Ulukai on 19/9/2012 at 16:50
All well and good until someone hacks into your lights and goes all High Plains Drifter on your carefully tweaked ambiance ;)
Muzman on 19/9/2012 at 19:36
-Australian guy: yay!
-overseas: booo!
-lighbulbs have changed heaps, what are you talking about? The originals weren't even tungsten.
-Fluros are only cold(blue) white if you're using the wrong ones. Read the box next time.
Anyway, pretty groovy idea. Surprised it went to kickstarter (to the tune of a million bucks no less). Real investors would be there for this you'd think.
No clue what they'll really retail for there. My guess is heaps and heaps. And 'commercial as well'? Commercial would probably be the primary customer (the wifi might have a fairly severe space limitation. Dunno really. Still I can imagine people wanting non-wifi versions). Hard to say though, I suppose. Still, anything to wean people off having a thousand halogen downlights.
Wouldn't mind a couple. Since I don't have a phone I guess I'll wait 'til retail.
Vivian on 19/9/2012 at 19:49
Come on, that's ridiculous. Wifi lightbulbs? Maybe because I know how fucking simple it is to install a dimmer, but having a wifi lightbulb that you need your phone to turn up and down seems within spitting distance of retarded/a joke to me.
Briareos H on 19/9/2012 at 19:54
That is so dumb. Wi-Fi decoder + transmitter + antenna + programmable electronics in each lightbulb? For real?
The basic colored lighting or light dimmer ideas are already alive and well (see Philips LivingColors for example) but usually use radio waves and offer only the most basic functions. Why? Because an embedded computer with enabled Wi-Fi is expensive and uses a lot of electricity, especially when talking about something that drives power LEDs. He wants to put one in every light bulb, no wonder the thing costs $70, plus I would be really interested in how much energy is actually saved compared to switching to a regular LED light setup. The answer will be: half a watt less.
AND THINK ABOUT THE WAVES. No, seriously, this is going to be an electrical interference nightmare, especially if you put more than one in an already Wi-Fi-bathed environment. A damn waste as well, since it's app-based so only one computer holds the settings at one time, meaning that if you're going to put many of those, one Wi-Fi-enabled master controller could easily drive them all.
An Arduino-based controller that drives power LEDs and maybe other things + phone app UI, now that would be really cool. If only we could have that on Kickstarter, that would be worth it. (
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/smartthings/smartthings-make-your-world-smarter) OH WAIT.
edit: burned by viv
edit 2: this makes me SO MAD :(((( This is like, having cables between stuff is the worst thing that could ever happen to a guy. Command electronics which are not wireless are so old hat, nobody can set them up anymore anyway
scarykitties on 19/9/2012 at 20:38
Guys, the Kickstarter stuff explains a lot of this.
The bulbs act like normal light bulbs, so they can be turned on an off, dimmed, etc. with a switch just like any other. It just so happens they also have Wi-Fi capability.
It's explained that there is only one master light bulb. The rest don't all put out strong signals--only enough to communicate with the master bulb. While the master bulb takes 2-3 watts for all the Wi-Fi stuff, the other bulbs can run in standby mode on a double-A battery for 1-2 years.
It operates on a local wireless network, not on a cellular network, so it shouldn't share the bandwidth deficiency issues that are facing cellular networks today.
It's a bulb that shouldn't have to be replaced for 25 years, can be smart-controlled with your phone, and saves you money on electricity. What's the problem?
Vivian on 19/9/2012 at 20:53
Well, you can already get bulbs that last for 25 years that save you money on electricity. They use less electricity than the same light bulbs with wifi and they cost less. So the only thing that makes this stand out is that it, a light bulb, has wifi. Which is stupid. Why on earth do you need to 'smart control' a light bulb with your phone via wifi? Why not use, I dunno, a light switch?
scarykitties on 19/9/2012 at 21:19
Quote Posted by Vivian
Well, you can already get bulbs that last for 25 years that save you money on electricity. They use less electricity than the same light bulbs with wifi and they cost less. So the only thing that makes this stand out is that it, a light bulb, has wifi. Which is stupid. Why on earth do you need to 'smart control' a light bulb with your phone via wifi? Why not use, I dunno, a light switch?
If you don't like it, you don't have to purchase one. ;) Doesn't make it stupid because it has a feature that you don't care about.
And I haven't personally seen any LED bulbs available in stores as far as I recall, only compact florescents.
Al_B on 19/9/2012 at 22:36
Quote Posted by Briareos H
That is so dumb. Wi-Fi decoder + transmitter + antenna + programmable electronics in each lightbulb? For real?
Yes and no. That was my first thought as well - but they're using lower power RF based on 802.15.4 between the all bulbs except for the master which reduces the overall power requirements substantially. Not entirely sure why they're not going for a full Zigbee stack but it might be due to royalty / licensing issues (it's not something I've a lot of experience with myself beyond the 802.15.4 stuff). If the light bulbs really do have a decent life span then building in the control logic per bulb shouldn't be a huge problem - in some ways we're still conditioned to the fact that light bulbs are disposable items that go wrong at a moment's notice.
Quote Posted by scarykitties
The bulbs act like normal light bulbs, so they can be turned on an off, dimmed, etc. with a switch just like any other. It just so happens they also have Wi-Fi capability.
Hmmm.... I don't see them marketing them as interchangeable with normal light bulbs in that way. If they worked at all they'd lose a lot of their features and for the system to operate as intended you'd need to leave them permanently switched on. Edit: Yes, the video shows them working in a fail-safe mode where they simply turn off and on "in case you lose your phone" but that's not the same as control of them via switch and wireless interchangeably.
I don't want to sounds negative about it because I actually love the features they're demonstrating and can see they've put some thought into it. Unfortunately only two rooms in my house would be able to use the bulb options they're offering and I don't need to dim the lights in fancy colours while doing the laundry or checking the gas meter (and I'm not keen on using them in desk lamps).
I think they're also being very optimistic in promising delivery in March next year for backers with nearly two months until funding finishes. The regulatory testing / board re-spins and manufacturing setup will easily eat up that time unless they have those things already well in hand.
scarykitties on 19/9/2012 at 23:15
Quote Posted by Al_B
Edit: Yes, the video shows them working in a fail-safe mode where they simply turn off and on "in case you lose your phone" but that's not the same as control of them via switch and wireless interchangeably.
Switches still work the way they always have: they supply power to the circuit that the bulb is plugged into. When the power is off, the light is off and nothing would work wireless-wise. When the power is on, then the bulb can be controlled wirelessly.
They're not professing that it can be done interchangeably, and there would be no practical way of doing so without replacing the entire circuit with some kind of wireless control connected to the switch.
To each their own. I see it as a chance to get a high-quality LED bulb that won't need to be replaced. The wireless bit is just a bonus, although being able to set the color of the light sounds very nice so you can pick what color you're most comfortable under.
