9 posts • joined Wednesday 9th November 2011 11:11 GMT
I should have said, none of that is gospel. It's just my understanding of the situation.
There will be heavy fines for motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians, horses, cats, dogs, mice, rats, flies or anything else spotted on the stolen tarmac (Olympic Lanes). You'll need to be extra careful you don't have a wheel stray over the line while you're filtering along past all the other motorists stuck in the inevitable gridlock. The rules on bus lanes are a different issue. Even there it's inconsistent. Motorbikes are allowed on red route bus lanes (managed by TFL) but it's up to the local borough councils whether or not you're allowed in on the bus lanes in their patches.
Assuming you manage to get where you're going without being fined into bankruptcy, do you think you'll still be able to find somewhere to park?
As a fellow biker, this stuff irritates me too.
Re: "Two words: Power consumption."
Device selection is probably lacking because practically no-one is buying them. As a result there's little motivation for companies to produce more devices. If you talk to an average non-IT person, the kind of person who you would need to be prepared to spend money on these things in order for them to become popular, chances are they'll think of home-automation as something difficult and nerdy and not something they'll want to try for themselves.
Home computer networking by comparison is relatively easy. If they don't know how to do it themselves, they definitely know someone who does.
When you start telling them about the 3 standards that they have to choose between for the new network they will have in their house they'll almost certainly switch off from your conversation and start looking for someone else to talk to.
My point still remains that until it both is and is seen to be trivially easy to set up and maintain these things it'll never become mainstream and as long as it's not mainstream, the market won't be big enough to encourage device makers to improve their selection.
Re: "Two words: Power consumption."
...and yet neither of these replies to my comment address my main point: People simply don't want to be bothered with setting up an entire new network if they don't already have it.
Very few people already have it (the exceptions to my previous sentence). The barrier to entry is still way too high for this sort of thing to become popular and I'd argue it will continue to be too high until it is practically zero. One simple way to make it practically zero would be to use the already existing wireless infrastructure in most people's homes, WiFi, instead of expecting them to install and maintain another one.
I'm no Apple fan but I bet if Apple did it it would be dead simple. Apple don't do it. It isn't.
I look forward to being proved wrong on this. I think it's a shame that home automation hasn't taken off yet.
I don't understand why you wouldn't want these things just to use your WiFi network directly. By designing it with WiFi instead of Zigbee, the customer need only buy the shiny new fish-tank filter and absolutely nothing else. That is, of course, making the assumption that anyone whoi would be interested in the device likely already has WiFi in their home. Well enough designed, it should be absolutely trivial to install it and get it talking via email.
Make it with ZigBee but no WiFi and it might use less power (who cares? it's plugged into mains, not battery powered) and your customer must now buy another ZigBee device to act as a controller, then configure that controller device to connect both to the fish-tank filter and your home internet connection and then set up the rules for it to email you at the appropriate time. That's way more faff than most people are prepared to tolerate and an additional expense. Someone who already has a ZigBee network at home (If I had no digits at all I could still use them to count the number of people I know who this applies to) might be pleased to have an opportunity to do this. Normal people won't.
I think this is why home automation won't take off. The barrier to entry needs to be made so low as to be imperceptible first. I don't think we're anywhere near that point now.
I don't understand this term profiteering
Surely it just means "doing business". If maximising profit isn't the whole point of doing business, what is?
Letting Nokia off for Microsoft's imposed limitations
"...Still, Nokia’s not to blame here." They absolutely are to blame for any and all shortcomings of the phones they produce. It was Nokia's choice to employ an ex-Microsoftie. It was his (highly predictable) choice to decide to use Microsoft's phone OS for all future Nokia smart-phones. Being subject to Microsoft's demands are a consequence of these choices which they made themselves.
Re-read the post you were replying to and I think you'll realise that he's not moaning that his cheap service isn't as good. He's actually saying he's perfectly happy with it and doesn't see the point in paying any more for a difference in service that he would rarely ever notice. I suspect that is a very common viewpoint, and there's no such thing as a killer app for broadband (over and above the bandwidth needed for iPlayer) that I'm aware of.
If you can't rely on having very high bandwidth all the time (especially during peak-periods which coincide with the time when the majority of people are going to want it) you wont want to rely on any service(killer app?) that depends on it. This is a situation that won't change for a very long time I suspect.