Do We Need Networked Homes?

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://napsterization.org/stories/archives/000323.html' target='_blank'>http://napsterization.org/stories/archives/000323.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Friday I went to the Intel Research Labs / Berkeley open house. Lots of sensor network and RFID projects, along with Elizabeth Goodman's Familiar Stranger project, and a few others. One in particular was around sensors for the wired, networked house. It had a poster board with all the possible wired, networked objects in the house of the future (felt kind of like a world's faire sort of thing -- E.L. Doctorow came to mind while I was talking with the guy standing there discussing it). So the guy was a young kid (he admitted to being born in India in 1983) who was very excited, gushing even, over the idea that every object in the home could be connected and talking, doing things for us while we were out, making life better, simpler, more possible (insert utopian fantasy here)."</i><br /><br />I find this article fascinating, and even though it is not really immediately digital media related, it does bring up some fascinating questions. We are seeing more and more centralized control devices that will stream caried kinds of media to all your rooms and be able to talk to your computer, music player, TV and speakers. However I share the writer's scepticism about whether we really need a washing machine, fridge, vacuum cleaner, lighting systems, smoke detectors, furniture, HVAC, alarms, computers and network systems, entertainment and communication systems all talking to each other. And I am sure all of you would invest in a smart entertainment center, but are you ready to buy a smart house, where it may break down like your smart entertainment center?

[Felix Torres]

It all comes down to incremental costs.

As more and more devices move to electronic controls and lcd displays, the incremental cost of adding these features is minimal, and it gives manufacturers new features to add to their products and, hopefully, provide added value to the customer.

Now, not many people are going to spend $1000 for a fridge that keeps track of its contents, useful though that may be, for shopping-list purposes, if nothing else.
But an extra $50 on a $500 fridge? That would work.
As for other appliances, remote management and background intercommunications has a value; just consider that the various devices could synchronize to keep your power draw below a certain level--the fridge won't kick-in until the dishwasher is off, etc.

So, since the cost of deploying these features is low and it beefs up the profit margin while providing *some* customer benefit, I think this *will* happen; it'll just take a while for manufacturers to zero in on *useful* features as opposed to the "kewl", useless stuff, like web-surfing at the refrigerator door.

And it will take a bit longer for customers to get used to the idea of relying on their fridge's built-in database when compiling their grocery list.

But it will, happen.
Welcome to the 21st century. :wink:

[Suhit Gupta]

But the problem is that while one can (sort of) deal with the fact that suddenly something goes wrong with the fully networked and aware home entertainment center and for some reason one part stops talking to another part thus rendering it useless; it will be harder to deal with the sudden malfunction of certain household that may be critical, like a glitch in the power draw function turns the refrigerator off or turn it on to super high.

I am totally for technology and am actually looking forward to a smart house but I think it is going to take a long time IMHO.

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

I agree with the author and Suhit...I can't imagine having to troubleshoot the network connetion on a damn fridge. Computer, and networks, need to evolve more before I'll trust a smart home. :?

[Darius Wey]

I envision a smart home that turns into one big BSOD. :D

Back to the stone age eh? :P