The worlds worst IoT idea is almost fully funded | Hacker News Reader

The worlds worst IoT idea is almost fully funded

kickstarter.com

47 pointslawwantsin1740 comments

Sometimes I wonder if some KickStarter campaigns are simply money laundering efforts. Create something that no one in their right mind would want and have your mules make pledges.

I had the same thought, especially since 73% of their funding is owed to the $10,000 nondescript "retail package" tier.

I can see people throwing away their money at a silly Kickstarter idea, but I have a hard time believing that not one but two "retail entities" saw this and came to the conclusion that $80 retail price for one candle is viable enough to pledge 10 grand for a mystery custom retail package.

The guys on the Grumpy Old Geeks podcast are always laughing because the hacks they envision when looking at new products (software, IoT, SmartAnything) often show up some number of months later. I wonder whether we'll see this in a newspaper headline in a couple years.

https://gog.show/

> The worlds worst IoT idea is almost fully funded

Most dangrous perhaps.

This is an absolutely great idea. An actual use for IoT that makes sense.

But it is very unsafe.

If could be put away and accidentally ignited, or have been knocked over.

If you can't see how useful it is, then you are quite short-sighted.

But the reason it's so great is people haven't designed non IoT versions because of the extreme danger.

How is using your phone to light something on fire a great idea? It leaves a huge security problem in it's wake.

If you can solve the issue of accident fires, there are no huge security issues. It would not be any different to a normal light.

I can not see a time where a 'hacker' could light it and cause a fire but it not have the issue of accidental fire.

Skipping that, it an amazing product. Candles are for some reason important to human beings. This would sell well and it's what people want, and I think make lives a little better, actually tying abstract technology to something real.

I have no idea how you can mitigate the fire risk, if you could though you'd probably save lives given current candle deaths, but I think it's not possible.... Certainly in it's current form it will kill people through accidents.

What is the use case for lighting a candle remotely? This seems a lot worse than a candle with a physical ignition button on it.

You walk home and get 10 candles going, and in places you can't reach.

I think the use case is incredibly obvious.

Exactly the same as lighting! And smells too if you want.

Being IoT it is also safer than candles once you solve the lighting it safely without being able to see it issue. If a cat physically knocks it over it can warn you, normal candles don't.

You could argue it'll make candles more common and cause more fires, but that's a different issue.

If you're lighting them in places you can't reach, that seems to imply that you will not be able to put them out easily either, and it sounds like there is no off switch for this smart candle-- you have to do it by hand.

Warning you when they knock over would be pretty neat though. I hope that feature is implemented in this product.

in places you can’t reach

I am not sure if you’re trolling or serious. Why would anyone want a candle in places they can reach?

Has humanity become so lazy that we have candles at home, but think it is too much effort to find a match and light them???

The real feature I would want from an IoT candle is to be able to turn it off if I leave the house or go to sleep. You have to phyiscally put a lid on this candle to turn it off?

I was thinking the same, an off timer could be handy. But you can solve this with a timer and a lid, no need for IoT at all. It feels like we're turning into Wall-E when so many people are too lazy to light a candle or flick a light switch.

Yes, what they have here is akin to an IoT light bulb that you can turn on but not turn off, with the added bonus that in this case "on" is a safety risk.

Don't often see a true-to-life, physical embodiment of the phrase "half baked"

Is it really the world's worst though? I mean the candle can still be lit with a match after the company closes down right?

It's a remote incendiary device. That anyone can just buy and use to burn down any structure with no barrier to entry. That's the point. Why are people so obtuse?

If you want to burn down a structure then a molotov cocktail is a lower barrier to entry and requires less access than this candle would. And if you have the access necessary the a remote control kids toy plus some fuel would be almost as easy. At best this gives some plausible deniability.

If a lot of people really wanted to start fires I think we'd see more fires.

I don't even think it gives really any plausible deniability, I don't think you could buy this, burn down your house, and expect to collect the insurance.

If I was going to burn down something it's not really great.

Why are people so obtuse? Good question, but it's sort of like asking why are people so polite - they just are I guess.

Can you allow random people to control it? Kinda of like the Twitch plays Pokémon. Reddit scents my house.

The best part is that you have to use their wax refills. So they'd get you on the initial purchase and then get you again supplying you with wax.

Please report this to the Kickstarter staff. This is the least thought through IoT project I've ever seen and that's a tall order.

Dumb wax warmer + smart outlet is a good alternative for anyone that likes this concept but dislikes it when their house burns down.

I see a demand from people making wedding videos - a couple in a romantic backdrop and suddenly candles light up.

Other than that I am not sure. Wonder if the ignition device is height adjustable. If I have a half used candle, where the wick doesn't reach the ignition device - I guess I will need to replace the candle.

In other news, you can now remotely start fires from your phone.

Even better: Anyone on the internet can start fires in your house.

I'm sure no one has asked for this(Please don't judge me.). But I would be willing to drop 25 bucks on this not 49 as that is way too high.

What are you basing $25 on? Also, how much are you willing to pay for the refills?

Actual title is “Candle Touch™- The First Smart, Connected, Real-Flame Candle”. Don't editorialize in the submission title.

The real punchline is that it has a /reminder/ to blow out the candle. If they were remotely concerned about safety it would involve local timers which reliably extinguish it even if it lost power and the battery died. That would still have "cat knocked it over onto flammables" risks but it would actually be less dangerous than conventional candles.

Well, that mechanism would make the candle a lot less attractive unless they found a way to completely change the style.

At least there is a market for it among magicians. https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/close-up-magic/spark-self-...

I don't know what's more surprising, that they need 30 grand to get a prototype out the door (I feel like this could be done with off-the-shelf parts way cheaper than that, starting fires electrically is something every undergrad EE should be well versed in) or that they say they've spent five years working on it.

Internet connected candle ransomware: insert 1btc or your house burns down?

Would the Underwriters Laboratory even certify this nonsense?

“App enabled” ovens, if you read the manual, come in one of two flavors:

* Bluetooth only, no WiFi, to mandate proximity

* Manual activation steps required, like turning the knob to a “remote enable” setting, so you have to validate that nothing that’ll catch fire is in the oven.

A big reason this was done was because the UL has a real distaste for combining fire with not being present to watch the fire - and that’s in a closed space by an appliance that is purpose built for that.

So yeah, no. Absolutely not.

Try ETL? :)

Can´t wait to read the "Hacked Smart Candle starts massive fire in California, again" headlines.

We'll just disable the internet when it gets windy.

If you leave the lid on it's not a threat right?

Also I'd like to see one with an automatic lid.

What could possibly go wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com