[dunham]

> Somehow we've failed as a profession to provide people with a home network which continues to function as long as the router has power, and that sucks.

This already existed for lightbulbs in the 70's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X10_(industry_standard)

Wikipedia says the computer interface was 80's, but if you managed to have a computer in the seventies, you probably knew enough electronics to homebrew something.

[samatman]

Yeah, we've invented it several times over, and yet, what people buy and use is IoS crapware which craps out when the network does.

That's worse. You see how that's worse, right?

[dunham]

yeah, everything keeps getting reinvented worse or made worse by adding unwanted, poorly implemented features. My unstated point was that a version existed decades ago which was more robust than the new, reinvented version.

I'm not sure that people (in general) want these things. It seems like product managers adding stuff to justify their existence and people buying what they find on the shelf. You get an internet connected oven because you have no choice anymore. (Hyperbole, but the non-internet choices are narrowing.)

Maybe people want to change the color of their lightbulb (I'm guessing it gets old quick), but I suspect they're not asking for it to be on the internet.

[samatman]

I find it a genuine quality-of-life improvement to adjust the color of light. The temperature matters more, but being able to do strong hues is really nice. Not everyone is into mood lighting, but I like it.

And I don't care as much about whether or not the bulb uses IP to reach my phone, but why should my outside connection going down ever matter? As long as the router has power, the internal network should continue to function. It's a shame is what it is. I figure I could put in the sweat to make it "work on my machine" but that doesn't solve Joe Normal's problem, and it doesn't sound like a fun hobby to me either.