Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Connected Home's Battle of the Bulbs

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the bright-ideas-all-around dept.

Technology 176

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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm worried there will be... (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#46631935)

...an app for that.

Re:I'm worried there will be...DINGLEBERRIES! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632007)

So a little while ago I felt like I had a great big healthy shit coming on. I mean it makes sense. I have been adding more fiber to my diet lately. So I sat on my white porcelain throne and then ... *unghhnhhghhghh* *PLOP* Ah. Wow that was a big one. Damn it this is a big, wide, long log. It'll probably fold in half and get stuck and clog the fucking toilet. Again. Ah well. I will deal with that if and when it happens.

It was such a wide turd-log with such girth though. Amazing that my otherwise virgin asshole can expand that wide. Hmm that could be a problem. So I start to wipe. Damn it this could take a while. I got feces smeared on the sides of my ass cheeks from the girth of that turd. I wipe some more and ... oh no. I feel something knotty. Yup, what I feared from this turd has come to pass. I have lots of hairs around my asshole. I suppose most men do. Nature's way of saying "I love you! But not that much."

There it is. I can feel it through the single ply paper. A great big DINGLEBERRY. Naturally I try to awkwardly grab it with a folded sheet of toilet paper and dislodge it. I pull. Ouch. I pull harder. OUCH. Wow during its brief passage past the asshair, this turd-let really securely managed to get caught on some ass hairs. I can't just pull the dingleberry out without ripping the hairs right out. I have no idea if that caries the possibility of breaking the fecal encrusted skin and leading to an infection or what, but I know it would hurt so I want other options. I try gathering lots of sheets of toilet paper. I repeatedly wipe the same area over and over, hoping to wear this fucker down. I manage to whittle it down a little but this is taking far too much time. This turd is really determined to stay in its new home!

I can't very well pull my underpants back up now, that would get them all shitty and smelly. If I wanted to smell bad all the time I would let myself get fat. Maybe some water will help. I awkwardly reach for the faucet, turning it to a slow stream, and wet some toilet paper, making a mental note to disinfect the faucet handle later. I can't see the damned thing but judging from the brown stains appearing on the sheets of toilet paper, I am at least making progress. Now my hands are wet and shitty smelling and I am thinking this better be worth it. I use a dry sheet to feel for the dingleberry again. It did shrink but it's still there, dangling from my ass hairs, mocking me. WTF have I been eating lately to produce such a persistent turd? Nature does abhor a vacuum, which is why lots of gas has entered my bowels where the big turd-log recently was. I enjoy a nice after-defecating loud fart while I wonder what to do next. I chuckle because when the fart is your own, you don't think it stinks but you know somebody else would evacuate the area. Ok time to stop laughing, this is a serious predicament.

I toy with the idea of getting some scissors or something to try and cut the dingleberry out. Then I consider this is a sensitive area, I cannot see what I am doing, and it's too close for comfort to my cock and balls to be wielding a bladed item. I am starting to get angry. I am starting to not care anymore about the consequences of just yanking the damned thing out. I tried the easier ways and they failed. Fuck it, I have places to be and things to do. I can't very well spend all day in the bathroom playing a not-so-fun game with a turd. I double up on toilet paper and get a good secure grip on the dingleberry. Okay fucker, you're going DOWN. *YANK* Yeouch, fuck that hurt as much as I thought it would. And there it is, in my hand, nestled in the folds of toilet paper: my dingleberry! Ha ha ha, you won the battle, dingleberry, but I just won the war! I rub my sore ass cheek. Then I ceremoniously plop that fucker in the toilet bowl, to briefly swim with his big brother log. Oh man, you never heard such a satisfying flushing sound in your life. I rub some aftershave around my ass hairs just to make sure, better to smell funny than to get some kind of infected pimples or something.

I was careful. But not careful enough. Never careful enough. It was no trivial task to scrub the fecal matter completely off my hands and especialy, from under my fingernails. I find it useful to use a bar of soap and dig my nails in it. Repeatedly. I think all the turd particles are gone now. If I eat with my hands and get sick later I will at least know why, but it hopefully will be okay. Man. What an ordeal. Anyone who ever fought against a dingleberry knows how persistently they can cling to life next to your asshole.

So I watch this mixture of feces and paper swirl around the flushing toilet bowl. Sure enough, the very middle of the log gets sucked toward the drain. Not good, not good. It folds in half and the two halves at once is too wide to fit through the toilet. Great. Now my toilet is clogged. But the water continues to rise. Oh man, this doesn't look good. Quick, where the fuck did I put my plunger?!

... the saga continues ...

Re:I'm worried there will be...DINGLEBERRIES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632057)

Dafuq did i just read?

*unghhnhhghhghh* *PLOP* Ah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634477)

Well written, but a tad too much info. LMAO

Re:I'm worried there will be... (2)

aix tom (902140) | about 7 months ago | (#46634383)

Buy the new Smart Bulb App!!

Either the free version, where you can switch your light on and off after watching just one short commercial, or the Pay-By-Switch App for those people who don't switch their light on and off that often and want to save on monthly fees, or the $5 a month Flatrate-Switching App that let's you switch on and off your lights as often as you like without any additional fees !!!!

If only.. (5, Funny)

colin_faber (1083673) | about 7 months ago | (#46631957)

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..

Re:If only.. (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46632043)

There is. Hot glue and an old iphone or old android phone.

Re:If only.. (1, Funny)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46632063)

I think the answer he was looking for was "light switch".

Re:If only.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632121)

Nah, dimmer switch.

Re:If only.. (3, Funny)

chispito (1870390) | about 7 months ago | (#46632211)

I think the answer he was looking for was "light switch".

That's a pretty bright idea.

Re:If only.. (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46632735)

I think the answer he was looking for was "light switch".

That's a pretty bright idea.

Especially coming from such a dim bulb.

Re:If only.. (1)

wooferhound (546132) | about 7 months ago | (#46634697)

It's really difficult to lose a Light Switch . . .

Re:If only.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632087)

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..

I know you mean a light switch, but if you bothered to look at the article you'd see there's a Hue Touch, which doesn't need wires or batteries. I can't move or add a light switch very easily.

Re:If only.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46633491)

I can't move or add a light switch very easily.

Since you added the qualifier "very easily", that implies that if you wanted to, you could. IE, there is no landlord or local electrical code that forbids you from doing so.

In which case, I disagree. It really isn't that difficult a thing to do.

Re:If only.. (3, Interesting)

chihowa (366380) | about 7 months ago | (#46634259)

That's a pretty lame reason, actually. What use case (that's big enough to support an entire industry of "smart lightbulbs") involves:

o light fixtures that don't already have switches installed,

o users who are not industrious enough to move the lightswitch themselves,

o users who are too cheap to just have an electrician move it (this is shockingly inexpensive, by the way... typically cheaper than one of these bulbs),

o users who are fine with accidentally flipping the wall switch and making the whole thing inoperative or covering the switch with tape or something cheesy like that to keep people from switching it (or are industrious enough to rewire the switch and install an ugly blank panel but can't move the switch),

o and users who can afford (or rationalize) spending $60 or up on a light bulb?

I guess the intersection of most of that is gadget-addicted renters. Is that really a very lucrative market?

Re:If only.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634333)

That is stupid!!! It will never catch on!!

Re:If only.. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 7 months ago | (#46634739)

(Ignoring the joke...)

Doesn't even need to be attached to the wall, it can truly be 'a remote'. E.g. X10.

Here's a better idea... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46631975)

loudness filter loudness filter loudness filterloudness filter loudness filter loudness filterloudness filter loudness filter loudness filterloudness filter loudness filter loudness filterloudness filter loudness filter loudness filterloudness filter loudness filter loudness filterloudness filter loudness filter loudness filter

Now: KEEP YOUR GODDAMNED SECURITY VULNERABILITIES AND POINTS OF FAILURE OUT OF THINGS KEPT SIMPLE BY DESIGN!

The Connected Browser's Battle of the Mute Button (2)

CaptainStumpy (1132145) | about 7 months ago | (#46631987)

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!

Re:The Connected Browser's Battle of the Mute Butt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632243)

Worst "enhancement" ever - coupled with the beta fiasco it seems like they are doing everything possible to alienate their users.....

Re:The Connected Browser's Battle of the Mute Butt (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46632363)

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.

No way, audio is sweet (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46632421)

I'm loving the new audio. If you don't understand why it is here, or how long it will last - well that's your problem.

Re:No way, audio is sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634385)

The readers of multiple simultaneously opened tabs form a holy canon. I feel like being in the church of slashdot.

Re:The Connected Browser's Battle of the Mute Butt (3, Interesting)

Physics Dude (549061) | about 7 months ago | (#46632491)

1. Right click on player
2. Add AdBlock audio filter to slashdot.org domain
3. Problem solved! ;-)

..and we need this technology why exactly? (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about 7 months ago | (#46632001)

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.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (4, Insightful)

bkmoore (1910118) | about 7 months ago | (#46632051)

I also want lighting that fits in the fixtures that I have and doesn't protrude beyond the shade. Almost all of these "better lightbulbs" are just too large. Also why make intelligent light bulbs? Wouldn't it be better to put the connectivity into the light fixture, especially if it has more than one bulb?

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 7 months ago | (#46633903)

Wouldn't it be better to put the connectivity into the light fixture, especially if it has more than one bulb?

If we work really, really hard at it and spend enough money on the electronics in each bulb, we can give you that by making them imitate a 19th century lamp.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632055)

The remote gimmick is to distract you from the hidden microphone and cameras built into the bulbs. The "problem" they are addressing is that they can't hear you when you're in the bathroom with the water running.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 7 months ago | (#46632173)

The remote gimmick is to distract you from the hidden microphone and cameras built into the bulbs. The "problem" they are addressing is that they can't hear you when you're in the bathroom with the water running.

Upmod either Funny or Insightful.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46632377)

Funny + Insightful + frightening = Funinsightening.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46632387)

Just searched Google. Zero results. I just invented a new word!

<Fluttershy>Yay!</Fluttershy>

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (0)

Psykechan (255694) | about 7 months ago | (#46632949)

Someday, scholars will see the portmanteau as being even worse than the pun. There is no real wit in the creation of a portmanteau. Compressing words because you're lazy does indeed make a new word, but it's not a word that helps further the language. I would actually consider it a form of literary mumbling.

As for your Fluttershy tags, well I bet you were nervouscited about revealing your brony status on Slashdot. ...I hate myself.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46633179)

I was surprised that this monster of a word had never been written on the whole of the Internet yet.

Let's see if you can find the status for this name: Pink.

Some reasons (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46632069)

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... :-)

Re:Some reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632187)

1) you could buy a timer that could simulate you being home when you were away for $19.95 in 1975. You could buy one with a photocell that would do the same thing for $24.95 in 1979. God knows how cheap they are now.

2) if you have burglars in your house at night and turn on all the lights, they can see where you are too. What you do is turn on all the lights for 2 seconds and then turn them all off. Next, blink the lights in the room that the burglar is. That way, you know where he/she is AND blinking the lights will blind him/her so he/she couldn't see you even if you were standing in the door way. X-10 alarm systems have been able to do that since 1992.

3) the Chinese have a stranglehold on colored LED's and are incredibly cheap... http://www.everbuying.com/product35971.html Just one as an example. There are 1000's of more examples, Google is your friend.

Re:Some reasons (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46632391)

1) you could buy a timer that could simulate you being home when you were away for $19.95 in 1975.

I have a few outlet timers already that I use that way. But it's a pain to set those up compared to just being able to do that on the fly.

X-10 alarm systems have been able to do that since 1992.

Now that's something I didn't know, although I've played around with some X10 devices. The thing is, for most people setting up a whole X10 system like tha is a tall order (although arguably not much taller than getting a bunch of internet bulbs and making use of them in the same way).

3) the Chinese have a stranglehold on colored LED's and are incredibly cheap...

I have bought that very bulb in the past, or one so like it I cannot tell the difference. Yes they are incredibly cheap. You actually do get some value in the more expensive bulbs, at least in connectivity (note the remote in the picture of that cheap bulb, that's the only way to change it - and who needs another remote to lose?)

Basically all of what you say is true but the newer connected bulbs just make every point easier to manage (well except for the X10 alarm room blinking, that's damn nice)

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (4, Insightful)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 7 months ago | (#46632097)

The major advantage I see of having lighting controlled is to allow automatic management of such. Does a bare bone interface to turn on individual lights make sense? IMHO, NO. But with the right software and hardware managing lighting and other devices in a home is an essential step to reduce the bill.

I can tell you that by simply putting a timer on the exhaust fan, I have managed to save at least $4.00 per month. This is based on local rates and assumes one of the 3 fans was left on for 8 hours. This used to happen all the time where I'd get home and my wife or kids left the fan on after a shower or a number 2. At 160 watt hour that's almost $4.00 per month let alone the cost of replacing the fan, the lost of heating and the list goes on. The switch was expensive (I believe it was $20) but if you think about it I've had them now for 5 years so I've paid all 3 switches many times over.

Now if we could do this for more components in our house.

Timers and motion sensors (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46632185)

Now if we could do this for more components in our house.

I put a timer switch on a closet light my wife and I tend to forget to turn off. Automatically shuts off after 5 minutes as it is just a pantry/storage closet. I've got another spot with motion sensors. I have to turn the lights on but then a motion sensor turns them off if there is no motion in the room for X number of minutes. Good for locations like kitchens.

Re:Timers and motion sensors (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 7 months ago | (#46632395)

Very nice.

Good thing is most current devices have a sleep mode which is nice. Home power monitoring could also be very nice as it would allow you to notice higher than normal usage through trending. I know this kind of hardware exists already. I should probably get my hands on it.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 7 months ago | (#46633385)

Why would I want this functionality built into the lightbulb? Wouldn't it make more sense to build it into the fixture itself?

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46633619)

Wouldn't it make more sense to build it into the fixture itself?

Perhaps in one respect, it might. But as someone who has been in the market for new lighting fixtures, it's been difficult enough to find dumb lighting fixtures that I like the look of.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (3, Insightful)

m2 (5408) | about 7 months ago | (#46633907)

You are looking at it from a engineer's point of view. Look at it from a marketing department's point of view: to change a lightbulb you need no tools. Unscrew, screw, done. To change a fixture you need tools, and need to fiddle with wires and screws, and things that can go wrong.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 7 months ago | (#46634229)

Actually, I am looking at it from the consumer's point of view. If I wanted this technology, I would want to be able to configure it once and not HAVE to reconfigure it every time my light bulbs needed to be replaced (It's not that I might not reconfigure it more often, I just don't want to have to)..

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

David_W (35680) | about 7 months ago | (#46634287)

To change a fixture you need tools, and need to fiddle with wires and screws, and things that can go wrong.

Also add in the fact that 35% of people rent (in the US, according to these guys [nmhc.org] ). Many of them may not be in a situation where they can reasonably change out the fixture, even if they possess the needed skills.

why is there no subject? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634171)

One word: retrofits

It is super easy to screw in a bulb, but changing the fixture is a PITA.

Plus, an LED bulb should last well in excess of 10 years. With all that time to amortize the additional cost for the controller circuitry, it makes financial sense to put it in the bulb. Besides, after 10 years whatever tech that could have been in the fixture is going to be obsolete.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 months ago | (#46632217)

With the advent of LED light bulbs, I don't know why things haven't been made more modular. They could easily make individual LEDs (or small groups of them) within the bulb replaceable, and allow the AC/DC converter, as well as any other circuitry replaceable without requiring that the entire bulb be replaced every time a single component dies.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46632777)

With the advent of LED light bulbs, I don't know why things haven't been made more modular. They could easily make individual LEDs (or small groups of them) within the bulb replaceable, and allow the AC/DC converter, as well as any other circuitry replaceable without requiring that the entire bulb be replaced every time a single component dies.

Devil's Advocate:
Yea, but then you could actually fix the thing (with parts you bought from someone else), instead of dropping another $X on a brand new unit. Where's the marketability of that?

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632821)

I don't know why things haven't been made more modular ... without requiring that the entire bulb be replaced every time a single component dies.

Gee, buying an entire new light vs a few components. I don't see where the manufacturers would like this to happen...

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46633187)

Because of the expected lifespan of these LED lights it is pretty pointless to have exchangeable parts.

By the time they need replacement there will be vastly batter and cheaper systems.

--
Teun

There is a problem... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 7 months ago | (#46632483)

Sadly, most of these smart bulbs have failed (despite all their whiz bang feature set) to offer a solution to the problem.

PROBLEM: You put your child to bed, and as soon as you leave they turn the light back on.

SOLUTION: Offer a smart bulb I can turn off or disable remotely, even better yet, set a timer.

PROBLEM: Most of these smart bulbs come on when you turn on the switch. That's the exact opposite of what I want. I want the bulb to be de-activated from when I set it to say 7am. So that my kids cannot turn it back on.

Re:There is a problem... (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 7 months ago | (#46632551)

Ha ha. You suck at parenting. Bring forth some real consequences, not just threatened ones, for turning on the light and watch that light stay off.

Re:There is a problem... (2)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | about 7 months ago | (#46632741)

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.

Re:There is a problem... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 7 months ago | (#46634557)

I'm with Russ1642 here.

There's a very simple path to take with disobedient children: Teach them early that actions have consequences.

....or end up with "affluenza".

Re:There is a problem... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 7 months ago | (#46632727)

Remove the bulb.

Re:There is a problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46633691)

PROBLEM: You put your child to bed, and as soon as you leave they turn the light back on.

SOLUTION: Offer a smart bulb I can turn off or disable remotely, even better yet, set a timer.

So.. the problem is your child wasting electricity? Because if the problem is your child is not going to bed on time, I'm surprised. I learned early on to use a flash light so my parents wouldn't know I was still awake.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46633573)

And most people don't want a Ferrari, that doesn't mean the market isn't there for it. And I'm guessing the market for these is a hell of a lot larger than for Ferraris. No one is forcing it on you to use it. Crazy thought: not every product appeals to every human being. Weird concept, I know.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (2)

az1324 (458137) | about 7 months ago | (#46634685)

Dimming/hueing individual bulbs may be a luxury but there are situations when it comes in handy (leave one overhead light on for reading, leave lights at the back of the room dimmed for movies, light only every other bulb in a long hallway). The costs of a smart (white) bulb will fall to within a few dollars of a standard LED bulb. The additional complexity & components will improve the overall build quality of the bulb. There are lots of problems with cheap LED bulbs now, especially dimmable ones (flickering, humming, power supply failures). It isn't very ideal to use a dimmer to adjust the voltage waveform of a device that has to then rectify it and use PWM to do its own dimming. So smart bulbs do solve some very annoying problems in that area. The fact that switches will also need to be replaced with smart versions for best results and the additional "vampire" power consumption of smart bulbs when not illuminated are drawbacks.

Re:..and we need this technology why exactly? (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 7 months ago | (#46634703)

Frankly, I want a pretty decent collection of these bulbs for security purposes. I want the lighting in the house to show evidence of activity regardless of whether people are present. The current solution -- using cheap wall timers -- is fraught with mechanical problems, clock synchronization issues, and general dysfunction. Centralized digital control may be more expensive but will be a lot more reliable.

Illuminating (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632025)

Oh wait! Maybe you could clap your hands and the smart lights would turn on/off! Yeah, that's it. Now off to patent my invention. Buhahahahah!

Re:Illuminating (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 7 months ago | (#46632649)

As long as it's done "over the internet" you can get a new patent.

What a waste (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46632047)

Billions of electronic bits gave their lives to produce this article. It's sad really since we'll never see their likes again.

Re:What a waste (1)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46632073)

Nonsense. There are trillions more electronic bits just like those, all waiting to be wasted.

Re:What a waste (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46632337)

So your into electronic bit genocide!?!?! Save the bits!

Re:What a waste (2)

CycleFreak (99646) | about 7 months ago | (#46632125)

You can still see their likes on Facebook.

Re:What a waste (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46632349)

Those are spying, prying bits, I don't want any part of those.

seizure bulbs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632059)

I wonder when the lulz crowd are going to try to match houses with these to kids with epileptics living there, and do a whole-house giant seizure robots.

This article is a load of shit (-1, Flamebait)

johnsie (1158363) | about 7 months ago | (#46632067)

This article is a load of shit

Re:This article is a load of shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632083)

Welcome to April 1st...

As one-way as X10 (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 7 months ago | (#46632085)

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.

Re:As one-way as X10 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632137)

Yeah, except for the whole color changing thing... and the web-enabled light controller. Not very similar, actually.

Re:As one-way as X10 (3, Interesting)

Tridus (79566) | about 7 months ago | (#46632155)

Hackers controlling my lights is a feature I can live without.

Re:As one-way as X10 (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about 7 months ago | (#46632341)

If they're Bluetooth based, I wouldn't be worried about random hackers. I'd be worried about my asshole friends drunkenly screwing with my house. Or that I'd get a new phone and have to reprogram all my lights. To hell with that nonsense. Either I want the lights on or off. I can hit a switch as I enter or leave a room.

Re:As one-way as X10 (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46632865)

If they're Bluetooth based, I wouldn't be worried about random hackers.

No, you just have to worry about the targeted hackers who are taking over your WiFi enabled appliances as they prepare to storm your house.

Re:As one-way as X10 (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 7 months ago | (#46634583)

I can hit a switch as I enter or leave a room.

And I'll also bet you're not so lazy that you can't get up off the couch to change the channel, either.

Re:As one-way as X10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634493)

Just wait for those Christmas card colors lighting up your living room.

Re:As one-way as X10 (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46632199)

Just buy a case of those and replace anything that burns out with one.

If you're going to go ahead and buy them then you might as well replace the old inefficient bulb. Otherwise you're just wasting power since the LED bulb is a sunk cost at that point.

Re:As one-way as X10 (1)

Animats (122034) | about 7 months ago | (#46632309)

At this point I'm mostly replacing CFLs.

Too dim (2)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 7 months ago | (#46633067)

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?

Re:Too dim (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 7 months ago | (#46633879)

From what I've seen, most manufacturers are using high-efficency halogens as the replacement for 100W.

stupid subject line is blanked when I reply - buck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634233)

There are 100w (1600 lumen) LED bulbs, philips, cree and feit all have them at most home depot / lowes type stores. They took a little longer to come to market than the 60w equivalents because of energy star testing requirements. The energy star guys realized the fucked up the compact florescent standards, letting lots of crappy bulbs onto the market which often died waaaay too soon. So with LED they raised the standards a lot. That's not to say anyone is immune from the occasional manufacturing error, but in general the engineering that goes into the design of an LED bulb is of a lot higher quality than what went into early CF bulbs.

I do wish philips would come out with a 1600 lumen hue though. The ~600 lumens they do at full-white just isn't enough for the $60 price. If they can't do 600 lumens, they should at least halve the price since a 600 lumen white-only cree is in the $10 range.

not as good as the old Philips L-prize bulbs (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 7 months ago | (#46633083)

I like the Cree bulbs. I just wish they (or any other) were as good as the Philips L-Prize bulbs (93 CRI and 93 Lumens/W)

For comparison:
Cree TW series: 93CRI and 59 Lumens/W
Cree regular: 80CRI and 84 Lumens/W
Philips: 81CRI and 72 Lumens/W

Re:As one-way as X10 (2)

az1324 (458137) | about 7 months ago | (#46634759)

If you cut the power to a bulb, it's obviously not going to know what you are doing with the app. The tap allows you to never cut power to the bulb. Yes the tap itself is one way but it is only intended to toggle on/off and select a few presets. It does not interfere with the two-way nature of the rest of the system including the bridge, apps, api clients, etc...

No Winners (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 7 months ago | (#46632149)

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.

Should this not be a bulb's job? (2)

dmomo (256005) | about 7 months ago | (#46632411)

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.

Re:Should this not be a bulb's job? (1)

Chrontius (654879) | about 7 months ago | (#46634239)

Protip: Go look up ZigBee, Z-Wave, and Insteon.

The technology is out there, but it's a lot uglier than X-10 for DIYing. This was the first control system [amzn.to] I found that offers your sort of power management, and claimed universal, vendor-agnostic compatibility.

bucking feta blanks subject lines on reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634279)

LED bulbs last 10-20 years. That means there is little economic value in putting the smarts in the socket rather than the bulb. And if you are a renter, even better since you can take your smart bulbs with you if you move.

Key Feature... (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about 7 months ago | (#46632427)

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.

Re:Key Feature... (2)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 7 months ago | (#46632599)

There is another solution. We don't worry about it. In the morning everyone gets up early. If you stayed up late reading or something you still get up early in the morning for chores and breakfast. We also have rules of respect. Being quiet in the evening is one of those rules because other people are sleeping so they can get up in the morning to work. If kids are raised this way it rather solves the issue.

Back to the smart bulbs - too much technology. Wasteful. Expensive.

Re:Key Feature... (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46634563)

Ww, you solved the problem for everyone, becaqsue no one has a child with asleep disorder!
Thanks for you one size fits all. I'm amazed the world functioned at all before you started spitting pearls.

And then you solve that light issue with a simple statement with not argument.
Wow.

Another Korean Copy...err I mean innovation?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46632463)

Say it isn't so...

More power vampires... (3, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about 7 months ago | (#46632617)

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.

Re:More power vampires... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46632789)

HUE bulbs are $75 each. I think you need up update your pricing information.

Re:More power vampires... (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about 7 months ago | (#46632929)

Argh...

Now the bulbs are more expensive than the lamp....

I couldn't imagine outfitting a chandelier with $300 worth of bulbs...

Sadly they are far too dim for the price (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46632779)

HUE bulbs are 30 watt equivalent brightness. they need to get to the 60 watt world before they are useable.
Also they are ungodly expensive for what they are, and from a friends failure rate, I know why, you are paying for a warranty that will be used. he is having a 30% failure rate on the bulbs.

ZigBee (1)

almeida (98786) | about 7 months ago | (#46633899)

Hue bulbs speak ZigBee, not Wi-Fi. Communication between the bridge and the lights is done with a mix of the ZigBee Home Automation and ZigBee Light Link application profiles on a ZigBee PRO mesh network using an IEEE 802.15.4 MAC layer. The bridge is an IP-to-ZigBee gateway, but there's no direct IP connectively to the bulbs.

Re:ZigBee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46634067)

I was doing a recent remodel and wanted to automate the lights, but couldn't find any solution. Z-Wave switches look like the only universal solution that is affordable,but the reviews of the dimmers and switches indicate a lot of problems generally. The idea of having the bulbs each be a local wireless node is appealing to me but ideally you want the switches to control it, unless you leave them always-on with the bulb handling the on/off.

If you were doing an automated whole-home system, you'd use Hue with Zigbee?

Noise, noise, noise! (2)

Chrontius (654879) | about 7 months ago | (#46634027)

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.

Re:Noise, noise, noise! (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | about 7 months ago | (#46634415)

adblock plus custom entry "http://slashdot.org/*.mp3*"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?