Insteon being discontinued?

[upstatemike]

Another limit to the speed of adoption for self-driving cars is generational acceptance. There are lots of technologies today that I do not use not because I don't understand them or can't master them but simply because I don't see any value in them. If I could buy a car tomorrow that was reliably able to drive itself but still required me to keep my hands on the steering wheel and watch what was going on I would not buy it because I don't see that it does anything of value over just driving myself. That plus I tend to disagree with the design choices and compromises for almost every product manufactured means I would likely be frustrated with many of the choices the car was making and would constantly want to override it and drive it my way. 

 

[lilyoyo1]

9 hours ago, Teken said:

Maybe I’m just taking you too literally as to the whole standards thing?!? I’ve presented no less than five examples as to how and why standards first exist. Along with affirming standards in no way impede upon innovation vs sets basic rules, methods, process, so anyone can integrate.

Anyone can see how the ongoing development of BLE has ushered in so many things not available to the public in the past.

Think wireless headsets, location beacons, environmental sensors, I/O to computer systems. The latest WiFi 6 standard has increased bandwidth and capacity that previous generations could not. There are no less than five major companies making their routers / AP to support this standard which obviously hasn’t impacted anyone from innovating.

My reference to EV’s (Tesla) autopilot was to show case why the lack of standards has allowed this incredible technology to be abused.

None of this is surprising to me given mans ability to create vs fully grasping how any technology can be abused or misused! This time two years ago I blogged about how this whole stupid AI technology would usher in mans demise and make Terminators Judgment Day a reality.

It’s only been two years and now we have robots & drones running around pretending to offer security or dropping bombs around the world!

Man has proven there are only two things he’s good at: Taking & Killing

In between this man has tried to create and build great things from art, music, structures, to every known thing to simply make life easier and fun. Standards are created and followed so others may do the same. When none of exists it be hooves us to fall back to industry best practices and standards.

Will HA ever have one major standard or protocol?!?

I doubt it, but the fierce competition in the future may very well strengthen one over the other. One only needs to see how cloud first has literally supplanted local first.

Why?!?

Easy, lazy, low cost, complete control over your audience!

See what Michel said about your post. 

As I said earlier, there are times and places for what you called standards. When it comes to consumer devices, i offered rebuttals to what you stated and also showed how the cost of items based on those standards have dropped significantly (not that it's a bad thing). 

As I also previously showed, it's already happening like this when it comes to the current "standards". Look at zwave, Tuyo, and standard ZigBee devices. Nothing special about any of them. None of the companies making devices are trying innovate or expand what their products are capable of. 1000 different companies all making the same exact products with the same exact capabilities. Do you think a new standard will somehow change that?

I'd rather go about it UDI's way (even C4 allows for some 3rd party stuff) and have the controller be capable of working with different products to provide a complete solution for disparate devices. This way innovation is not limited to what "others" decide to limit it to.

[asbril]

57 minutes ago, upstatemike said:

Another limit to the speed of adoption for self-driving cars is generational acceptance. There are lots of technologies today that I do not use not because I don't understand them or can't master them but simply because I don't see any value in them. If I could buy a car tomorrow that was reliably able to drive itself but still required me to keep my hands on the steering wheel and watch what was going on I would not buy it because I don't see that it does anything of value over just driving myself. That plus I tend to disagree with the design choices and compromises for almost every product manufactured means I would likely be frustrated with many of the choices the car was making and would constantly want to override it and drive it my way. 

 

I envisage the car of the future to be like a small living room.... no longer 2 in front and 2 in the back, with one person behind the steering wheel.....  Just comfortable seats with a desk in the middle.  As @apostolakisl wrote, cars will be inter-connected and the speed will be set at whatever fast they can go and the system will know about weather conditions. I have no idea how long this will take to come to realization, but my guess is within 20 years.

[mwester]

Enjoying this discussion where, basically, we're all just inventing the train.  Especially the last post, which describes the vision behind the privately-owned Pullman car pretty well! 

Edited September 14, 2021 by mwester

[upstatemike]

1 minute ago, mwester said:

Enjoying this discussion where, basically, we're all just inventing the train.  Especially the last post, which describes the vision behind the Pullman car pretty well! 

The biggest difference, and the reason train traval is useless beyond a few major cities is that trains can only go where there are tracks while cars go anyplace there is a road, even just a dirt road. Trains only work where a lot of people all need to go to the same destination which is pretty much the definition of places I want to stay away from.

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, apostolakisl said:

Well, I would say the IDEA of the technology is to stop accidents completely.  Just that reality gets in the way so your expectations set the bar a bit lower.

That's YOUR idea of the technology. Every car manufacturer says the idea is to REDUCE not ELIMINATE accidents. It's not just about my expectations but what auto makers also says themselves. 

Accidents can never be eliminated no matter how good things are. Every single car would need systems in place and working at 100%, 100% of the time in order to even start to think about that being possible. On top of that, there's still things that can interfere with that such as animals, inclement weather, etc. 

While one day we will probably see autonomous driving vehicles, accidents can and will still happen. 

[apostolakisl]

1 minute ago, lilyoyo1 said:

That's YOUR idea of the technology. Every car manufacturer says the idea is to REDUCE not ELIMINATE accidents. It's not just about my expectations but what auto makers also says themselves. 

Accidents can never be eliminated no matter how good things are. Every single car would need systems in place and working at 100%, 100% of the time in order to even start to think about that being possible. On top of that, there's still things that can interfere with that such as animals, inclement weather, etc. 

While one day we will probably see autonomous driving vehicles, accidents can and will still happen. 

This is semantics, but the idea is to be perfect.  No one would purposefully be less than perfect.  Expectations are that perfection is never achieved, the idea is to continuously evolve toward perfection.  If the idea was just to reduce, then you would be done as soon as you reduced.  Any car company that is satisfied with reduction is not a car company I want a car from.

[Teken]

This is semantics, but the idea is to be perfect.  No one would purposefully be less than perfect.  Expectations are that perfection is never achieved, the idea is to continuously evolve toward perfection.  If the idea was just to reduce, then you would be done as soon as you reduced.  Any car company that is satisfied with reduction is not a car company I want a car from.

I believe the adage is seek not perfection but progress. I can’t say everyone seeks perfection vs trying their very best to design and produce something that is attainable and economically feasible to sell.

Aside from Governments and the 1% of super rich people or companies very few things are built to perfection. One only needs to look at any power generation plant (nuclear). The entire concept on paper makes perfect sense in terms of so called clean and endless power.

Yet we all know different designs and the type of fissile material has a direct impact to its long term reliability.

Think 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Fujiyama, etc. Every disaster has been due to human error or not planning for What If scenarios due to so called cost.

There is currently only one thing I consider perfect and the fact man came up with it still amazes me each day.

Round / circle / ball . . .

Almost everything around us integrates and uses round ball shaped objects. Think any wheel, ball hing, anything that pretty much moves or articulated.

Every planet - star generally speaking is round. If someone were to take a liquid and spit it out into space guess what shape it will organically take on?!?

Round . . .

That is true perfection . . .

[MrBill]

3 minutes ago, Teken said:

There is currently only one thing I consider perfect and the fact man came up with it still amazes me each day.

By your own admission, it existed in nature long before man identified uses in man's world.

Man didn't come up with it, man learned to use it.

Does it have a written standard?

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, apostolakisl said:

This is semantics, but the idea is to be perfect.  No one would purposefully be less than perfect.  Expectations are that perfection is never achieved, the idea is to continuously evolve toward perfection.  If the idea was just to reduce, then you would be done as soon as you reduced.  Any car company that is satisfied with reduction is not a car company I want a car from.

You're changing things to fit your argument. Not once have i said auto makers would not work to perfect their systems. It would be foolish to think that any of them would throw their hands up and say what they have is good enough. In fact, early on, I spoke about what my BMW was capable of compared to my car now. That difference comes from automakers adding and improving their technology.

There is no such thing as perfection outside of the word itself. While one can strive for it, what ends up happening is you minimize and limit mistakes and other things that can go wrong. This continuous improvements enhances everything that one is trying to achieve. This is why automakers says the technology reduces instead of eliminates. The only way to eliminate accidents is for everyone to stop driving completely. Outside of that, if we can reduce accidents 50% or more with this technology, we'd be in a much better place overall. 

Look at airbags. As long as they've been around would you want a car without one? While people still die from accidents (and air bag deployment), would you buy a new car if it didn't have one (if it were possible). Why wouldn't someone do so? Despite the inherent dangers of deployment, the amount of people dying previously has been greatly reduced. The same goes for self driving cars. Long term, if accident rates fall due to them, the better off we'll be long term

. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by lilyoyo1

[lilyoyo1]

19 minutes ago, MrBill said:

By your own admission, it existed in nature long before man identified uses in man's world.

Man didn't come up with it, man learned to use it.

Does it have a written standard?

Man isn't perfect so how can he build something that is perfect? This is why we have redundancies built into stuff. 

[Teken]

@Teken,
I think you're conflating and combining policy mandates (safety, health, security) and communication standards (Bluetooth,WiFi, TCP, IP, http, SSL, TLS) and content representation (HTML, XML, JSON), and content itself (web page, a service, WiKi) and lumping them all into a Standard. Precisely what I disagree with.
A system, such as ISY, should NOT need a standard to define a dimmer a priori. It only needs a standard to a) communicate securely explore (not a priori) what the thing can do and what it can do to it.
a) Communicate securely: HTTPS, MQTTs, or something similar ... Already exists
Node Meta model in XML or JSON or binary ... Already exists
With a and b, ISY can communicate and integrate with literally anything in the world without knowing anything about it. And the same ISY with the same firmware can communicate with anything else that may be invented in the future.
All the above already exists in your 5x ISY firmware. And can exist in anything else.
With kind regards,
Michel

Everything you listed up above is not only a standard in their own realm but also not universally able to communicate without some kind of middleware whether it be hardware vs software.

A perfect example as you noted is the Polyisy. At the very base level it’s an electrical device which needs 120 VAC @60 Hz. Nothing runs without electricity which in North America is standardized. If we build upon this this computer has several standards RJ45 / USB ports.

The shape of each port was standardized and bandwidth of each was based on a standard.

Moving on many companies have tried very hard to insure if something is plugged into a USB port (P&P) would ensure that new device would simply work!

We all know this is a 50/50 chance that USB device will work / won’t work. I have high confidence that if I plug in a mouse or keyboard into that computer it will be identified and work!

I have no confidence in inserting my head set, name any USB sensor the same will?!?

Why?!?

Because dollars to donuts it requires some kind third party driver.

The same holds true to using any of the RJ45 ports. I can not simply plug something in those ports and have Polyisy see it and make it work. Because the middleware does not exist to make it so.

So when I reference any standards it was to highlight the most common things anyone can relate to and it’s success for following the same.

Now, I’m sure some may say HA will never be standardized - sure. That’s where we are now but it’s obvious many companies are trying to make their protocol the industry standard which everyone will adopt and follow.

One only needs to see how the Z-Wave camp did just one thing and the casual effect was more adoption and entrenching their protocol to be the market standard regardless of how I feel about them.

Encryption . . .

This single addition / iteration allowed this protocol to be used in a market segment not attainable by any other protocol:

Security . . .

One only needs to see all the efforts your company has put towards the Polyglot OS frame work and the hardwares TPM. Encryption ? standards TPM? Standards

USB / RJ45 Plug & Play to the Polyisy? Standard - Probably Not!

At the end of the day none of us have the power to make anything a standard. It doesn’t stop us from discussing the same in hopes one day someone in power can and will take these discussions and make them so.

Why do I hold that view?!?

Because you’re a market leader and one of the companies that have taken the time to read, offer feedback, and in many cases have adopted ideas and concepts to bring us all where we are today.

Both controllers may not be considered a standard vs the glue that binds them all. I’m OK with that sort of implementation because it’s something vs nothing that will surely never happen in my lifetime!

[Teken]

By your own admission, it existed in nature long before man identified uses in man's world.
Man didn't come up with it, man learned to use it.
Does it have a written standard?

You missed the whole point about perfection as I replied to the other member. That was perfection is not attainable vs striving for progress.

I offered what I truly believe is the closest thing man has used in everything we see around us.

Now, people could argue round was everywhere in nature and man simply had to make / copy it. That’s like saying man harnessing fire wasn’t what put us at the top of the food chain and insured our complete survival!

There are no less than ten things it has taken man thousands of years to understand, grasp, or harness.

Round / Fire are just the top two!

[MrBill]

14 minutes ago, Teken said:

There are no less than ten things it has taken man thousands of years to understand, grasp, or harness.

but is there a standard?

[Teken]

but is there a standard?

Yes, it rolls so everyone obviously followed THE Standard!

[Teken]

but is there a standard?

Fire = Hot, obviously people have followed the standard to make fire.

[Teken]

Someone messaged me to ask to give some basic examples of round. Even though my reply was in jest to affirm a point.

All round bar or tubing is specified to a standard based on its application and industry. One only needs to read the specifications for any bore that spans a rifle, tank, that fires off a round projectile.

If anyone doubts the high degree of tolerance for a rifle bore / tank - needs to leave the discussion.

As it pertains to fire depending upon application and industry there are standards that dictate how fire is created. Whether be from chemical reaction, friction, exposure.

Man has mastered fire and moved on to the atom. But still does what with fission?!?

We simply heat water to create pressure to turn what ?!?

Giant round wheels / impellers!

Fire / Round . . .

[larryllix]

2 hours ago, mwester said:

Enjoying this discussion where, basically, we're all just inventing the train.  Especially the last post, which describes the vision behind the privately-owned Pullman car pretty well! 

Yeah, the designers have spent billion$ to make vehicles as low air resistance as possible and now they think they can use drafting from a car designed to not disturb any air? The front guy would have to erect a sail to cause some draft and then he will want compensation for leading the pack and costing him money to save the other guy's money and endanger everybody. One drop of rain over the sensor and braking won't happen as quickly.

Well, we do  need dreamers to create the ideas the non-dreamers make a reality, but this one? ?

[Michel Kohanim]

52 minutes ago, Teken said:

Everything you listed up above is not only a standard in their own realm but also not universally able to communicate without some kind of middleware whether it be hardware vs software.

A perfect example as you noted is the Polyisy. At the very base level it’s an electrical device which needs 120 VAC @60 Hz. Nothing runs without electricity which in North America is standardized. If we build upon this this computer has several standards RJ45 / USB ports.

@Teken, thank you for proving my point. Everything I outlined ALREADY EXISTS ... we don't need yet another standard.

With kind regards,
Michel

[larryllix]

4 hours ago, apostolakisl said:

Tesla currently drives down roads without line markings just fine (FSD beta).   This is "9", they are on "10" now.

Here is a dirt road, again, V9.

Comparing companies as they currently sit, Tesla beats all of them on random open roads by a lot.  This is like Boeing making fun of SpaceX.  Who is laughing now?  

Whatever car running over toys in the garage you saw, it is likely that it isn't FSD but rather auto-pilot.  

Yeah that is quite impressive. Not really there yet but impressive.
Mine navigates dirt roads with clean edges like that also. Intersections? no. From what I have been told those features are not allowed in Canada, and not likely in any states yet either. They seem to have along way to go.

The toys ere admitted in one of these similar Telsa brag videos about their latest self garage parking achievement.  Possibly a few years old now. Visual cameras cannot discern many things well enough to make this work reliably.  Garage lighting is always a problem for visible light. Too much contrast from sunshine to shade. Competitive manufacturers  report they will require LIDAR, but Telsa (well.. Musk)  was being stubborn.

[Michel Kohanim]

34 pages from "insteon being discontinued" to self driving cars, standards, health/safety, animal cruelty, esoteric creatures and ghouls, premonitions and prophecies ... what else is left to discuss? 

With kind regards,
Michel

[DAlter01]

3 minutes ago, Michel Kohanim said:

34 pages from "insteon being discontinued" to self driving cars, standards, health/safety, animal cruelty, esoteric creatures and ghouls, premonitions and prophecies ... what else is left to discuss? 

With kind regards,
Michel

Just getting started.....

[upstatemike]

3 minutes ago, Michel Kohanim said:

@Teken, thank you for proving my point. Everything I outlined ALREADY EXISTS ... we don't need yet another standard.

With kind regards,
Michel

Maybe instead of a new standard we need a sort of modular framework. There could be individual modules that translate the different protocols and standards into a common format so they can interact. It could all be coordinated by a sort of module server to keep things organized and provide the logic engine to do useful things with all of those disparate devices. I wonder if something like that would be feasible?

[DAlter01]

1 minute ago, DAlter01 said:

Just getting started.....

I'm going fishing this weekend, any advice on best way to catch striped bass on Lake Mojave?

[Michel Kohanim]

Just now, upstatemike said:

Maybe instead of a new standard we need a sort of modular framework. There could be individual modules that translate the different protocols and standards into a common format so they can interact. It could all be coordinated by a sort of module server to keep things organized and provide the logic engine to do useful things with all of those disparate devices. I wonder if something like that would be feasible?

It's called Node Meta Model and already in your ISY 5x.

With kind regards,
Michel