←back to thread

280 points RyanShook | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jajuuka ◴[] No.45144413[source]
Didn't those come out in 2012? That's better than most appliances.
replies(4): >>45144416 #>>45144533 #>>45144827 #>>45145185 #
asdff ◴[] No.45145185[source]
Most thermostats last for decades and decades. It is simple equipment.
replies(1): >>45145769 #
jajuuka ◴[] No.45145769[source]
Kind of an apples and oranges comparison though. Analog and simple digital thermostats are very simple while something like the nest is running 32-bit OS. Complexity increases cost.
replies(2): >>45146155 #>>45154249 #
willis936 ◴[] No.45146155[source]
>Complexity increases cost

Not really. The BOM of a smart thermostat is nearly equal to a dumb one right now. What adds cost is reliability. Hardware reliability costs engineering time and expensive component choices. Software reliability requires engineering resources and a mindset beyond optimizing quarterly returns.

There is no legitimate reason a fancy thermostat should be e-waste after ten years.

replies(1): >>45154265 #
1. asdff ◴[] No.45154265{3}[source]
To be fair the cheapest thermostat sold at homedepot is probably super reliable since it is using a very simple hardware stack. It isn't like this stuff really ought to go wrong very often. Maybe you break a solder I guess over a lot of heat/cool cycles? It's just a thermometer and a switch.