ᐅ Smart Home – The General Purpose Question

I’m excited about it. Plain and simple.

And as I’ve already said, a light or a shutter controlled by an app has nothing to do with a smart home.

sub-xero schrieb:

Overall, I see little point in the typical smart home functions.

I completely agree with rick2018—you are clearly confusing remote control with automation (let’s put aside the term "smart" for now since it only causes confusion, and your questions are the best proof of that).

Just this statement alone leaves a lot of room for speculation and misunderstanding. In my experience, what you consider typical functions might seem childish to someone else and futuristic to a third person. What I mean is that there really are no “typical functions,” because even just with lighting, the range is so broad nowadays that you practically need a PhD to understand it all.

sub-xero schrieb:

Devices that can actually be usefully controlled via an app,

is basically an oxymoron. Nothing that can be usefully controlled really needs an app. It implies that before the smartphone era, nothing existed and everyone had to wait for this revolutionary device to be invented.

sub-xero schrieb:

In every room, there are appropriate light switches or motion detectors.

Yes, and now imagine that in a fully automated home, these end devices communicate with each other, with the lights, and with a variety of other sensors. The occupant only needs to reach for the light switch if something is not going according to their preferences—and in a truly automated home, that should be very rare. Almost as rare as a solar eclipse. That is the whole point: to minimize occupant interaction with the technology without sacrificing quality but actually gaining significant comfort. Under normal operation, residents should practically forget that these devices even exist.

And no, an app on a phone does not increase comfort—it does the exact opposite. It makes you dependent. Many of these so-called apps are nothing more than replacements for a conventional remote control and still require user operation. Of course, there are basic logic functions and automations onboard, but these work only based on predetermined parameters and always rely on additional data. Or, God forbid, a constant internet connection to a cloud service. This has nothing to do with a truly automated home and is often just a poor attempt to imitate what others have long been able to do, with mediocre success.

sub-xero schrieb:

What bothers me most is the multitude of protocols, proprietary technology, and vendor-dependent software.

For that reason, one should avoid this electronic waste and instead choose open, vendor-independent standards.

sub-xero schrieb:

nowadays devices are Wi-Fi enabled and come with a suitable app, so I don’t need an elaborate smart home system. For example heating systems/heat pumps, photovoltaic systems, charging stations, video intercoms, robot vacuum cleaners, etc.

And that’s exactly the problem. Because that is exactly what you shouldn’t do. For many reasons, including the environmental aspect that @Bertram100 mentions. Resources are limited—do we really need a Wi-Fi access point at every outlet?

manohara schrieb:

Besides the unpleasant feeling that a hacker could break into my home,

That’s only something to fear if you allow it. Admittedly, with all the simple off-the-shelf or local startup systems that rely on an internet connection, there is often no choice but to leave access points as wide open as barn doors. But it doesn’t have to be that way. You don’t have to surrender to colorful gimmicks and data-hungry corporations. You can opt for systems that operate completely independently and securely without unauthorized external access—often vendor-neutral, too, so you aren’t forced to pick one platform or another.

manohara schrieb:

but my impression is: automation becomes absurd beyond a certain point, and behind it, in my opinion, is a misunderstanding of what makes life enjoyable.

What is absurd is what’s happening out there now: dozens of protocols and even more products that are hardly compatible with each other. Not to mention that many people accumulate piles of boxes and plug-in adapters that neither please the eye nor usually last beyond the warranty period. The real issue is this waste of resources.

sub-xero schrieb:

In every room, there are appropriate light switches or motion sensors. Controlling the blinds/shutters is unnecessary for me because, apart from two large south-facing windows, I have deliberately decided against using shutters.

This is where your automation actually begins—with the motion sensors. They detect your presence based on movement and turn on the lights for you. This isn’t very comfortable yet, but it’s the first step. Presence detectors recognize your presence more independently of movement, and with timers and dimmers, you can find your way to the bathroom at night without the shock of bright, sudden light.

Highly insulated houses practically can’t function without shading. If you regulate (not control!) this shading, you get relatively bright conditions in winter and relatively cool conditions in summer (not to mention energy savings). And even you, despite your conscious decision against shutters, use two of them. Depending on preferences and environmental conditions, they make more or less sense (for example, I can’t sleep in a bright room, and there’s a streetlamp almost right in front of my window).

What I want to say is that a smart home can definitely bring significant comfort improvements if you carefully consider which daily routines to automate sensibly and think about what it achieves—for myself, because I don’t have to think about it, save time, and increase comfort, but also for the house, in terms of energy consumption. However, the important thing is the automation of processes, not remote control!

The more complex the house gets, the easier it is for the smart home investment to pay off. But I also believe that the additional comfort gained decreases the more complex it becomes. For me, the benefit is clearly greater with shutter and lighting control than with TV scenes. If I were to build a house, it would definitely have home automation, but NOT down to the smallest detail.

What I find very interesting is that many people consciously choose not to have a smart home, yet they drive new cars that come with a lot of mandatory extra features.

There are keyless entry systems so you don’t have to handle the key, automatic climate control regulates the temperature, convertible roofs open at the push of a button, headlights stay on for 30 seconds after leaving the car to light the path to the front door…

These are extras we are willing to pay a lot of money for. I know not everyone has these features, but by now a large proportion does, and even in used cars people enjoy this added comfort. Things like central locking, at least a remote key fob, and air conditioning are installed in almost every car nowadays, even older ones.

I spend about 1.5 hours a day in my car (and I believe that is above average). At home, I spend significantly more time.

Sahitaz schrieb:

What I find very interesting is that many people consciously choose not to have a smart home, yet they buy a new car where a lot of optional features are mandatory.

Classic example. When you calculate the percentage people willingly spend on optional car features without hesitation and compare it to the share of optional features in a house, it becomes even more striking. Plus, you use a car for a relatively short time compared to how long you live in a house. But when it comes to the house, people cut corners everywhere instead of investing in the comfort they use daily.

Bertram100 schrieb:

I think it’s an irresponsible use of rare raw materials. Our planet doesn’t provide electronics and circuit boards endlessly.

I find it quite remarkable what “arguments” people come up with to oppose technology...

Please avoid driving cars manufactured before 2000; even back then, they contained too many semiconductors and circuit boards. 😉