Re: is x10.com dead?

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > There's the rub.  A light switch shouldn't require that.
>
> And sending an email shouldn't involve learning about firewalls, patches,
> viruses, POP3, ISPs, file types and so on.  But we live in an imperfect
> world.

The two don't conflate.  An internet solution is hosted through an ISP.
Wall switches are installed in a home.  If you're going for analogies, pick
something that works.

> Proprietary solutions that could blow away at the next economic downturn.

Umm, X-10 /is/ proprietary.  You do recall their attitude regarding patents,
do you not?

> Picking an HA strategy involves evaluating some fairly disparate
qualities,
> among them cost, reliability, functionality and support.  X-10 has spent a
> lot of money giving away starter kits to make HA accessible to the
> non-technical.  To that end, I think they've succeeded.  The question is
> "Now what?"

Giving away shite doesn't take the smell off it.  Giving away crack still
has you ending up living in a crack house.  No thanks.

> You're seeing the half-empty glass.  I would rather have a protocol that
> allowed for such fixes (your eggshells) than one that didn't like
> videodiscs.  When VD technology was through it was dead and gone very
> quickly.  No fix of any kind would let you put a 12" videodisc inside a
DVD
> slot.  At least with X-10 you can buy phase couplers, repeaters and
filters
> that can usually insure a working X-10 installation.  Yes, there are
gotchas
> waiting down that path as well, but they are almost all solvable.

Again, pick better analogies.  Instead of X-10 just pick solution that
doesn't depend on it's unreliable protocols and poorly made devices.  You're
apologizing for a solution that I've found to be completely unsuitable, on
several fronts; quality, technical engineering and usability.  Why is it
X-10 needs so much apologizing for it?

-Bill Kearney