Magical Fastener Technology

I recently installed a bike lift in my garage and had some thoughts on fasteners.  The core product is great (a few pulleys, bike grabber hooks and some rope) and works well.  I installed one over a year ago and bought a second because I found the first one useful and I have more than one bike.  When I installed the first one, I used my own screws, leaving the ones provided just to screw the cleat into the wall.  This time, I used the fasteners provided to install the metal brackets to a 2 x 4.  This post is largely born out of frustration with the cheap, crappy fasteners that came with the device.

Here are my complaints:

1. The fasteners do not say what exact Phillips head form they have.  This results in the installed guessing and not likely finding a perfect match.  A couple of potential solutions here:
1. Put in your instructions exactly what form it is.  This is the lowest cost and easiest approach.  I find it inexcusable that it was not done.
2. Include in your installation kit the perfect driver for your included fastener.  This is the most hassle-free approach for the customer and preferred by me.
2. The fasteners provided are not hardened, such that if you catch the screw a little bit off, you will end up shearing off the material and render the screw head useless for further driving.
3. The fasteners are intended to be driven into wood.  Perhaps you don't need to pre-drill a hole, but some folks my want to do this.  The instructions should provide guidance as to the diameter of a pre-drilled hole (i.e., "use no larger than a 3/32" hole if you decide to pre-drill screw holes").  Without pre-drilling, these screws were really, really tough to get into a pine 2 x 4.  This isn't exactly hardwood.

Given that installation of a product is so close to its purchase (and the likely time that a customer will provide feedback in the form of a product review), I find it incomprehensible that product manufacturers don't do a better job at this.  Its not rocket science - in fact, it is in most ways not even a technology issue.  Perhaps it could be universally solved with better technology, but I don't think that we need to go there (nor may the costs be worth it).

Ruined screw head . . . not likely to get fixed any time soon

When Does a Product Stop Being Useful?

Introduction

As my recent post indicates, I just finished installing the last bit of surround sound in my house.  Its pretty cool when everything is working correctly.  When its not, I can be no fun.  Here are some of the problems I have had with my Sharp Aquos TV / Pioneer VSX-1122K / Roku 2 XS / Verizon FIOS Router (core components for this discussion) setup.  You will note that the Roku, VSX and router are all connected via ethernet cable (i.e., wireless connectivity hasn't been one of my problems).

Problem Discussion

1. Easiest one of the bunch: sometimes the picture from the Roku turns purple.  Basically, everything has a purple hue to it.  This is not solved by pulling out the HDMI cable and resetting the HDMI connection.  Solution: unplug the Roku, wait 30 seconds, plug it back in.  Unfortunately, you have to wait for the Roku to boot up, which takes a surprisingly long time.  It is a good thing that Netflix and Amazon save your spot when you are streaming a movie or show.
2. VSX stops responding to commands sent to it via the iPad app.  Whenever this happens, it will also be unavailable for AirPlay.  Sometimes, we'll live with this problem for a while before its fixed.  If you want to change your input source or volume level, it requires walking over to the island (not in the viewing room) and making the change.  Somewhat of a pain, but can be a useful short-term fix if you want to watch something right away.  There are two potential solutions:
1. Most of the time, unplug VSX for 30 seconds and then plug back in.  Give it a few minutes to find itself on the network.
2. Rarely, doing the above doesn't work.  Then I will unplug the VSX, unplug the FIOS router.  Then plug back in the FIOS router, wait for about 5 to 10 minutes and then plug back in the VSX.  There is probably an easier way to do this (force a DHCP reset for the VSX's MAC address - but whenever I've looked, I haven't been able to figure out which device was the VSX).
3. VSX stops sending video whatsoever.  This was the most troubling problem I've had.  I was quickly able to troubleshoot by switching out the cable from the TV to the VSX and putting it directly into the Roku.  So the TV and Roku and HDMI cable were all good.  Then using the remote on the VSX and getting no video sealed the deal.  The source of the problem was the VSX.  Not good.  Solution: power the VSX down for 30 seconds, then plug it back in.
4. While watching the TV, there will be a quick green flicker across the screen.  I think that this is some sort of HDMI handshaking issue.  Sadly, I have found no solution to this.  It appears to be the fault of the VSX - it does not occur when the TV and the Roku are directly connected.  It has been mitigated with the Roku by setting the Roku to display in 1080p, but it hasn't gone away.  It is tolerable, but still an annoyance.  There is a firmware update that is supposed to improve HDMI stability, but after trying 4 different USB drives (and reading a bunch of forum posts about formatting, etc.), I have been unable to make the VSX recognize the thumb drive.

We make due with these problems, but it is far from an ideal situation.  The primary watchers (myself and my college-age son) are able to deal with the issues when they come up, but both get a bit fatigued.  This leads me into the point of the post - at what point does this setup become unusable?  Generally, when do products reach that point for other people?  I have a few other questions that come along for the ride:

• Why is it that cycling the power fixes 90% of problems?  Shouldn't there be an easier way?
• Why don't manufacturers build in error checking routines into their equipment that recognize the problem and allow for a more elegant fix to the problem?
• Finally, why are user manuals so lame?  This isn't a terribly serious question - I have no hope that they get better.  That said, I think that its ridiculous that the best place to find answers is not the Pioneer website.

So back to our key question for this post.  When is your average consumer done with a product or system (i.e., it has lost its usefulness)?  How much pain can they tolerate in the form of the device or system not working?  What are the key drivers for consumer behavior that distinguishes one set of people from another?  Are there variations in people's expectations for one class of good versus another?

Perfect Product

Perhaps one place we could start it by defining the perfect product.  My definition will start out as follows:

The perfect product is one that always performs the function it was designed to perform

This immediately causes some problems for consumers.  Many don't know how to use a product and will blame the product instead of their own ignorance in how to use it.  While I'm pretty sure that my problems as laid out above are not due to my ignorance, they could be.  But maybe, the perfect product definition should be amended to:

The perfect product is one that always performs the function it was designed to perform in a way that a user will always correctly use it.

User interface matters.  We all know this.  Apps will make it much easier for electronics manufacturers to get this right.  The ones that don't, will disappear.  Is that enough?  Probably, if we were living in a perfect world.  Perhaps we add the following:

The perfect product is one that always performs the function it was designed to perform in a way that a user will always correctly use it.  The product is aware of what its output should be and alerts the user to problems when they occur.

Purple screen - Roku, you should know better.  You should be looking.  Let's go a couple of steps further:

The perfect product is one that always performs the function it was designed to perform in a way that a user will always correctly use it.  The product is aware of what its output should be and alerts the user to problems when they occur, automatically correcting the problem, or as a last resort, telling the user how to correct the problem.

Even so . . .

Even if we are able to make a perfect product, it will likely only be able to evaluate its performance and potentially the performance of its input.  In no event is it reasonable for the device to evaluate the performance of downstream devices.  So, if our purple Roku problem was actually caused by the TV, it'd be unreasonable to blame the Roku for the error.  Nonetheless, devices that are intended to work with others, or in a system, should be as aware as possible of their surroundings.  They should be able to evaluate the quality of their inputs and their outputs.  Perhaps I am intending to watch as show consisting of life on a purple world, but probably not.  I don't think that this too much to ask for.  The VSX should be providing a warning on its LED face saying that the video output has failed, cycle the device.

Enough is Enough

I don't have a good answer to the question posed at the beginning of the post.  I think that most folks will stick with a product if it performs the way its intended 90% of the time or greater for tech-savvy people and 98% for non-tech-savvy people..  At least this is my guess for home electronics.  After that, it just gets to be too much of a hassle.  I think most of the change in behavior comes from "abandoning in place" unless the device is critical to your viewing experience - or is the fault of somebody else - like your cable box.

My system is not currently performing at the 98% level.  I'm living with it, but hoping for more.  Its still useful and sounds great, but I'm hopeful.  That said, I have only one real basis for hope.  Pioneer has released an update to the firmware.  I'm terrified to run it, but one of the stated improvements is "stability of the HDMI connection". The other is "Improve the stability of the NETWORK features".  Both need improving.

Odd Expectations

I recently finished up a long-term project of installing surround sound into my TV room.  My son and I enjoyed the fruits of my labor this evening by watching After Earth and Stardust.  Though I had seen Stardust before, I both enjoyed it more and felt that it offered more epic sound than did After Earth.  The surround sound-iness was pretty sweet.

It was a pretty big hassle fishing wires through the walls (see a couple of pictures below) and my son asked two questions:

1. Why aren't all speakers wireless yet?
2. Why aren't all speakers digital yet?  

He was quite flabbergasted that there was an analog/powered signal traveling from the amplifier to the speakers in our setup (with the exception of the sub-woofer -- but that was still a line level analog signal).  

Here are my thoughts as to why this is the state of affairs:

1. There has to be significant advantages for making the change.  
1. For wireless: While there would be a huge advantage in terms of not having to fish the speaker wire through the wall, any advantage there is likely undone by the fact that you have to get 120 V (i.e., licensed electrician) power to the location.
2. For digital: There would have to be a noticeable improvement in the sound to add the complexity of the D/A conversion to each speaker.  I haven't read about this at all and don't know what sort of improvement is possible, but I'm guessing that its not substantial.  I'd be willing to be challenged on this.
2. The new technology would have to work as good as the wires its replacing.  Remember when bluetooth audio first came out?  The headphones were buggy and pretty much ruined the listening experience.  It took years for the kinks to be fully worked out.
1. A bit of an aside, but I will note that the subwoofer that I bought has the option to attach a wireless module to it (900 MHz, I think).  After reading the reviews online, I was convinced that it was unlikely to work very well - and if it did, something could come along and mess with it in the future.
3. There has to be standards for equipment makers - otherwise its just a mess for consumers.  Perhaps somebody can be first and succeed with no standards (Sonos?) but I think it unlikely for the rest of the stereo/speaker industrial complex to latch on to standards for which they'll have to pay high (potentially very high) licensing fees for in the future.
4. It can't cost substantially more than the equipment its replacing.  There will certainly be a trade-off between installation labor costs and equipment costs, but it strikes me that the speakers and system can't cost way more than the existing options.  Putting a high-quality D/A converter on each speaker would have to raise the cost.

I'm sure that I'm missing some of the reasons for this analog world still existing, but on the otherhand, perhaps this is a crazy big market opportunity for somebody.

Here are a few pictures of my pain:

Trying to drill on an outside wall is very much complicated by the presence of insulation!

To make this work, I had to cut a second hold to facilitate getting through the insulation.  And I wouldn't have been able to do it (I don't think) unless I was willing to sacrifice some home security wires (for a system that I'm not using).

Done! (except for the lower drywall repair and some fresh paint - ok, fine, mostly done!)

Its My Data: A Call to a New Data Framework

The more that I see good examples of how we are starting to convert information around us to semi-permanent digital information.  Here are all of the pieces of information around my house:

• Nest: temperature and thermostat settings
• MiCasaVerde: lighting and other scene settings; garage door opening/closing
• Roku: NetFlix (other sources, too) viewing history
• Fios DVR: TV recording/watching history
• Phillips Hue: lighting/hue
• TED: electricity usage
• Automatic: Automobile efficiency / usage
• Fitbit: personal activity monitor, weight and body fat
• Computers: computer activity monitor

And one future tool(s) that I anticipate using:

• Parrot Flower Power

All of this is great except for one thing: we (as the end customer) don't have control of the data.  Our information is spread out among a bunch of different websites being of value only to that particular environment in a way that only they (those running that website) allow.  That is not good enough - it has to get better for us.

Here are the issues:

• What happens to my data when the manufacturer shuts down or loses interest?
• How can I integrate all of this data into a story or picture of my life?
• How would this control of data to be achieved?
• What should the framework look like?
• Will IFTT ever get off the ground?

Ideal Framework

For the individual to keep control of their data, we have to totally change the paradigm in which we operate.  We will need the following frameworks to be in place:

Remote SQL

This should be a protocol that allows external sources of information to post the information to our personal SQL database.  This would include not just datum, but the ability to create the tables in which the data was kept.  The external entity would never have the right to delete data from these tables, only to change the active or current status of the data (the user would be allowed to change it back if s/he wanted to).

Strong Security

The user would have to be able to manage keys as a routine matter.  Therefore, their personal data hosting option would have to be able to create and manage keys.

Infinite Flexibility

There should be no real limitations on what the device databases do, as long as the user has provided the access to the application to do so.  Ideally, there would be six to ten simple questions or check boxes for people to click when setting up an app.  Each would be labeled as essential (if the app can't function without), or nice to have.

Framework Schematics

Here is my initial cut:

Right now, the only boxes that exist are on the left-hand side (and not in all instances)

[Note that Mfg refers to the device manufacturer]

Problems with this Approach

I can imagine that there would be a number of problems with my approach and substantial hurdles to get over.

Speed and Flexibility

The device manufacturers will not likely want to have problems with their app or customer-perceived delays as a result of relying on the information residing in the personal database.  As a result, they will likely want to keep the original data on their servers; unfortunately, this would subvert the whole point of giving the customer control of their data.

Who Pays for It

This is always a problem.  Who wants to end up having to pay $50/year for data hosting?  I would - if it meant that I had control over it.  That said, I realize that I'm not a normal user of technology.

Added Complexity

This adds something else to the mix to go wrong - which the manufacturer will likely feel like they will be blamed for even if it is a data hosting problem.

Benefits with this Approach

Lower Startup Costs

There should be fewer things to do / to setup for the manufacturers.  Maybe this means its simpler?

Ecosystem Integration

If a device manufacturer has a great, but simple product, they should be able to fit into a bigger world of data with some suggested power means of making somebody's life better.

A Way In

I think that the earliest place where this approach can be taken would be with GPS information.  Due to the evolution of the products and the local control of the data, there are several third party applications and strong customer control of their data.  I have a Garmin 405 watch that captures both my tracks as well as my heart rate profile.  I can take that datafile, upload it to Strava and do what I want with it.

Generally, I don't think that this is going to happen unless customers are effective at forcing it to happen.  This will likely only occur when people have woken up to the internet of things.  Think IFTT catches fire and the world is clamoring for more control of their digital and real-world lives.

What's Available Already

While the applications may not be tied together in the way that I would like, there do seem to be cloud-based database services moving forward.  This article has a pretty good top-line review of what is there.  I'll need to spend some time checking them out to see how useful they are, but even if they are, we then need to get them integrated into an environment.

Flower Power!

A few months back I had written about a desire for a set of in situ monitors for gardens.  I had ultimately found some interesting hobby-based tools that could be plugged together for monitor sunlight and other conditions.  While reading my most recent Macworld, I ran across an ad for the Parrot Flower Power and had to investigate further.

There doesn't seem to be much information on Amazon in terms of customer reviews, despite the fact that the product has been available since October.  There is a grand total of one review.  However, there are reviews out there on the web and they seem to be reasonably positive first looks.  See the reviews on The Australian or Futureshop.

It is intriguing enough that I'll be purchasing one and letting you know how it goes.  Probably can delay this purchase until closer to the spring season when I'll be looking to do some planting in the yard.  At that point, I'll talk about how the tool stacks up to what I was hoping to get in my previous blog post.  Already, I think its reasonable to complain that the information that is being collected won't be mine (i.e., I won't have control of it nor access to it excepting through the Parrot app or website and will be subject to whatever limitations exist).