Re: is x10.com dead?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wqidnf2LzvWzeWXenZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Is it perfect, no.  I have had the challenges
> > of learning it's limitations and complexities
>
> 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.

> Solutions from other companies not using X-10's crappy signally
> likewise don't require that.

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

> To have to walk on eggshells just to plug in devices because of
> X-10's design defects is crazy.

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.

--
Bobby G.