It’s “in crisis” because no one wants one

Smart house flat illustration concept

You might as well burn up your cash by stacking it on your solar roof panels and waiting for a sunny day

Business Insider, which seems to be trying to replaces interns with real reporters (a distinction without a difference, probably), looks at the “smart home’ segment and declares a crisis.

There are many barriers preventing mass-market smart home adoption: high device prices, limited consumer demand [emphasis added] and long device replacement cycles. However, the largest barrier is the technological fragmentation of the smart home ecosystem, in which consumers need multiple networking devices, apps and more to build and run their smart home.

There’s not really a technology gap here, so far as I can see, there’s what economists call a “who the fuck wants or cares about it?” problem . Judging from the reaction of my clients, and those of other agents I’ve spoken with, the market for a “home environment” system controllable remotely by the owner, is about as large as that for Question systems; in other words, it’s non-existent. The smart home is an answer to a question that isn’t being asked.

My advice is that, if you are a real wonk about this stuff and have the money to indulge your electronic gadgetry obsession, gofer it, but don’t expect the next owner of your house to pay a penny for it. Like a swimming pool, which adds exactly nothing to the value of most homes, your surround sound/home heating/cooling/burglar alarmed/nanny watcher system won’t win buyers.

And unlike that swimming pool, your electronic gizmos will be obsolete by the time you resell.

 

 

 

21 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “It’s “in crisis” because no one wants one

  1. Anonymous

    not to mention if your power/cable goes out while you’re away, you’re screwed (unless the system resets without physical intervention). some ip camera systems require a physical reboot.

  2. Anonymous

    I feel this way about things like built in cappucino makers. Impossible to fix and outdated very quickly

  3. Walt

    Dude –

    OT. But Patty Duke has died!! She was 69 years old. Tell me you didn’t rub one out to her as a lad. Wasn’t she wonderful in “The Flying Nun”?

    And at the time she was the youngest Oscar winner at 16. I think she won for National Velvet. And who could forget her as Gidget? The good news is I think her twin sister may still be alive.

    And she was married for a while to John Astin, who was on The Munsters. So sad.

    Your Pal,
    Walt

    • oh crap! she was also great as Mary Ann on Gilligan’s Island. You’re right, her twin, Olivia de Havilland is still kickin’ it.

      • Walt

        I think her cousin is Haley Mills, not Olivia de Havilland. But she was great as Scarlet O’Hara. Olivia, not Haley.

        But it really makes you wonder who will go next. Barbara Eden is still around. Now she was prime spank material back in the day. I think Ginger is still hanging in there. And the three hotties from Petticoat Junction are still around I believe.

        Can you believe Zsa Zsa Gabor is still alive? But I think she is on her last leg. Aunt Bea, the Dudes personal favorite, is long gone, as is Shirley Booth, who he also had a crush on. My personal favorite, who is also long gone, is Elizabeth Montgomery:

        I always wondered if that is why I married a witch?

  4. Fatdaddy

    Danny Malloy dishes out corporate welfare to Bob’s Discount Furniture:
    “The state Department of Economic and Community Development will provide a 10-year, $7 million low-interest loan to support the project, officials said. The company also is eligible for a $1.7 million grant to train employees and up to $11 million in tax credits, officials said.”

    Your tax dollars, hard at work while everyone in Hartford relaxes in a recliner.

    • The way things are going here, the only furniture store selling stuff Connecticut residents will be able to afford will be Bob’s, so this is a smart, preemptive move.
      Foresight in politics is everything, and marks a true leader.

    • W

      FatDaddy, Can you tell us where your beef with Malloy started? You worked for him and got fired? You really love him but you don’t know how to express your love in any other way than by vituperation?

      • Anonymous

        I’ve tried to send him a few helpful links to deal with that.

      • Fatdaddy

        Self-important, unskilled, corrupt idiots that manage spend their entire working lives on the public teat just creep me out. The fact that he is running this ass-wipe state into a ditch really creeps me out. He had ZERO skills back in Stamford and is doing to the state what he did to that cesspool of a town.
        Only in Connecticut…

      • Anonymous

        W is Fat Daddy your next victim? I don’t see you adding anything here.

  5. Fatdaddy

    ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST…
    “SunEdison Inc., a leading solar-power company saddled with nearly $10 billion of long-term debt, is at risk of filing for bankruptcy protection, one of SunEdison’s affiliates said Tuesday.”

  6. Publius

    At least it is not on the tax payers dime that all this technology is expensive and prone to not working as advertised…..

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/

  7. Here (for the zillionth time) are the statistics showing that nominating Trump is sure to elect Hillary:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/why-demographics-doom-donald-trump.php
    Trump doesn’t take his Presidential run seriously. If he did, he would show it in preparation, in thoughtfulness, in analysis of issues, in assembling an advisor team, in setting up a fund-raising organization, in educating himself about the issues of the day. None of this is happening.

    Why do Republican voters take his run more seriously than Donald himself does?

    Try this thought experiment: After Trump is nominated and loses, what does he do? Why, exactly what he’s always done: avoid the risks of real estate development while licensing his now-much-more-valuable name to projects and reality TV shows (and swap his current wife for a shinier model in a few years).
    In other words, a yuuuge success for him, even in a loss.
    For the conservative voter, he sets back our party by 4 years at least, not to mention losing the House and Senate.
    Ugly.

    • Make Greenwich Great Agaîn

      Balkan. They said the same about Reagan. Don’t be so sure of yourself. This was written last July. Part of the article is below.

      read:http://spectator.org/articles/63436/yes-trump-can-win

      Yes, Trump Can Win

      Jeffrey Lord

      The American Spectator | 7.14.15

      The media assures: Donald Trump can’t possibly win.

      The GOP Establishment assures: Donald Trump can’t possibly win.

      After assuring everyone that 1) Trump was never going to run in the first place and 2) once he declared that he would run they insisted he would get nowhere, we now find that these whiz-bangs were wrong on both counts. Trump is in the race and he has surged to the top of the polls, drawing huge crowds. By chance, here in my home Central Pennsylvania county, a race to fill a vacancy in the state legislature in an August 4th election has Republican candidate Greg Rothman knocking on doors in this traditionally Republican district. Rothman tells me he has knocked on 3,100 doors thus far — and while he’s there to talk state issues residents in this area are volunteering to him that they support… Donald Trump.

      Yet in spite of the reality of Trump’s candidacy and the support surging for his candidacy — and the startling reality that rank-and-file Republicans are spontaneously telling a Pennsylvania legislative candidate that they like Donald Trump — the Trump critics insist he can’t win.

      Hmmm. Where have we heard this kind of thing before? To be specific? Right here when Ronald Reagan ran for president. Let’s start with the media first.

      • New York Times: Reagan’s candidacy is “patently ridiculous.”

      • New York Times: “The astonishing thing is that this amusing but frivolous Reagan fantasy is taken so seriously by the news media and particularly by the President (Gerald Ford). It makes a lot of news, but it makes no sense.”

      • New Republic: “Ronald Reagan to me is still the posturing, essentially mindless and totally unconvincing candy man that he’s been in my opinion ever since I watched his first try for the Republican nomination evaporate in Miami in 1968.”

      • New Republic: “Reagan is Goldwater revisited…He is a divisive factor in the party.”

      • Harper’s magazine: “That he should be regarded as a serious candidate for President is a shame and an embarrassment for the country at large to swallow.”

      • Chicago Daily News: “The trouble with Reagan, of course, is that his positions on the major issues are cunningly phrased nonsense — irrationality conceived and hair-raising in their potential mischief… Here comes Barry Goldwater again, only more so, and at this stage another such debacle could sink the GOP so deep it might never recover.”

      • Time: “Republicans now must decide whether he represents a conservative wave of the future or is just another Barry Goldwater calling on the party to mount a hopeless crusade against the twentieth century.”

      • Newsweek: Ronald Reagan is “a man whose mind and nerve and mediagenic style have never been tested in Presidential politics and may not be adequate to the trial.”

      • National Review (a conservative magazine): “Reagan’s image remains inchoate.… At the outset of his campaign, his image is largely that of the role-playing actor — pleasant on stage, but ill-equipped for the real world beyond the footlights. Reagan does not yet project the presidential image. He is not seen as a serious man.”

      • Manchester Union-Leader (a conservative New Hampshire paper): Reagan “lacks the charisma and conviction needed to win.”

      • Pravda, the official newspaper of the Soviet Union: Reagan is a “dinosaur from the ‘cold war.’… It is strange that there are still fish in the sea that are tempered by this putrid bait.”

      And that’s just a sample from the media. Then there were the views of those stalwarts of the Republican Party Establishment:

      • The Ripon Society: “The nomination of Ronald Reagan would McGovernize the Republican Party.”

      • Vice President Nelson Rockefeller dismissed Reagan as “a minority of a minority” who “has been taking some extreme positions.”

      • New York’s Republican Senator Jacob Javits: Reagan’s positions are “so extreme that they would alter our country’s very economic and social structure and our place in the world to such a degree as to make our country’s place at home and abroad, as we know it, a thing of the past.”

      • Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percy said Reagan’s candidacy was “foolhardy” and would lead to a “crushing defeat” for the Republican Party. “It could signal the beginning of the end of our party as an effective force in American political life.”

      • Former President Gerald Ford: “I hear more and more often that we don’t want, can’t afford to have a replay of 1964.” If the Republican Party nominates Ronald Reagan “it would be an impossible situation” because Reagan “is perceived as a most conservative Republican. A very conservative Republican can’t win in a national election.” Asked if that meant Ford thought Reagan can’t win, Ford replied to the New York Times: “That’s right.” The Times story went on to observe that Ford thought “Mr. Reagan would be a sure-loser in November” and that Reagan held “extreme and too-simple views.”

      Much of this is recorded, it is ironic to note, in volume one of a massive two-volume history titled by historian Steven F. Hayward. Hayward’s second volume is titled:

      In other words Hayward’s massive two-book history is about the man all those fancy media people of the day, not to mention those Establishment Republicans, named above — and they were far from alone — insisted could never, ever win the presidency. A Reagan presidency was a “fantasy” of a “simple-minded” too “extreme” man who was a “minority of a minority.” If Reagan were ever nominated it would “signal the beginning of the end” of the Republican Party not to mention he was “ill-equipped for the real world beyond the footlights” and was not a “serious man.”

      Now? Now every Republican candidate out there kneels at the altar of Ronald Reagan, mumbling his name like a version of a conservative rosary — yet once done with that they move on in the fashion of what Reagan himself disdained as “fraternal order” Republicans.

      And now once again a candidate has appeared that is drawing the same reaction that Reagan once drew. That would be, of course, Donald Trump.

  8. Comparing Reagan, the best President of the 20th Century, a charismatic, friendly, thoughtful, self-educated proven leader with Donald Trump, a juvenile and conceited amateur is simply too stupid an analogy to merit further response.

    Reagan won several elections in California and the whole US. Donald hasn’t won 50% of the Republican vote, to say nothing of 50% of the combined vote, in ANY STATE! He has the highest negatives of any candidate, and the media and Hillary haven’t even started to work on him. No candidate with these negatives has ever won, or come close.

    Mindless.