

      What if these were Ethernet bulbs instead? Would you cat 5 your light switches, sockets and entire house for this? If there's a pressing need for networked light bulbs I haven't noticed. I think he has a pretty valid reason beyond his router, he was just using it as an example.

    24. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by number17 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps a motion sensor light would work well. Everybody's cottage in Canada has one.

      http://www.canadiantire.ca/AST/browse/3/HouseHome/Lighting/OutdoorSecurityLighting.jsp

    25. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by SolemnLord · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything worse than a bulb that's at the mercy of your WiFi router. My router falls over roughly twice a week and needs rebooting. Congratulations, you just took one of the most reliable appliances in the home and made it grotesquely unreliable.

      I have a set of the Philips Hue bulbs, and just to clear things up, they're not "at the mercy" of my router- sort of.

      By default, all the lights are designed to "turn on" when the power is restored to the bulb. It's a full-brightness, slightly-warm light, about as close to an incandescent 60W as it can manage. Right now my lights are "off", but the power's still flowing. They revert to the default state whenever the power is turned off and then back on, meaning even if the router is down you still get "dumb" functionality. It also means you don't get a bulb stuck in a less-than-useful state (for example, I have a low red setting for when I watch movies. Great then, not at all useful anytime else).

      Obviously, that's a lot of money to spend on a dumb bulb. If the router's down you lose the more useful features, like scheduling or colours, but the bulbs aren't rendered useless. The bulbs don't revert to the default state if the router goes down but power remains consistent, meaning no sudden colour changes.

      I've been using the bulbs since their release, and I haven't had any issue with the router being a problem. My biggest complaint is that the default app is pretty crap. Fortunately, Philips has freely released the API, so hopefully a better app will get out soon.

    26. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am deeply concerned by your story. To have to enter your vacation home in the dark must be horrifying. I am considering setting up a charity to buy flashlights for people in your situation. Plases contact me if you would like to be involved.

    27. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      It isn't like these bulbs are chattering away - other than the occasional "I'm here" broadcast packet like once a minute or so

      If you are to presume that light bulbs are to be "smart", then surely everything in the home will eventually be "smart" too. If everything each transmits one packet per minute, that turns out to be hundreds of packets per minute in total.

      If I ever build my own home then this wont be much of a problem because all 4 walls of every room will have an RJ45 jack that runs to one of the front corners of the structure.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    28. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      If everything each transmits one packet per minute, that turns out to be hundreds of packets per minute in total.

      It appears that you lack a sense of scale here.

      At a conservative throughput of 20mbps, you've got enough bandwidth to do over 2000 1K packets per SECOND. A couple of hundred packets per minute is so small as to barely even register.

    29. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiway_switching

      No different from two or more switches controlling one socket.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    30. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Sure. If you're prepared to hire an electrician do re-do the wiring in your walls, then no problem.

      However, for the cheaper "just replace the lightbulb" solution that TFA discusses, you're obliged to keep the electric switch on at all times, or the remote won't work.

    31. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Routers are generally not repairable - you need to replace it with a decent one.

      The problem is that it is hard to know which ones are decent. As the other reply to your post suggests price isn't everything. Neither is brand reputation for the most part these days. Most reviews focus on features - I haven't really seen many that leave the router running for six months under load and tell you if the WiFi stopped working.

      I've had several flaky wireless routers over the years, including a Linksys 54G running OpenWRT (though that was one of the less flaky ones overall). Right now I'm using a Buffalo running DDWRT and it has been fairly solid, but I still find myself having to reboot it every few months.

    32. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I subsumed "replacing" under "fixing", just like I do with anything that is sufficiently broken in my house. I am surprised by these problems, I used a number of different routers in the past 10 years and never had a problem, much less as frequent as the GP. In fact I agree that having lights that depend on working wifi is maybe not the best idea, but it seems weird to complain about it based on an obviously broken router. It's like saying that all electric household appliances are stupid and useless, based on having a shitty electricity provider.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    33. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you didn't just combine them - just that one setting makes the smart portion exclusive.

      Specifically, the use case...

      Wake up and want to piss at night, fumble for your phone or hit a switch?

      ...would be readily solved, and wouldn't be too different from when the light isn't 'smart'; okay, you might have to hit the switch twice if you turned the light 'off' via a 'smart' control (since hitting the switch would then actually turn it off, and you'd have to hit it again to turn it back on (and that's making the assumption the light has a default on mode when it gets power after not having power).

      Personally, I'd prefer the regular ol' switch and know that when I switch the light off with the switch.. it's actually off - and for when I want to use it, tap the phone on the nightstand and immediately have light (instead of navigating through the minefield of potential kids' toys on my way to a light switch).

    34. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      That is where this guy comes in. http://electricimp.com/

      --
      Good-bye
    35. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suspecting these lightbulbs of serving up Linux torrents 24/7?

      Well, maybe not. But imagine a Beowulf cluster or linux running LED lightbulbs...

    36. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      This seems like something that powerline networking was made for!

    37. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Guppy · · Score: 1

      shitty electricity provider.

      Putting your router and DSL/Cablemodem on an UPS works wonders for stability, too. After I put one in for my father, his Linksys router went for an entire year without a reboot (and even then only because I needed to unplug it to move some cables around).

    38. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by PNutts · · Score: 1

      25% of the original power usage is still a big win.

    39. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by PNutts · · Score: 1

      And to clarify, Philips Hue bulbs don't use WiFi at all. The Hue bridge uses ethernet to connect to your network (and Internet if you don't block it). WiFi is used by the iOS/Android/whatever device to control the lights locally. If WiFi isn't available you can still control them via a wireless connection to the Internet.

    40. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they would still have to broadcast wifi and remain connected so the network sees them. All of them. Face it, it's a dumb idea because the functionality it would bring is almost completely unnecessary.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    41. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can already get networked appliances like lights and aircon here in Japan. The selling point is that you can turn the aircon in a particular room on half an hour before you get home, saving energy by not having to run it all day and creating a nice environment for yourself.

      It was about 10 years ago that the first networked bath came out. You could email/text it to fill up and be ready for you when you got home.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Your problem is that you think current peak throughput is the only meaningful measure.

      Each device will interference with every other device. For 200 devices, there are 19900 pairs of interference. Now add in your neighbors....

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    43. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      Wow. Talk about opportunities for gaslighting someone.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    44. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, different. The smart bulb must be supplied with power at all times. It will decide if the bulb itself is powered or just the built-in controller. If you want to use a regular switch as well, it would need to be connected to control contacts (not currently provided) on the controller and would likely be un-powered (just carrying a low voltage control signal to provide a closure).

      While that provides simplified wiring for a new installation, it requires re-wiring for a retrofit.

      For a retrofit, a wireless arrangement would be easier. That is, remove the switch and splice the wires to be always on, then replace the original switch with a wireless controller switch and add additional wireless switches wherever desired. However, since a neutral isn't always available in a switch box (usually but not always) and even when it is, you don't really want a power supply built into the switch, that leaves lame battery powered switches (who the hell wants to change a battery in the dark just so you can turn on a light?).

      So, since you want at least one switch that works any time the house has power, you might as well go back to rewiring with a control circuit (it's more efficient than building a power supply into the switch) have optional wireless switches and define (in firmware on the controller at the bulb) that state change on the control input = state change on the bulb independently of state changes from network or wireless controllers.

      The upshot is that putting the smarts in the actual bulb is never the right move. Keep the bulb dumb. Either re-wire the house with smart controllers at the light socket and control wires to the switches or stay with what you have now. Either way the actual bulb should be dumb.

    45. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by jimmux · · Score: 1

      I keep a flashlight in the car, because you never know when you'll need one anyway. If you want reliability, I'm sure it would work just fine in this case.

    46. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but what I'd say is getting a reliable router is difficult, though less difficult than improving the reliability of your electricity provider. If somebody did have lousy electrical service you couldn't really fault them for investing in a lot of battery or crank-powered gear - unless you want to go off-grid you can only do so much beyond mitigating the problem.

      Maybe lousy power is the cause of many wireless router glitches. However, fixing that isn't really cheap. Good quality UPS and line conditioning equipment is expensive. Sure, a cheap one will suffice if you're ONLY plugging a router into it, but who buys a $100 UPS just for a router? For the typical slashdotter a $100 UPS isn't really going to cut it for their likely PC setup.

    47. Re:Yeah, let's do that... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I'd watch them ample blinkenlights.

  4. Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they were 3D printed in space by colonists?

  5. Meh. by VzXzV · · Score: 1

    I don't need all this crap, just give me one that works like f.lux.

    1. Re:Meh. by GNious · · Score: 1

      Most, if not all, will have some kind of API.
      Request the guy/gal behind f.lux to write a similar tool for your lights (might need to incentivize the person).

  6. Why so expensive in the US? by rebelwarlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We've had LED bulbs for a while in Taiwan, and I've never seen them go above about $30usd (and even that is on the high side). I'm constantly hearing about $50 and even $80 bulbs in the states. Do you all have special tariffs on LEDs there?

    1. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the UK, normal LED bulbs designed as plug-in replacements for incandescent and CLF bulbs typically cost about £13. The Philips Hue bulb, which can change colour with a remote control costs about £50.

    2. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by baobrien · · Score: 1

      You can get normal LED bulbs for $30 or less here. It's just these fancy RGB Color-changing bulbs that are expensive.

    3. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by jpatters · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm in the US and I just got a bunch of LED bulbs from Costco for $5 each. Not the color changing ones though.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    4. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      You can get normal LED bulbs for $30 or less here

      Well I was down in florida back oh two months ago, and I didn't see them priced under $45/pop. Up here in Canadaland, they're running anywhere between $38-72 a pop just as standard replacements. I don't like CFL's, the odd LED bulb looks okay, but incandescent are still the big winner up here, especially in the winter. Probably shouldn't get started on the brilliance of switching to LED lighting for street lamps either, especially when you have any type of moderate snowfall they start getting covered up. Gets more interesting with street lights and no one can figure out who has the green(love that snow cover).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by adolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Down here in Ohio, I've also seen incandescent stop lights clogged with snow.

      *shrug*

      It depends on the snow and the wind and the temperature and the duty-cycle of that particular light bulb.

      Meanwhile, contrary to what everyone seems to assume: LEDs can get pretty toasty. This is why pre-packaged bulbs and fixtures tend to be mostly heatsink.

      IIRC, they're only still about 40% efficient. This is more than an order of magnitude better than an incandescent, but it still means that substantial heat can be generated with use.

    6. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Two reasons for the heatsink. Firstly, they can get pretty toasty, yes. Secondly, high temperatures greatly shorten the lifespan of a LED. Incandescents or CFLs can take the heat, LEDs can't, so even if the heat dissipated isn't that great they still need large heatsinks.

    7. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Germany, they cost 10€-20€: http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=farbwechsel+birne&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Afarbwechsel+birne

      I personally like the volleyball sized ones: http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=farbwechsel+kugel&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Afarbwechsel+kugel

      They are great for nights outside on the balcony with the laptop and a cigar. I also have one that is waterproof for the pool. I find them in the junk bins in discount supermarkets.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Streetlights covered up? Humour me here, since I'm in a place with no snow and streetlights with the bulbs on the underside facing down, but how does that happen? What sort of strange design is it where stuff on top can block the light or am I missing something here?

    9. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by anubi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have noted some MR16 LED's I bought run hot. The "Shoe Palace" at the local mall installed this same kind of lighting and I notice about 10% of their emitters are now dead. It is my belief that the LED's were sold on their initial appearance of being very bright, not for their longevity. So the marketers overdrive them to make the specs look good for a quick sale.

      I bought mine for outdoor illumination, but after examining them, it appears they are very poorly sealed against moisture. Not the LED, rather its the inverter electronics that appears quite vulnerable to condensation which would be expected in an outdoor application, much like you would expect same in a bathroom application.

      I have been looking at those 10-watt LED chip arrays from China, which look like they would survive outdoors as long as I ran them substantially below their rated power due to not having them heat sunk very well. They still need a driver, but in this case, I will put up with the inefficiency of using a ballast resistor in order to get the reliability and robustness against moisture that I do not believe I can get from a buck ( switching ) converter.in a wet environment.

      I definitely wanted the outside lighting to run on 12 volts ( DC, full wave rectified, minimal filtering for voltage spikes that would destroy the LED ), I considered the 12 volt 20 watt MR16 halogens unsuitable because their current draw demanded heavy expensive wire, I wanted to run my lights with repurposed CAT5 cable ( which I have lots of) snaked in old garden hose as a direct burial conduit. Obviously, the ends are exposed to water, kids and pets, so line voltage is definitely out. I can get 10 ohm 25 watt ( 1 volt per 100 mA ) ballast resistors pretty cheap, and run them way under rating so they barely run warm. They are well sealed, so if they get wet, no big deal.

      You may have seen a lot of indicator type LED's and small flashlights and think these things are the ideal cold light source. When I played with higher powered LED's ( 1 watt and up ), I was quite dismayed with how much heat I was going to have to deal with. Incandescents make even more heat, but the heat does not destruct the lamp like heat will shorten the lifetime of a LED.

      I have several UltraFire WF-502B flashlights I bought so I could re-use the lithium 18650 style cells I recovered from "spent" power tool and laptop battery packs. I was doing some research on how to build charge equalizers with the cells and later fell in love with the lithium cell technology. These are quite nice high powered flashlights which deliver an unusual amount of light. The flashlights are made from machined aluminum, and they are the first flashlight I have ever had that ran noticeably warm after it has been turned on for a few minutes. They have about a 5 watt LED in them, on a massive block of aluminum heat sunk to the aluminum body of the flashlight. Yes, a beautiful design, and it also illustrates well that high power LED's will heat up.

      I know our Government is doing all they can do to ram Fluorescent and LED technology down our collective throats. It is still my firm belief that those technologies are downright dangerous in the bathroom, where condensation wets the innards of the thing, then when you turn it on, ka-blooie! By their construction, incandescent bulbs are extremely resistant to condensation ( and if they are on, no condensation will happen because of the heat ).

      Yes, there are some good bulbs out there. There is also a lot of junk. I do not want to diss the new stuff, but in my book, its too early to retire the legacy incandescent.

      I have seen the color changing ones where one can custom mix red, green, blue, white LED outputs to make almost any desired hue, and they have their application. I do not know if I really want it all that bad, but maybe it would be good for things like mood lighting. I know I highly prefer my light around 2700K, ( quite yellowish ), but others may want the higher temperature 6000K ( downright cold bluish ) light.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    10. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're not missing anything, it's a design problem. The light has a round shield around it, mostly to cut glare. The shield generally has a slot in the bottom, but snow sticks to snow, so snow can easily fill the gap. It's a crap design. Instead, the shield should be square regardless of the shape of the light, the entire bottom of the square should be open, and the light should slope back from top to bottom so that each light's shield is effectively tucked back from the one before it. This would cost slightly more and probably require expensive usability studies or something before governments would buy them, so we just stick with the same shitty lights.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I make these for a living, hence posting as AC. LED light bulbs are available here in the US, and have broken the $10 barrier. Their time has come.
      Beautiful warm white light, 10 year warranty (Cree)
      $10 for a 40W equivalent at Home Depot
      http://www.homedepot.com/p/CREE-6-Watt-40W-Warm-White-2700K-LED-Light-Bulb-1-Pack-BA19-04527OMF-12DE26-1U100/203991778#.UUSCARzvvq4
      $13 for 60W equivalent
      http://www.homedepot.com/p/CREE-9-5-Watt-60W-Warm-White-2700K-LED-Light-Bulb-1-Pack-BA19-08027OMF-12DE26-1U100/203991774#.UUSCORzvvq4

    12. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I have been using ccfl and led lights outside and in the bathroom for years. They are fine, even the cheap ones. Put it another way, ever notice how your electric shaver rarely electrocutes you? 120v in your hand, wet shaving foam and water to clean.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Why so expensive in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's dozens of fully potted buck converters for aquarium and pond lighting available.

  7. Ugh, why would you link to a slideshow? by guises · · Score: 1

    All this junk and doesn't even mention the LuminAR bulb (I assume, I wasn't about to click through a slideshow to find out):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV5V-dQW8CI

    It's not an awful idea to use a light socket as a standardized power source for more interesting things, but we can do better than some remote controlled colored lights. (Which is what I assume the article was about, I'm never going to know for sure.)

    1. Re:Ugh, why would you link to a slideshow? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The light socket was a standardised power source, for a time. The first electric appliance to make it into the home was the electric light - and no others were anticipated, so there were no sockets. This meant that for a time the light bulb socket was the only available source of electricity for appliances in many homes, and became a de facto standard. If you look at many early appliances, such as the first electric vacuum cleaners and toasters, their power cords terminate in an Edison screw* connector to fit a light bulb socket. The user would take the bulb out, plug the cleaner into the ceiling, and swap back when done.

      *Guess who invented it.

    2. Re:Ugh, why would you link to a slideshow? by tbird81 · · Score: 2

      That's quite cool, I didn't know that. It reminds me of how the cigarette lighter is a de facto power source for the car - are people wanting to change this?

      In answer to you question, Tesla?

    3. Re:Ugh, why would you link to a slideshow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My car has 5 of those electrical outlets, and a lot of newer cars have like a dozen usb plugs. I have even seen a few trucks come with built in inverters for normal plugs.

    4. Re:Ugh, why would you link to a slideshow? by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2

      >>*Guess who invented it.

      Tesla?

    5. Re:Ugh, why would you link to a slideshow? by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      Cool - I now remember my grandparents' radio with a screw plug that had to go into an adapter, and finding it odd. As a 6 years old with a keen interest in all things electric, light sockets were out of my reach so I didn't realize the screw plug was designed to fit them.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  8. X10 by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    X10! X10! X10! X10! X10! X10! X10! X10!

    "Home control" has been around since the 1990s. It was once promoted with some really annoying blinking pop-up ads for the X10 wireless control system. Around 2001, X10 was the fourth most popular property on the web. You can still buy X10 gear. It works fine. Nobody cares.

    Then there was Echelon LonWorks. This was a technically better system than X10 (which was mostly one-way), and it's widely used in commercial buildings. It has really good noise immunity, which has resulted in it being used to control auxiliary systems (lights, HVAC, destination signs, etc.) in subway trains. As a home control system, which was the original plan, it went nowhere.

    There's no problem doing this, and plenty of products are available. Remote off/on control of home lights and appliances just isn't that useful.

    1. Re:X10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL in ten years that's where 3D printing will be. "Remember in 2013 when 3D printing was everywhere? You can still make plastic trinkets but nobody cares." LOLORS

    2. Re:X10 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      X10! X10! X10! X10! X10! X10! X10! X10!

      "Home control" has been around since the 1990s. It was once promoted with some really annoying blinking pop-up ads for the X10 wireless control system. Around 2001, X10 was the fourth most popular property on the web. You can still buy X10 gear. It works fine. Nobody cares.

      X10 has a few problems that come to mind:
      1. It's *really* slow. The protocol sends 1 bit per zero-crossing event, which gives you a grand total of 100bps. You may not think you need much bandwidth for lighting control, but with such a slow data rate, doing things like "turn devices A, B and C on at the same time" become noticably "turn device A on, then B, then C".
      2. It's really expensive - Not too bad if you just want one or 2 controllable devices, but replacing every light switch/socket in your house with an X10 module really will cost a lot.
      3. Pretty much all the X10 modules are bulky and ugly as sin.

      Remote off/on control of home lights and appliances just isn't that useful.

      I think remove control of lights would be quite useful, but not useful enough to justify the high cost of doing it (with X10). Other appliances would benefit from remote control too, but that would usually be something more than on/off - i.e. I don't just want to turn my heating on/off, I want to be able to set the temperature and stuff too.

    3. Re:X10 by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remote off/on control of home lights and appliances just isn't that useful.

      Yeah it is... it's extremely useful; when combined with programming capabilities, it can save electricity, reduce human effort, and improve security.

      However, while it's useful... it's usually not useful enough to justify the price that manufacturers charge for it, and the total cost of refitting existing buildings and appliances with remote control features

      The automation people need is available through alternative methods that don't require remote control; timer on the coffee pot; outdoor lights with built-in day-night/motion sensor (instead of remote controller using the system time).

      When the technology is as cheap as the extra cost you pay for a coffee pot to get the timer feature; when the technology is as cheap as the extra percentage cost you pay for your car to get the "cruise control" feature or the "radio feature".... when the technology is as easy to use as those, and is as inexpensive to get setup and up and running as those;

      Then the technology will start to be adopted. Get it down to $5 - $10 per lightbulb, and if it's reliable and easy to use, it will become ubiquitous.

      It provides a benefit.... that benefit is just worth less than $200 for a bridge to run it plus the ~$300 or so in terms of cost for additional building surge protection (to prevent all the components getting fried next time there's a power storm), plus $50 per switched light, plus $50 per controller, plus probably ~$70 per circuit average, to get the electrician installation of the required components,; amounting to probably ~$4000+ for true whole-home remote control of just the lights

    4. Re:X10 by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 1

      X10 is a REALLY old protocol. Which happens to be still around and still quite popular, but newer technologies such as z-wave or zigbee are probably taking over. And there are modules available which can be built-in, so your house looks just as nicely designed as any other - but smarter. You find X10 expensive? Compared to the 50 dollar a piece LED bulbs we're talking about here? Look again then.

    5. Re:X10 by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 1

      It was once promoted with some really annoying blinking pop-up ads for the X10 wireless control system. Around 2001, X10 was the fourth most popular property on the web. You can still buy X10 gear. It works fine. Nobody cares.

      Thanks to those ads back in the day X10 made it onto my "never ever buy" list. Whenever I hear about X10 (even now) those ads are the first thing that jump into my mind, and I suddenly become highly disinterested in purchasing.

      -- Pete.

    6. Re:X10 by nblender · · Score: 2

      X10 does sort of work, but I have a _lot_ of X10 stuff, almost all of it sitting in a closet... Despite what you might think, range is a problem... Plus there's bridging across your two 120VAC sides, limited unit numbers, and bi-directional doesn't work all that well. I inherited all this X-10 stuff including a thermostat, water sensors, motion sensors, handheld remotes, key fobs, repeaters, bridges, filters, telephone voice interface, lamp modules, appliance modules, socket modules, and best of all, an LCD based protocol analyzer (tcpdump for X-10) ... The latter item is what I base my opinion on that X-10 is not truly meant to be relied on... The reason I inherited it was the previous owner finally got fed up and bought real home automation. I've been using the X10 stuff sparingly, to solve specific small non-critical problems.

    7. Re:X10 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      X10 is a REALLY old protocol. Which happens to be still around and still quite popular, but newer technologies such as z-wave or zigbee are probably taking over. And there are modules available which can be built-in, so your house looks just as nicely designed as any other - but smarter.

      Yes, but the post I was replying to was specifically talking about X10.

      That said, the zigbee, etc. devices seem to be similarly priced as X10 stuff and still not especially widely available.

      You find X10 expensive? Compared to the 50 dollar a piece LED bulbs we're talking about here? Look again then.

      No, I wasn't comparing it to a $50 LED bulb. I was saying that X10 is too expensive for all but the most dedicated geek to use... the same happens to apply to pretty much *all* the home automation technologies, which is why you haven't seen home automation take off. And frankly there's no especially good reason for it - you can get a smartphone for $50, WTF does it cost that much to turn a bulb on and off?

    8. Re:X10 by jcupitt65 · · Score: 2

      Your figures are a bit high. The hue is $199 for three bulbs plus bridge, $60 for each extra bulb thereafter. Each bridge can control 50 bulbs, enough for most houses. You don't need an electrician.

      It's not cheap, sadly :-( but less than you suggested.

      I've made a disco lighting system for my kitchen for 'only' a few hundred, it's been fun. I'm not sure I'd do the whole house though.

    9. Re:X10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. It's *really* slow. The protocol sends 1 bit per zero-crossing event, which gives you a grand total of 100bps. You may not think you need much bandwidth for lighting control, but with such a slow data rate, doing things like "turn devices A, B and C on at the same time" become noticably "turn device A on, then B, then C".

      It's not that bad. As long as they're on the same house code it's more like "select A, B, C, turn on". It's a noticeable delay, but usually endurable. Not like things are going to be bouncing up and down all day.

      I have a number of rooms and the thermostat wired for X-10. In my office, it keeps me from sitting in the dark and sweating when I'm working and don't want to interrupt myself to get up and turn things on and off as the day/night progresses. X-10 also manages the Xmas lights in season. When I commuted, it made sure that in winter, I came home to a house with the lights on.

      The biggest problem with X10 at the moment is that support is waning. The SmartHome controller with built-in webserver is non-functional trash whose UI actually makes X10 seem jet-propelled. Few other options exist short of shopping eBay for extinct controllers.

      I'd like something more modern - preferably zigBee based, but the more modern stuff rarely covers all the bases and it's all proprietary.

    10. Re:X10 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      X10 is shit. It's ALL one-way (X10 Pro is two-way... I've never seen it advertised, let alone sold) and it also doesn't work worth a shit. If you want to turn something on you'd better turn it on at least twice.

      There's no problem doing this, and plenty of products are available. Remote off/on control of home lights and appliances just isn't that useful.

      It's useful, but it's not as useful as it is expensive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:X10 by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      The Philips Hue uses zigbee. Just has a bluetooth to zigbee interface. Great thing is you can add it to your existing Zigbee mesh.

    12. Re:X10 by PNutts · · Score: 1

      I may not understand the context of your comment, but the Phillips Hue bridge does not use bluetooth and zigbee is not bluetooth. Let me know how much of a whoosh I deserve.

    13. Re:X10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used a computer to control a bunch of X10 modules for many years.
      I used a home brew program that
      1) Ran in the background, so I could do other things with with the computer at the same time,
      2) It had a list of things to do, (turn appliances on/off), at preset times - kinda like a cron job, (table was in memory and could be altered by program/user keyboard)
      3) I could dial into this password protected program/computer using a 300 baud auto answer modem, and could turn any of the X10 modules on/off, or dim the lights,
            or even read the status, (from the scheduled task table). (Came in handy with the bedroom air conditioner, which was set to come on a hour before I got home - unless I was going to be late, at which case I dialed in from work and reset the time the A/C was to come on. Altered the schedule the lights were on also.)
      4) Placed controller in plastic bags with twist ties to control Christmas lights outside.

      All this, and more, was done on a TRS80 model 1, back in the late 79 - early 80's, using level II basic and Z80 assembler.

    14. Re:X10 by mysidia · · Score: 1

      OK, but if you go with a smart-lightbulb solution, it means you need to pay multiple times for all the bulbs in the same fixture, $60 x 47 lightbulbs = $2820 + $199 = $3,019

      The 50 bulbs wouldn't be enough capacity for me, after considering the two candelbra style fixtures that hold 16 bulbs ea.... and realistically, the outdoor bulbs will cost more.

      Furthermore, all these LEDs have a relatively limited lifetime; within 15 years or so, you will be replacing bulbs.

      In fact, you may need more equipment, due to limited wireless range or interference from other sources.

      So... would you rather be able to point and click all your lights, or would you rather use that $3 to $4000 to buy a big screen TV, Laptop, iPad, android tablet, or perhaps a new stereo.... which is more efficient at bringing significant benefit for all that it costs, if you don't have? :)

    15. Re:X10 by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      X10 is actually coming down in price, though the improved protocols are still expensive.

      You don't really need a lot of automation to make X10 useful. One of the best use cases to start with is you have a switch and you want it to be able to toggle an arbitrary lamp, not the one outlet it happened to be wired to. X10 makes that easy to do. Things like three-way switches are trivial to implement as well as opposed to requiring snaking wires all over the place.

      Sure, you can get fancy with it as well, but the nice thing about X10 is that you aren't dependent on a computer at all. You can have the computer add in some extra logic/timing/etc, but you can also have wall switches and such which "just work."

      The biggest downsides to X10 are that the range isn't great, and it is a one-way protocol that is not 100% reliable. For a wall switch it is no big deal - if 1% of the time it doesn't work just push the button again. For a computer sending commands to 10 lights 5x per day it means that once a day some light isn't in the state it should be in.

    16. Re:X10 by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget Stuxnet, for those of us with nuclear facility centrifuges!
      It's just great having them spin up while you're searching for a parking spot.

      Next iteration will have OC control and be compatible with clothes washers!

  9. 50$ for a single bulb? Are they mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not sure about the quality, but I think the price of the Phillips Hue is just insanely high.

    Just for comparison:
    http://www.limitlessled.com/

    1. Re:50$ for a single bulb? Are they mad? by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the quality, but I think the price of the Phillips Hue is just insanely high.

      That is because Philips is a top brand. We (used to) deal a lot with fluorescent tube lighting at work, and Philips always was the brand of choice, because of the long lifespan, high energy efficiency, and good color reproduction (high CRI value). But, being a top brand, they also have far higher margins.
      Whether the extra quality is worth the double or triple price, is a personal decision.

  10. DSPS and N24 People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of us with circadian rhythm disorders, these new color changing bulbs could potentially be very useful. I wear orange safety goggles to block out as much blue light as possible during later hours and I have one orange bulb in a lamp (blue light tells your body it's daytime). My bathroom lights are an issue. They're very bright when I brush my teeth and they wake me up a bit (not good when you're already struggling to get to sleep by 4am). However I can't just remove the bulbs because then it'll be too dark to take a shower during the day. Right now I screw/unscrew the lights as I need them, but that's really annoying and sometimes I forget.

    I also need good kitchen lightening, but don't want everything to look orange during the day. I only have one orange bulb, it's not bright enough and I can't move it everywhere. It'll have to do for now. $40 lights are too expensive for people on disability income.

  11. inexpensive leds with nice color balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right after the holidays there are loads of xmas strings of lamps.

    The color balance can range from nice to awful.
    A small string can be wound around a foil covered cardboard tube with a lamp adapter at the end.

    The whole thing only draws a few watts.

  12. How long will it last by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a couple of problems that I see with this: - price. With all LED-solutions that I've seen so far, you need quite a few of them just to light one room. At 50 a piece, that will turn into a quite expensive toy. - usefullness. While there is quite a geek-factor if you can light up your room in blue or red, I very much doubt if it will be used for anything else but 'dimmer/brighter' after a few weeks. Which can be had with a single dimmer and a few standard spots as well. - lifetime. Yes, LED-spots do have a very long lifetime. Now how about the router? Or the protocol itself? I can see in the not-so-far future a number of people with lots of smart LED-spots that can't be used any more because the router is broken and can't be replaced because the marked has moved on.

    1. Re:How long will it last by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "With all LED-solutions that I've seen so far, you need quite a few of them just to light one room"

      This is a 15w LED driven at 6w. At full power, it would light my entire living room, dining room, and kitchen, if it were on the ceiling as opposed to ~2ft above my floor facing upwards.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  13. Open Standardised Building Protocol KNX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A system I've been trained in is KNX. An open communications protocol for intelligent buildings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNX_%28standard%29
    http://knx.org

    There's currently 300 manufacturers of equipment for this system and 144 qualified partners in Australia.

    From the website:
    "In order to transfer control data to all building management components, a system is required that does away with the problems of isolated devices by ensuring that all components communicate via one common language: in short, a system such as the manufacturer and application domains independent KNX Bus. This standard is based upon more than 20 years of experience in the market, amongst others with predecessor systems to KNX: EIB, EHS and BatiBUS. Via the KNX medium to which all bus devices are connected (twisted pair, radio frequency, power line or IP/Ethernet), they are able to exchange information. Bus devices can either be sensors or actuators needed for the control of building management equipment such as: lighting, blinds / shutters, security systems, energy management, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, signaling and monitoring systems, interfaces to service and building control systems, remote control, metering, audio / video control, white goods, etc. All these functions can be controlled, monitored and signaled via a uniform system without the need for extra control centers."

    long time reader... first time poster...

  14. I'm paying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DKK59 to DKK89 (USD7 to USD13) in IKEA in Denmark. Those LED's are not smart but they do have very good light temperature, which we value far more than smartness (especially when you have IHC).

  15. Learn to Shop by cirby · · Score: 2

    Home Depot has them for under $10 now.

    In Florida.

    1. Re:Learn to Shop by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Really? Perhaps you should let the Home Depot and Big Lots know this down in the Wesley Chapel area. Damn for that bit of reality coming at you huh?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Learn to Shop by PNutts · · Score: 1

      Really? Perhaps you should let the Home Depot and Big Lots know this down in the Wesley Chapel area. Damn for that bit of reality coming at you huh?

      The Wesley Chapel Home Depot has EcoSmart 40W equiv. for $9.97. Since it sounds like you don't live in the States I'll mention that different stores have different stock and a Central Florida town of 44,000 should not be expected to have a wide selection. Did you go into Tampa? They have a few more selections available including a 60W equiv. all for under $10. Unfortunately, Home Depot is big on "ship to store" right now. And I've gone to mine and they've been out of stock. Sorry if any of that reality bounced back to you.

    3. Re:Learn to Shop by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sorry nope, they didn't when I was down there back in January. Sorry if that reality thing still sucks. Though, I never got into Tampa this time when I was down, had a wheel bearing go in the front of my car when I got down there for my vacation and didn't have much in the way of transportation. Even Wesley Chapel was another 30min from where I was staying, ship to store is nice when you're able to get to the store.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  16. Re:"Streetlights" covered up. by leftover · · Score: 1

    Poster was talking about traffic signal lights and they can get covered by wind-driven snow.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
  17. Re:"Streetlights" covered up. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Ah - "who has the green" makes sense now.

  18. Article: -100Troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " I like the idea of controllable, long-lasting light bulbs, but I haven't yet been tempted enough to pay $50 apiece."

    Really?

    But you also like the idea of slightly more fluid FPS gameplay and are willing to pay £450 for a graphics card that gives a 50% increase in the 3DMark score and a 8fps increase in your latest game.

    Or an iPhone for $599 to make phone calls on rather than a $50 featurephone.

    If you're not tempted by it, WHY THE FUCK DID YOU WRITE THIS PIECE OF SHIT TROLLBAIT?????

  19. Oh christ, don't tell me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think you're heating your house with your lighting, right?

    Tell me, are your radiators at ground level or STUCK ON THE FUCKING CEILING???? And do you have 1kW lighting in each room? If so, do you wear welders' goggles in the house or do you use ordinary sunglasses and squint occasionally?

    1. Re:Oh christ, don't tell me. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You must not know shit about how HVAC typically works.

      Since cool air falls and warm air rises, we take advantage of that by re-circulating cool air by sucking it in at floor-level intake vents.

      As that gets pulled in, heat goes down locationally due to pressure.

      Incandescent bulbs do generate a lot of heat. I would just run those all over the house to heat the place up, and ignore using the huge power-sucking electric heater.

      Saved huge on my power bills sucking up only 3kWh instead of 30kWh every hour.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  20. Are standard bulbs/sockets really enough? by Alkonaut · · Score: 1

    This would be great if it wasn't for the fact that during the last decade(s) people have been fitting multi-socket halogen fixtures instead of single bulb standard socket fixtures in their homes. I'd definitely love having an app-controlled lighting system, but it would have to be much more flexible than just a bulb or single socket solution. For light fixtures with several low power halogen lights I'd have to hide the control unit somewhere before the power is split to the individual halogens, i.e. somewhere in the fixture or as a special lightswitch (essenially then a controllable dimmner switch). All the light fixtures that already have dimmers would have to go the same way: the wheel dimmer would have to be replaced by one that can be controlled by the app.

    As long as I can dim 3 out of 4 lights but still have to get off my ass to go turn down the fourth light (at the same place where I could dim them all), there is very little gain. As soon as someone offers a simple solution that is expandable to existing switches, multi-socket fixtures and so on, i.e. beyond standard bulb/socket then I'm in.

  21. Smartest Light Bulbs : Dumbest Idea Ever !!!! by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> Smartest Light Bulbs Ever, Dumbest Idea Ever?

    Yes, it's not a good idea. A traditional light bulb must be hot to work properly, so a sphere is the best form factor.
    Trying to put high power leds and their controller in this form factor is a big mistake.
    All these leds "bulbs" will fail prematurely because they simply are too hot. And the expensive ones with better thermal properties do not improve much this design mistake.

    The right form factor or leds is strips, plates, or similar.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  22. WTF? by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    FTA: What could be a simpler approach to home automation? Just replace your existing bulb with a fancy new one, and it’s at your command with a simple app.

    A simple app? Jeezum crow, what the hell is wrong with an on/off switch?

    1. Re:WTF? by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      what the hell is wrong with an on/off switch?

      An on/off switch is neither "news for nerds", nor "stuff that matters"?

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
  23. Smart Bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to draw the line "personally" at adding an RF radio to a light-bulb no offense to those who love their X10 systems, but when I turn power on to a light, I simply want it to light, I don't want automated meddling or the potential to have a hacked light. I just never personally found a use for all that. However, I was early adopter of LED bulb "Phillips" it was about $80 with it all said and done-on the label it said something about going for 25-30 years. I've tested this bulb out on my SOLAR panel/inverter which gives me much more control over watching the amount of juice/watts/amps being used. These bulbs kick butt although there are some who do not like the light produced. Coming down off my 500 watt halogens, these are a nice fix without all that HEAT. The price is a little high still. If all everyone is trying to do is SAVE electricity I would have to say right now the way forward is 12v DC leds. My reasoning is it can run off battery, and so no CONVERSION to AC loss, (you know thru the inverter.). If you are trying to run a LIGHT all night long off a SOLAR array, you are going to find out FAST that that one little light sucks an immense amount juice (drain the shit out of your batteries.) So the less of a DRAW on the system (e.g. 3 VDC led's) . Another problem is LED's have circuits, and these circuits do NOT like winter or fall. We are talking RUST, we are talking push switches which internally disintegrate to rust. SO any LED array your planning on building up from scratch needs to be Weatherproofed better than your "best" otherwise I give it one Winter and come spring your gadget will be trashed. Of all the tests DC did better than AC, however out of ALL the AC bulbs, the expensive phillips LED bulb did the best with the curley cue second best.

    Now if only the inverter manufacturers would put screens over the fucking vent holes so earwigs don't get in and jam the fans.

    1. Re:Smart Bulbs by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Another problem is LED's have circuits, and these circuits do NOT like winter or fall."

      Liar. I've got a 12w PAR30-style LED bulb, with the lenses and lens plate removed to expose the entire board so it would act as a wide flood lamp, and it's survived not only being out on my back patio, unprotected except for hanging under a tiny overhang, for a year, but that light is now in service inside an actual store, right next to the back door.

      It is at least three years old, now. Totally exposed. Not one problem.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  24. dmx512 by soundguy · · Score: 2

    What pisses me off about the current crop of devices is that everyone is reinventing the wheel with a bunch of proprietary bullshit and unnecessary new protocols. The DMX512 lighting control protocol has been around for decades and is used by hundreds of existing stage and commercial lighting device manufacturers. I want RGB bulbs that talk to a bridge device that I can control with existing lighting control boards or any computerized system. I can already buy the devices for residential outdoor applications. Why the hell can't these indoor bulb idiots use what everyone else in the world is already using?

    --
    Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    1. Re:dmx512 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What pisses me off about the current crop of devices is that everyone is reinventing the wheel with a bunch of proprietary bullshit and unnecessary new protocols. The DMX512 lighting control protocol has been around for decades and is used by hundreds of existing stage and commercial lighting device manufacturers. I want RGB bulbs that talk to a bridge device that I can control with existing lighting control boards or any computerized system. I can already buy the devices for residential outdoor applications. Why the hell can't these indoor bulb idiots use what everyone else in the world is already using?

      If you want to see a new controller for LED's there is a nice solution out there that runs on Gigabit Ethernet. See http://www.heroicrotics.com not a bulb replacement but strips work just fine in rooms too. Being able to individually address each led is freaking awesome. Beside that it costs around 3 $50 bulbs to control 8 strips.

    2. Re:dmx512 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heroic Robotics helps if I spell things correctly...

    3. Re:dmx512 by crtreece · · Score: 1

      Why the hell can't these indoor bulb idiots use what everyone else in the world is already using?

      How would that allow them to lock the world, or even a small group, into THEIR bulbs, sockets, controllers, and hardware?

      Any time a question in the form of "Why can't/don't/won't X do the the logical thing Y?", the most likely answer is some form of "money/greed/control"

      --
      file: .signature not found
  25. Re:They aren't talking about toy lights, idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Where you get the bullshit idea that "you need quite a few of them just to light one room" is anybody's guess. It's 100% impossible for you to ahve seen it. Because it's bullshit."

    Oh come now, why so harsh on the guy. I am of the same opinion so there are a unlimited supply of zombies for you to shake a stick at.

    Here' the problem for ME was, complaints that the light was too directional. The potential for what you thought was a straight swap into anywhere from 2 to 4 bulbs pointing in four directions, for the one being replaced (curly cue bulb.) I personally love the shit, but others don't like the DIRECTIONALITY. Maybe a REAL problem in say a large two car garage. You can't see into the dark corners. It may be the best place in the house to read a magazine on the HOOD of your car, but good luck finding that broom in the dark corner. To ignore this problem is to ignore reality itself. You find out really fast, WHEN OTHER PEOPLE BITCH ABOUT IT. So I ended up buying the bulb (I love it really) and sticking that 12 Watt curley cue back in. Now people can find the broom, and it's that nice fuggley orange again.

  26. Of course not your a broke dick no money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having mohter fucker. when your rich and silly you can pay 50 bucks no problemo.
    And after a few years production gains let someone like you afford them too.
    At 5 bucks you will get them telling everyone they use to 50. then when they are a buck you will no long talk about them after all it just a light right.

  27. Switch King? by uberbrainchild · · Score: 2

    I use switch king for my home and I think it works great, works with the X10 stuff as well but there are many more adapters available and they only cost around $20-$30. Some mount behind switches and communicate wirelessly with a server, I use a cheap netbook for $300. I have probably spent about $700 total to get 5 rooms controlled wirelessly. I can control my lights with the switch king app on my iphone, any computer, or any switch on the wall. I can also schedule when lights should turn on and off if I want to. It's a nice and cool setup but is it still worth it, probably not :)

    --
    Anveto
  28. Re:They aren't talking about toy lights, idiot. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Where you get the bullshit idea that "you need quite a few of them just to light one room" is anybody's guess.

    They probably get it from reality. You can rarely sufficiently light a full room with a single incandescent. LED lamps which aren't directional are lossy and wasteful. GE has a design for incandescents which are twice as efficient as normal, I'd rather use them. Every LED lamp which isn't fifty bucks that I've seen has agonizing flicker, as well. They give me headaches just like CFLs.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. Security by fa2k · · Score: 1

    If these lights or their controllers are publicly adressable on the Internet, they will be hacked. Fortunately the tech is still in its infancy and the people who install these things probably know how to maintain and update them. The damage that a hacked light or a central heater can do mostly amounts to an annoyance and increased power use, assuming that it has proper hardware protections and manual overrides.

    Another safety issue is if burglars are armed with RF jammers; they could prevent the house owner from turning on the lights and even calling the emergency number. This is not as bad as it seems though, because burglars prefer empty houses and many are junkies and may not even be armed with proper clothes, much less a jammer

  30. smart lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My company has a smart building. A few years ago their lighting server had issues. some of the lights worked fine, other sections turned off, others were so bright you had to wear sun glasses. There was nothing that could be done but wait until IT fixed it, which took a few days.

    Smart my foot.

  31. certain conditions by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    I'll pay $50 for a light bulb, but only if it's manufactured locally by union workers. And it better last a long time, not like these "5 year" fluorescent bulbs that I'm replacing every year.

    Fortunately, the fluorescent have gotten really cheap.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:certain conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here - I have replaced every fluorescent bulb that I ever purchased within about a four year span. Some have even produced a bit of smoke when they died. I hate the things with a passion, and even worse they contain mercury (a pinhead sized amount). If you have a few break in your house, you could have mercury vapor levels that exceed safety standards

      Why oh why did anyone think it was a good idea to encourage these bulbs? Give me LED or something else, please.

  32. Re:They aren't talking about toy lights, idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you have a habit if buying cheap light bulbs. Go figure.

    I laughed at the fugly orange glow bit, but the reason that happens is because it's an old cheap one. Look into color temperatures. The brighter white ones are highly suggested.

    As for your led problem, again...do not buy cheap bulbs. find a company that uses a prism on top of the LEDs to spread the light source.

  33. Temperatures by overshoot · · Score: 2

    I just wish more came in 4000K rather than 3200K.

    Most people use lighting at night, before going to bed. There's a fair bit of research to the effect that high-temperature light before sleep interferes with sleep quality.

    Office lighting is another matter entirely -- there, high temperature light is not only good for vision but increases alertness.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Temperatures by lgw · · Score: 1

      By high temperature light, you mean "cool" lighting? As opposed to "warm" low-temperature lighting? We need better terms.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Temperatures by ebh · · Score: 1

      Too true. 6500K CFLs are so "cold" looking that they make me shiver.

  34. Nope, that's not reality at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 12W LED will be AS BRIGHT as a 100W or slightly brighter incandescent. Incandescents run at ~3000K which is quite red compared to the sun at 5600K, and the LED can match the 5600K a lot better, hence even where the total lumens is no better, the LED is brighter to the human eye.

    No, you're NOT talking about reality.

    You're talking BOLLOCKS.

    And flicker? BULLSHIT. You may as well complain about flicker from the LCD TV you have or the LCD monitor.

    You're making shit up.

    Or, possibly, just repeating the same bullshit story you've heard and, having heard it, then decided that any change that you can see with an LED bulb MUST be because the bulb is flickering and dim.

    BULLSHIT, kid.

    BULL.
    SHIT.

    1. Re:Nope, that's not reality at all. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      A 12W LED will be AS BRIGHT as a 100W or slightly brighter incandescent.

      Nonsense. It might be. It probably won't be.

      And flicker? BULLSHIT. You may as well complain about flicker from the LCD TV you have or the LCD monitor.

      You're an idiot. Most LED lights in the price range we're discussing are built as simply as possible. They flicker like mad bastards, because the flicker is 60Hz. I'm not talking about when they are dimmed.

      Or, possibly, just repeating the same bullshit story you've heard

      I've bought so many LED lamps I get spam for them. As in, that makes it through my filters, unlike all the other spam. I can see why you didn't log in, though. You're full of shit, so you don't want us to know who you are.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Nope, that's not reality at all. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Nonsense. It might be. It probably won't be."

      I've got a 15w CreeMK-R sitting here, and at 6w (12V@500mA,) it's competing with ~100w of fluorescent lighting, plus my older than dirt 30w LED panel.

      "Most LED lights in the price range we're discussing are built as simply as possible. They flicker like mad bastards, because the flicker is 60Hz."

      Only the ones using PWM drivers do this. Those using constant current or a simple resistor to handle drive current simply do not flicker (and the ones using simple resistors for drive current regulation are simpler than the cheap PWM-powered ones.)

      "I've bought so many LED lamps I get spam for them"

      I'm not entirely sure that you're experienced enough in LEDs/optoelectronics to be able to judge a good one from bad.

      And no, I'm not the AC you're replying to.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  35. Soon you will add it into your home sale price by gelfling · · Score: 2

    These bulbs are so expensive that soon you will either remove them all when you move or you will add them into the sale price of your home. It could easily reach a thousand dollars if every bulb were replaced.

    1. Re:Soon you will add it into your home sale price by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      That's what I've been doing for years with CFLs, and they're nowhere close to as expensive as the LEDs on the market. Whenever I'm moving from one apartment to another, I always pack away the incandescents that are in the new apartment, then put them back in place before I move out. With LEDs, I would definitely continue this sort of behavior.

  36. Cut the guy some slack by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    he lives on a fault line.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  37. It is a known fact by Ilgaz · · Score: 0

    50-60 hz flickering is known to trigger migraine attacks.

    1. Re:It is a known fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's a good thing CFLs don't flicker at 50-60Hz, then.

    2. Re:It is a known fact by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I guess it's a good thing CFLs don't flicker at 50-60Hz, then.

      Cheap ones don't flicker fast enough to not be immediately perceptible, however. Nor do they last worth a crap, nor work in the cold, etc etc. I use them where I don't need light soon, or much light, or for very long. That means I am using about three of them, in a three bedroom house. I use fluorescent only in the kitchen, where there's four tubes with mixed warm and cool white. Everywhere else I use incandescent when I use the light at all. I turn off lights when I'm not using them, so the power consumption is negligible. (I also put computers to sleep if they consume more than a couple watts, etc etc. NAS is a dockstar. Media player is a Raspberry Pi w/XBMC and a Wii, will probably soon be just one Android device like a MK802 MkII or III. I care about power consumption, but I care more about not getting headaches. And since we have crap power and stuff tends to die here I'm not excited about spending a lot of money on expensive lamps.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:It is a known fact by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I use them where I don't need light soon, or much light, or for very long

      I actually use this to my advantage in bathrooms. I have a line of small globe lamps on the top of the vanity. 5 of them are cold-cathode CFL lamps, which are VERY slow to warm up. 1 of them is a regular incandescent. When you flick on the lights in the middle of the night, you are not greeted with blinding light - the lights take about a minute to come up to full brightness. I normally hate the way my face looks in the mirror with CFL bulbs, but the single incandescent brings the quality of light way up.

      If instant light is what you desire, GE makes a "hybrid" bulb that has a halogen inside the CFL coil. The bulb runs the halogen for a few minutes until the fluorescent part is up to full brightness. Note that the quality varies quite a bit within the brand. I find the ones rated for indoor/outdoor hold up far better than the indoor only. Problem is, GE does not mark the packaging - only the bulb itself! I see the indoor/outdoor variety at Walgreens for $10 and the indoor only in 2-packs at Target for $14.

      Of course, a $10 bulb is going to screw up the payback time, so... :) I mostly use them because my house has so many lights that changing lightbulbs was a daily chore. Gotta love the 70s and the popularity of can-lights!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:It is a known fact by PNutts · · Score: 1

      I don't mean this to sound cranky, but if you care about power consumption then using 9 watts instead of 60 whenever your light is on (no matter how long it's on) is prudent. But I do understand the reasoning of "my car only gets 5 miles to the gallon but I only drive it one mile a day".

    5. Re:It is a known fact by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      CFLs die well before their time in rooms (like bathrooms) where they die from on/off cycles. In these rooms all bets are off regarding payback and/or mercury.

      LED's are the ideal light for on/off rooms as they are the only technology that doesn't die prematurely under short cycles.

      CFLs are ideal for places like porch lights, which will be left on for many hours.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:It is a known fact by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I agree that CFLs die faster than they should, but they also cost almost nothing anymore - payback period is no longer an issue. The reason I'm not going all-in with LED at this point is three-fold: 1) when CFLs first entered the market, they cost many times what they do today, so I'm kind of betting that history will repeat itself, 2) I'm not convinced that LEDs will meet their stated lifetimes, which is high-risk with an expensive bulb, and 3) in many cases, a cheaper CFL is good enough and has a similar energy draw.

      I still use incandescents in closets and stuff. Hell, I think the closet bulbs are from the 70s :) I also use incandescents over the dining room table, because the high efficiency bulbs make the food look gross. I'm experimenting with LEDs in the kitchen - I think they'll be fine since I'm already using CFLs in the recessed cans and, worst case, I can switch on the under-cabinet halogens if the food is looking gnarly.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:It is a known fact by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 2

      The amount of power used to produce the replacement light bulb also matters. A closet light is on perhaps a couple of minutes per day. It's the same reason why I still have CRT monitors on my servers. Those monitors are only on for a few hours a YEAR (basically only during upgrades that can't be handled over a remote connection, or to restart them if things go wrong after a power outage), so the energy saved by replacing them would never offset the energy cost of manufacturing the new monitor. If those monitors ever die they'll probably be replaced with other castoff CRT monitors, unless castoff LCD monitors are essentially free by then.

  38. From the author by Julie+J · · Score: 2

    Hello -- interesting comments. I wrote this piece for CEPro.com, which serves professional installers of home automation, lighting control, audio/video and other home technologies. We're huge advocates of lighting control in general for security, convenience, ambiance and energy savings. But this new smart-bulb thing is a completely new paradigm for our industry. Traditionally, the intelligence resides in the light switches and hub. Most consumers aren't willing to swap out a light switch, but they may very well change out their bulbs. So will this smart-bulb thing catalyze the DIY market for home automation/lighting control? Will it encroach on traditional lighting-control architectures? My opinion: maybe so for cool RGB special effects, but this whole issue of having to leave the light switch on at all times, and the inability for kids and visitors to control the lights ... that's a problem. Best opportunities are probably in commercial environments. Thx

    1. Re:From the author by Khyber · · Score: 1

      If manufacturers would get smart and tune these for horticultural applications you could see these taking over growing facilities and home-based greenhouses and gardens. Imagine a screw-in array of these, controllable over wi-fi, to adjust their spectrum to mimic seasonal changes and light emissions?

      Of course, nobody's listening to me. Such a shame, too. So many LED ideas, capable of turning the entire optoelectronic industry head-over-heels, and nobody will even give me a serious 5 minutes of talk time.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  39. I own many LED bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My bulbs usually cost between $5 and $10 on E-Bay. I never buy them from local stores, nor do I buy ones that need cooling fins. I don't buy bulbs that shift colors or do any other stupid tricks. I have learned that bulbs based on the SMD 5050 do a great job. If you mix the bulbs (warm and cold) in a fixture, you get some pretty good lighting. Some fixtures even have a florescent mixed in, like the kitchen, where brightness is a big factor.

    LED bulbs are extremely reliable. I have never had one fry. In my car trunk, I have a bag of mercury laden florescent bulbs waiting for our city's hazardous waste disposal day.

    Know your sockets. Mine are E12 and E-26. I accidentally bought E14 bulbs which did not fit, but E-27 are OK in E-26.

    The typical LED bulb is 9 watts. My projector is also LED (Optoma ML 500) and runs at 120 watts. So is my Vizio TV (LED/LCD). but I don't know the wattage off hand.

    My power bills are significantly lower than they used to be. (It also helped to insulate a 1917 house). I just don't see why more people don't use them.

  40. $50 Today by PPH · · Score: 1

    Less tomorrow.

    It wasn't that long ago that dumb LED bulbs cost about $50 apiece. I just replaced a couple of PAR 30 floodlight bulbs with LED units (dimmable). Cost: $12 each.

    The article raises some interesting issues. It's probably better to install smart switches and plugs than smart LED bulbs. Better yet, a smart switch that interrogates the bulb (or other fixture) for capabilities. If it sees an incandescent lamp, it just dims. If the bulb replies with an RGB capability, the switch forwards it the appropriate messages from your iDevice.

    None of this will be worth a damn until the industry develops some standards (or the bad standards get washed out). I have an X10 system in my house (archaic by today's standards). But it works with any X10 manufacturer's components. Microsoft Home or Google Home aren't going to sell if customers have to buy Google Bulbs and Google Toasters.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  41. Not so long lasting by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "I like the idea of controllable, long-lasting light bulbs..."

    Unfortunately these LED bulbs are not so long lasting. They make big claims but in actual use I find that there are many failures. The new bulbs are certainly better than five years ago but they still have a dismal failure rate. This is poor performance on the promise.

    1. Re:Not so long lasting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot seriously compare LED light bulbs from five years ago to the ones today. You cannot be buying current generation LED bulbs with a dismal failure rate.

  42. smart bulbs seem pointless for the masses by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    most people don't want needless complexity in having a room light they can turn off or on. a dimmer switch is as complicated as it need get. the idea that I would need IT infrastructure to control lights is silly. sure, farting around with X10 can be fun, but slashdotters are hobbyist geeks and not joe average.

    1. Re:smart bulbs seem pointless for the masses by PPH · · Score: 1

      Some people have rather complex lighting setups with multiple fixture types that need to be controlled for various uses. In a media room/den, for example, lighting needs to be changed for reading, playing pool, watching the flat screen, etc. So these systems have their place.

      The 'farting around' is done by the installers, who have much more flexibility with such systems than they do with hard-wired ones. All the end user sees is a couple of buttons on the wall to set the lighting for various uses.

      Once these systems are in place, extra functions like a panic 'all on' mode or random vacation light cycling are trivially easy to implement.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  43. Content-free article by mpbrede · · Score: 1

    Do we now have hacks that post thinly disguised PR releases or vague descriptive picture stories? What a waste of /. bandwidth.

    1. Re:Content-free article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us find this lighting evolution interesting. Look at what's being done with LED lighting and it's now coming into our homes. But lots of folks are OK with 100+ year old technology and to each their own.

  44. Betteridge's Law Applies Here. by Jhyrryl · · Score: 1
    --
    Jhyrryl
  45. Delvil is in the detais by WalletBoy · · Score: 2

    How much of that energy efficiency is negated by having to power the "always-on" circuitry in order to respond to the WiFi signals? One of the appeal of highly efficient LED bulbs is the savings gained due to the fact that they use far less energy when they are on compared to other bulbs. Products such as the Phillips Hue, may use almost as much energy when they are "off" just so they can respond to a WiFi signal from my smart phone. I couldn't find out from their website just how much power is drawn from the Philips Hue when they are "off". The total cost of ownership will need to include not only how power is used to illuminate the bulb for 3 to 5 hours a night but also how much is used when they are in stand-by the rest of the day.

  46. Phillips Hue Vs Living Colour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Hue bulbs come in a kit - with a wifi router. So I don't believe you have to connect them to your router / internet unless you want to. You can get a cool app that allows you to have backgound lighting to suit the pictures that changes as you change picture. You can set your lights to come on (slowly) with your alarm to help simulate natural sun. There are many applications (see Phillips Hue website for more examples).

    The WiFi enabled Hue range cost a lot more (x10) than the 'Living Colour' range. IMHO this is not worth it and I just want easy to controll mood lighting. So the Living Colour range are bright enough (210 lumen) and are easy to controll together (you can connect the 'control' to up to 50 other devices which uses blutooth I think). I just hope the bulbs last long enough to be worth the price. The manual is cool, just pictures and not pages of text in different languages... a refreshing change!

  47. A lot of hassle for marginal benefit by mcohrs · · Score: 1

    I have many CFLs, several LEDs, all dumb. I am OK with CFLs, and really like the LEDs (at least when they work), but the huge (current) cost does not meet my cost/benefit curve. I need simplicity, I like motion activated lights, I like wall switches, I really do not like to hunt for one more device to allow me to SEE!

  48. Own the Hue setup. by Tugrik · · Score: 1

    I've had the Hue system in my bedroom for the last six months. Were they worth the price? Probably not, considering the starter pack price. Even so, I like them and I'm glad I bought them. Buying overpriced gadgets is a bad habit of mine anyways, so they weren't out of my norm.

    The three bulbs are set up with one in the master bath overhead, one in a torchiere base by the bedside table, and the third in another torchiere on the far side of the room. The bulk of the lights in the master bath are on a separate switch (and are all LED, just single color white on/off instead of 'smart' bulbs). So when you're in there doing your morning thing and need lots of white light, flick a lightswitch for the regular bulbs.

    As normal lights the Hue work just fine. The only annoyance is if you enter the room and don't want to have your phone out to switch things, you have to turn the main lightswitch in the room off then on again. This brings up the main bulb on that switch in a normal, soft-white mode, just like turning on a regular lamp. To toggle to a color-scene you have to pull out your phone, which isn't too much of a problem since like most modern geeks mine is always with me or nearby (usually on the nightstand charging), but is still slightly annoying. When they release the standalone controller they show in TFA's slideshow that will be a huge improvement.

    The color scenes are surprisingly handy. I only have a few basic ones: Bright warm light for doing work at the desk (biased so the room light is brighter than the bedside), soft warm white for reading in bed (biased so the bedside light is brighter than the room), a blue/red/orange soft color combo for when I'm brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed (very relaxing), a "aaugh, the pain, I'm up dammit" super-white (they call it 'energize' mode in the app) which turns on automatically in time with my workday morning alarm, and the "gotta pee" mode where only the master bathroom light turns on to gentle, kind-to-the-night-vision red. The rest of the modes are all the usual "ooo lookit I can make the whole room /blue/" type of goofing off which almost never get used.

    I thought the novelty would wear off after a while, and it did... for the 'goofing off' modes. But after refining into the work/read/go-to-bed/get-up/night-pee modes (which took a month or so) I really don't want to do without them. They're something I'm used to and actually miss when staying away from home. Having a room only be 'very bright' or 'no light' isn't enough of a choice any more. Yeah, I'm spoiled. But isn't that what this kind of gadget is for?

    For those who are very particular about how warm/cool your normal light should be, Philips chose a good color engine for that; you'll be happy. The downside is that it can't do true green. Outside of goofing off, though, it's not often I'd need a solid green lit room.

    If they'd come down notably in price I'd install them all over the house. All my house interior lighting is LED already, but it'd be nice to have similar 'color dimming' abilities throughout the abode instead of just in my room. But at $50 a bulb? Naaaah, one room is enough.

    Wish list: The aforementioned controller (in various tabletop and wall-switch-mount formats). Higher maximum brightness. Slightly more green hue -- just a little. Lower cost.

  49. Welcome to the future. Isn't it great?