| > but all these always on devices have to be costing something right? They probably are; that depends on how badly they're designed. But that doesn't mean they should. Consumer devices aren't usually as efficient as they could be with some more design work, which I think makes people have a wrong reference point about how much power is needed to do things. As a counterexample and a way to reset the reference, consider e.g.: - That there exist radio devices that are designed to run for years off a single CR2032 battery. - That there are microcontrollers that can still execute your code while drawing nanoamps. - My 9 m.o. kid has a plush moon with a string attached to it; when you pull it, it plays a loud melody (that part is mechanical) and flashes LEDs for ~30 seconds. Both are powered from the mechanical energy of your pull. The way I see it, a typical device on standby and/or a typical wall wart not charging anything shouldn't pull more than some micro- or even nanowatts. So they shouldn't cost you more than a hundredth of a cent a month each. Now of course they do, there are probably some engineering constraints here (like more complicated devices wanting to keep RAM powered), and there are definitely business constraints (low-power design is more expensive). But to me, a device whose standby mode is noticeable on the power bill is simply broken. |