Welcome to the connected world

[Amigo]

Good evening, give your nest some lovin

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/fashion/nest-thermostat-glitch-battery-dies-software-freeze.html?_r=0

 

cheers.

[BCreekDave]

I'll certainly never buy a Nest or any other "connected" product that mandates only arbitration as a means of legal recourse. It is getting harder, but I as of now do not have any web based home automation devices. The Amazon Echo looks inviting but does it stipulate only arbitration? If you want to control something in my home, you need to have some real skin in the game. Believe and stand behind the product you sell.

 

 

Sent from using Tapatalk

[paulbates]

Things like this are going to happen, Nest took the hit this time. 

 

I don't know how the Nest update works, but if possible, key devices like thermostats should not be allowed to autoupdate on their own. See what reports come in from others. I like to wait a while, usually I can live without what the update provides for a few weeks, especially this time of year.

 

If you have more than one thermostat, one can be upgraded and observed first.

 

Paul

[Brian H]

I also saw the link in the X10 forums.

With one added comment.

Buried deep in the 8000 word Users Agreement. Is a clause you have to use their Arbitration method if you have issues and not any other legal actions. Like joining a Class Action Suit or suing them.

[Teken]

Yup read this when the news broke out and this only affirms my belief having a device tied to the cloud is a very bad idea. This highlights the key issue I called out in several other forum threads that are active here and around the globe which I am a member of.

 

First people say *No, the system has a fail safe - it could never do any harm even if the TSTAT failed*

 

Um, wrong on every count and the above story illustrates there are tens of millions of people who simply do not live in 24.7.365 70'F / 20'C weather all year round. What never ceases to amaze me is so many of these so called TSTAT companies have absolutely no dog food testing?!?!?

 

This is basic 101 in any sort of R&D whether it be software, hardware, or the combination of the two. I've been doing this sort of dog food testing for various companies for more than 18 years now. Then again NEST isn't a real TSTAT company they are just like the other dozen of companies that simply decided to enter the market.

 

This has been seen by the automated door lock start ups like Lockittron, August, etc.

 

I've called this out many times here about how people truly have no clue how a device will react during a failure. I know because my job in a previous life was to test, abuse, circumvent, and come up with solutions or at the very least identify where these devices would operate the best.

 

Balancing any weakness that was seen during the abuse testing stage.

 

It should be noted there is a huge distinction on having remote access vs cloud dependency. Neither one on their own is a bad idea and I know if the two methods are properly designed and implemented. They truly offer amazing features, access, control, security, and extensible updates.

 

The problem is no one has taken the time to really consider not only fault tolerance but the method in which things can and will break or where someone can circumvent said features / services.

 

In another related thread I had stated to the members: Do you know what will happen if you inject high current into a smart lock?

 

I can tell you factually no one knows what will happen other then myself and those on my team that tested for such an obvious attack on a lock set. It is not in the scope of this forum that I can share with the members which companies were prone to react they way I had expected while others did not.

 

The key thing about these tests were to validate whether or not they used the common phrased term of fail safe vs fail secure. Keeping in mind each use case can and will be applied to specific instances or environments. Or where fire and safety regulations along with UL /cUL requirements mandate said lock operate in that fashion.

 

Back on topic: This very same ideology on the most basic TSTAT is seen. A mechanical unit has a dial or a lever which physically is hard set and can not be impacted by any outside forces at all.

 

This is the epitome of fail safe & fail secure all in one simple deployment. Meaning the unit is set for 70'F / 20'C via the dial or lever. It doesn't matter outside of the furnace actually failing the TSTAT will continue to operate and will not summarily move to 40'F / 4'C or the reverse.

 

With a computerized TSTAT you have all the complexities of software, hardware etc. I can count on one hand all of the threads I have read in the Interwebs about the people who have actually tried and tested both the high limit / low limit protection systems in their units.

 

This assumes the unit even has them!

 

This article and the movement to incorporate so called smart technology into every part of our lives really needs to be evaluated. Because sure as sh^t you will read at some point of someone actually dying due to something as silly as a software bug that cooked or froze granny, baby, dog.

 

Trust me no one is laughing right now and I can tell you right now all of the so called tin foil hat haters have quickly slid under the big rock from where they came . . .