Re: XTB - the Future of X10 has arrived!

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

Long threads like this get really hard to follow when there are interleaved
comments from 2 or more authors so I'll put my brief, mostly off-topic,
comments here.

MS became a monopoly because they realized the importance of standardization
when all of their competitors were still selling "better" solutions. When
IBM went looking for an OS for their PC, the guy who created CP/M blew them
off. Businesses could buy Unix systems (at $30K per seat) for specialized
tasks, a DEC for mid-sized businesses or, for small businesses, you could
buy a Commodore PET and write your own simple apps. I was the lazy type and
bought an Osborne with a spreadsheet program. Europe may not be doing their
small businesses any favors by aiding and abetting those same MS competitors
who failed in the marketplace.

X-10 became a monopoly during the years their patent was in effect. Their
dominance (and installed base) is more a result of that than of technical
superiority.

Economists (I think the last one died recently) used to refer to "natural"
monopolies like railroads, utilities, airlines, etc. I think MS comes close
to being a natural monopoly. Most of the classic monopolies have now been
crushed but I doubt there's anyone other than Alfred Kahn who still thinks
airline deregulation has had a good outcome. Even Ken Lay probably now
regrets utility deregulation.

Jeff's device is ingenious and I hope he finds a ready market but there's no
free lunch. It may cause unforseen problems for other devices on the
powerline.

Larry Moss <moss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On 2006-06-05, Robert Green <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The "installed user base" effect is probably the most important in the PC
>> area.  If you've got a lot of users, people will write software for your OS.
>> People will design hardware based on your OS. Documents are easier to
>> exchange with common platforms.  Education of users is easier with a common
>> platform.  No one ever enjoyed reformatting Wang documents for a PC or
>> trying to move a Ventura Publisher doc created under Gem to a Windows
>> system.
>
>My turn to challenge your assumptions.  I was doing computer support in the
>early '90s.  The common platform idea sometimes has merit, but when it came
>down to it, I prefered to help people with the appropriate software for
>their job.  With very little truly cross-platform software, that usually
>meant multiple hardware platforms as well.  If all of your users are doing
>the same job it's easier to have them all use the same stuff.  But even
>putting them on the same platform doesn't standardize the software used by
>the art department and accounting, so much of the benefit is lost while
>possibly adding unintentional complications.
>
>> X10's not like an OS.  There's a lot more room for competition in the HA
>> arena that there is for a new OS to take hold.
>
>But only if you're willing to try the competition.  Your recommendation to
>newbies is still to stick with the installed base.  Then once they've
>gained experience, they already have an investment in hardware that they'll
>want to keep using.  So how will another product line take hold?
>
>> I'm a fairly frugal person.
>> I'm not likely to abandon something I've spent a lot of time and money on
>> unless there's no choice.
>
>I'm not suggesting you abandon an installed system if a fix exists (which
>it seems to).  I'm just suggesting everyone stay open to alternatives for
>new installations.  I suppose I'm strange in that I started with a system
>that I planned to yank out.
>
>> I also think
>> it makes sense for a first time buyer with no HA experience.  They start up
>> costs are small and there's an awful lot of support resources on the net.
>
>The start up cost is small.  That's why I started with it.  But while the
>resources exist, I found myself with a lot of unclear and sometimes
>conflicting advice.  And it took a lot of time to put all the informational
>pieces together.  Out of the box, X10 is unreliable.  A new,
>non-technically inclined HAer has to learn that you need pieces from X10,
>Inc, including filters or other third party products (like Jeff's) just to
>make the system work as it was originally advertised. Someone walking into
>Radio Shack to buy stuff off the shelf isn't handed any of the reference
>material you're referring to.  They just see a display that says they can
>automate their lights by plugging in these few things. You have to know
>that you need that information first.  I know a few people that tried X10
>before, didn't get the results they expected, and then gave up on HA
>without doing any research.  Creating a working X10 system may be easy with
>the right knowledge, but it's a confusing path for a newbie any way you
>look at it.  Now if X10 wants to start selling Jeff's device as part of a
>starter kit, things might be different.
>
>One thing I have to say never confused me and I wish it existed across the
>board is code wheels or some other way of programming things right on the
>device itself.  You can set the device in your hand quickly and easily and
>lookat it later and know how it's set.  Like many people in this group, my
>greatest concern about Insteon is the current lack of an easy way to set up
>the network.  (I haven't look into any of the software that's been
>mentioned here the last few days to solve this.)
>
>> In reality, Larry, I *am* going with new technology:  Jeff's!  That's what I
>> think is lost here.
>
>But it's a patch on an old system.  Apparently a good patch, one that's
>needed by a lot of people, and something I believe he deserves lots of
>credit and money for.  But until it's integrated into starter kits (or the
>X10 devices themselves), it's still going to be applied as a bandaid.  As
>someone that has been following changes in the HA market for a little
>while, that has read many of the online references, and has already
>invested money in X10, it may well be the thing I choose to use.  I think
>it's going to be a hard sell to a newbie.
>
>> Worst case scenario.  "XsteoPB4WaveBee" or whomever goes out of business.
>> Your house takes a hit but not all the equipment is ruined.  Just the
>> controller.  Well, if there's no replacement controller, you've got to pull
>> the rest of the switches - probably not covered by insurance because they
>> are still OK - and get something else.  With X-10 that wouldn't happen.
>> Loads of controllers from lots of different makers.  Probably a dozen NIB
>> replacements available within days from a number of sources.
>
>That worst case scenario is bad, but unlikely.  It's a gamble I think I
>would be willing to take.  (I know you already made a distinction between
>your own money and someone else's, so I already know your objection to
>this.)  I wouldn't install a controller that's already off the market.  But
>I'd be willing to take the chance that a controller that *may* die, *may*
>be impossible to replace.  Using your own example of ebay, when this
>happens, there will either be someone else in the same positionas you that
>wants to sell the old stuff or that will buy your old stuff.
>
>> The more complex you make a system, the less reliable it becomes.  That's
>> just the way things are.  I would not want to mix protocols unless I
>> absolutely had to.  I've had to help maintain Apple and IBM on the same
>> network.  What absolute and utter misery THAT was.
>
>I don't see the problem here.  In those old networks you needed an Apple to
>talk to the IBM.  Here you just need a controller to send the right signal
>to each device and receive signals from those devices.  The devices aren't
>talking to each other.  Mixing protocols on the same branch of the network
>might be an issue since you can end up with one device being a signal
>sucker for another.  I have one server (think of it as the central
>controller/bridge) in my house that understands NFS, SMB, and AFP.  None of
>the non-server devices that use any of those protocols care about any of
>the others and there are no conflicts.
>
>> Well, that's a perfectly viable opinion to have when you're spending your
>> own money.  I wouldn't recommend any of the new protocols to a newbie,
>> still.  As Dave Rye said, and I paraphrase, these new technologies all claim
>> immunity from the technical problems "plaguing" X-10 but in reality they are
>> neither old enough or well-tested enough to know whether they've got
>> problems all their own.
>
>And to paraphrase Dave Houston, "the XTB isn't old enough or well-tested
>enough to know if it has problems." :-) And what if Jeff stops selling his
>device for any reason?  If you're dependent on his hardware to make your
>whole system work, you're in the same boat as if you went with something
>else.
>
>> There's no
>> other protocol that offers so many different types of controllers so
>> cheaply.
>
>This is true and disappointing.  If I could get Insteon motion sensors,
>that might have changed my decision to start with X10.  (Actually, I don't
>recall if Insteon was selling yet when I bought my first modules.)
>
>> Why, exactly, would you choose another protocol, Larry?
>
>Well, for one, I have the same distaste for X10 Inc as I have for MS.  The
>spam and pop-up/under crap they pulled early on was more than just an
>irritant.  I know that has nothing to do with protocol, but that distaste
>has me wanting to find a decent alternative from a company that has more
>user friendly business practices.  I can buy smarthome modules, but I
>haven't had the best of luck with them (which does have me worried about
>Insteon).  I didn't realize that some of the other stuff I bought was
>indeed made by X10 until after I got it.
>
>It's not really the protocol I'm deciding on anyway.  It's the overall
>system. Can I get the pieces I want (a plus for X10)?  Is it reliable (not
>just the communications, but the hardware itself)? Can I get the status
>information I want (I like 2-way communication)? Will other advances in
>technology potentially cause problems down the road? (I prefer wired to
>wireless if I'm building new since wireless has a greater chance of outside
>interferences.)
>
>A keyless doorlock system is also important to me.  No way I'd trust
>security stuff to X10.  But right now, I'm using X10 along with my own hard
>wired keypad.  Hey there's an example of mixing protocols with no
>interaction between them.
>
>Aside:  One thing that really bugs me about what I have right now may be
>due to X10, it may be due to MisterHouse, or it may be that I'm doing
>something wrong. I'm open to any suggestions.  When I walk into a room with
>a motion sensor, it may take several seconds before my lights turn on.  I
>don't have the lights on the same code as the motion sensor. Instead, I
>have MisterHouse respond to a message from the MS by turning on the
>appropriate lights at the right times or otherwise logging activity.  Is
>this delay of a few seconds normal with X10?  with other protocols? or do I
>have something screwy I need to debug?
>
>> Thanks for sharing your views, Larry and for giving me the opportunity to
>> explain my reasoning in a little more (and maybe excruciating) detail!
>
>Same here.  I appreciate the discussion.  I will somehow figure out what I
>want to do when I build the new house.