Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by madaxe_again | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

madaxe_again·

Surely this can be circumvented by, say, lighting a candle next to the thermostat, or any other small heat source?

View on HN

It can be circumvented by not enrolling in the program that does this.

Or by not purchasing third-party cloud-connected IoT products.

For every convenience, there is inevitably a compromise.

The "convenience" here is that the users literally get paid for this remote control option. The company gives them money, so they can prevent excessive energy use in case of emergency… This is not a convenience compromise, it’s "get paid for inconvenience"

The "inconvenience" here is that their thermostat is "locked". Like I said: for every convenience, there is an inconvenience. It isn't going to please everybody, but where people draw the line as individuals is going to vary as much as preference for food and drink.

Well yes, but the convenience here isn't having an IoT thermostat, it's the $30 bucks they throw your way for allowing remote control.

What I said.

You can still buy the X10 Powerhouse thermostat setback controller [1].

"Mounts on the wall under your thermostat and plugs into an appliance or wall receptacle module. Selector switch (low, medium, and high) 'fools' your thermostat into 'thinking' the room is 5, 10, or 15 degrees F warmer than it really is."

[1] https://thex10shop.com/products/x10-powerhouse-th2807-thermo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com