Re: Open Source

[Karl Denninger <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

GRHSTechnologies@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Feb 10, 1:26 pm, Karl Denninger <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> See how their "fuck you" was effective in preventing me from adding
>> ZWave support?
>>
>> NOT!
>
> There are some 160-180 companies manufacturing Z-Wave products, or
> that at least joined the alliance.
> http://www.z-wavealliance.org/modules/Members/
> I am not sure X-10 ever had that many, if they bothered to track them.
>
> The SDK fee includes hardware, engineer's support, and some other
> items.  Obviously a lot of other companies find more value in it than
> you do, which is fine - your decision.
>
> The reason a Z-Wave device doesn't transmit its exact status when it
> is turned on is due to a Lutron patent - has nothing to do with any
> technical inability.  This is worse for the industry than charging for
> an SDK.
>
> Z-Wave did not want to reach the dock far from the house because the
> goal was low power consumption so you could create battery operated
> devices.  They have options to change the radio power, but do not have
> designs on allowing it to go more than 100 feet nominally.  Instead,
> buy a $10 Z-Wave device and put it in between the house and the dock
> to bridge the gap, or buy an Ethernet Z-Wave interface and put it in
> the dock house and let your WiFi reach it instead.
>
> GRHS

Yeah, ok, "stick a device in the middle."

Nice idea, but for one small problem - now you have to bury a wire out
there "in the middle" and put something there that is a ZWave device.

Suddenly that nice "reasonably inexpensive" job turns into one where you
need Mr. Electrician to come in, Mr. Trencher to come in, holes need to
be made in the house to bring wire out from the panelboard, etc.

Not exactly practical in a lot of cases eh?

--
Karl Denninger (karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
http://www.denninger.net