Slashdot Mirror
The Connected Home's Battle of the Bulbs
redletterdave writes: "The current leader in smart lights is Philips Hue Wi-Fi-enabled bulbs. But the competition just heated up last week, with both LG and Samsung unveiling new smart bulbs. Not that Philips is sitting idly by—the boss of intelligent bulbs also unveiled two new products: the Hue Lux LED bulb, a cheaper, stripped-down version of its pricey original, and the Philips Hue Tap, an add-on that lets you trigger lights by touch. But which company will win the battle to illuminate the connected home?"
...an app for that.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
There was some way to have a remote... Say attached to the wall, which would allow you to 'touch' it to have the lights turn on and off, or even possibly dim. One can dream..
Now do they really think "They're lazy! Instead of not reading the article, they will just sit back and listen. No-more bad comments, problem solved" They underestimate our power. Begin the rants!
It will be better to purchase from an owner who is a good farmer and a good builder.
Honestly, this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Why would the average person want or even need to control each bulb in their house individually? Also, won't this make each bulb very expensive, and as others have pointed out, more of a security problem? I just want lighting that's inexpensive and efficient, and I think I represent the majority in this case. You want to remotely control your lighting? There are already products and systems to do that, you don't need the bulbs themselves to do it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The original Hue was nice, because as the name implied you could change the bulb to be any color.
Or at least, as nice as the need to have bulbs of different colors. I never found that need pressing so I didn't ever get one.
If one was single I could see possibly using them for mood lighting for "guests".
The ability to control bulbs individually does have some practical use though - you could simulate being home when away by running a program that would turn on bulbs in different rooms in different times.
Or, if you think you have burglars, turn on all the lights in the house at once to try and scare them off.
Or better yet (back to color) you could color the lights red and strobe them while sounding an emergency siren... :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When you shut off a lamp manually, Hue may not know what state the light is in. Turn it off with the Tap, and it knows the lights are off.
They've replicated the one-way communication of X10, then. That seems rather lame.
Meanwhile, Cree's nice LED replacements for 60W incandescent bulbs are now below $10 at Home Depot. 10 year warranty. They draw 9 watts. Dimmable with existing external dimmers. Just buy a case of those and replace anything that burns out with one.
You can still see their likes on Facebook.
But which company will win the battle to illuminate the connected home?"
They all will lose as competing standards will decrease adoption. In the end there will probably be a standard that is not backward compatible and early adopters will have to buy new equipment. Maybe all companies win after all.
Even worst: the damn thing auto-plays so you can't open a bunch of tabs at once and they're making me download something I'm not going to use.
Waste of bandwidth is what it is. Let's hope it's part of the stupid april first pranks. Then again it appears that beta is real, so who knows.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
But the job of the socket or outlet? I'd prefer to see some sort of USB/bluetooth-esque standard where the plugged-in device, be it a bulb in a socket, a lamp in a wall outlet, or a toaster oven could all be monitored and controlled through the same interface. A device would not even have to comply to the standard for this to be useful. We'd already be able to tell if it is on or off, and chart out power consumption. Devices in compliance could extend the functionality in the same way any number of USB devices could be controlled via the PC, so long as they have the right driver.
Ability to turn off light remotely, and have it stay off!!!!
With this feature I'll buy a $50 lightbulb, without out it - I'm not buying.
Why? Because as any parent knows. As soon as you put your kid to bed, the first thing they do is wait to hear your steps depart, get up, and turn on their light. Above functionality would allow parents to turn off the light. And keep it off for set time.
Presently, all these smart bulbs have a bunch of features, but if you turn them on at the switch...they come on. We need a feature to prevent that for parents the world over.
1. Right click on player ;-)
2. Add AdBlock audio filter to slashdot.org domain
3. Problem solved!
So now I've got a bulb that when i turn it off at the switch it stops drawing electricity, they want lightbulbs all over my house that are not off but in "standby" mode. Sucking on power throughout the day...
I remember when lightbulbs were not $15 but $.50.
Let me guess: You're not a parent. The best parents are always the ones without children. After they have kids, they realize that their perfect ideas don't work on actual children.
Either that, or you've been blessed with an angel of a child. It happens, but it's far from guaranteed.
Is 60 watts the new 100 watts or something? 60 is too dim. Is anyone making 100 watt equivalents or is bright light now a victim of the green movement?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I just loaded a half dozen /. stories in tabs, and now as many computer voices are reading submission summaries to me in some godawful cacophony.
What the hell?
Worse than beta, since there's no off switch.