Can you please tell me why you think Honeywell is a non-innovator? Is it because they don't make shiny boxes to put on the wall of your home? Honeywell is well established as an innovator in advanced HVAC command and control for commercial buildings.
Advanced HVAC for commercial buildings perhaps, but not for homes. Every thermostat I've seen that can do half of what Nest is doing is covered in about 50 buttons, and the ownership manual is a 70 page behemoth. It's like every thermostat manufacturer out there read The Design of Everyday Things and decided to do the exact opposite.
>Every thermostat I've seen that can do half of what Nest is doing is covered in about 50 buttons
Remove control and it's easy to remove buttons. There is no brilliant design or innovation there. Whether the removed control is logical or beneficial, however, is a completely different matter -- there is absolutely zero evidence that the Nest delivers on the farfetched promises it makes.
I personally can't believe it has gotten as much attention as it has. It is a non-solution for a non-problem. The single and only reason it got coverage was the Apple angle.
>Remove control and it's easy to remove buttons. There is no brilliant design or innovation there.
I beg to differ. Deciding which control to remove is the essence of brilliant design and innovation. To paraphrase Einstein, good design is as simple as possible, and no simpler.
The iPod didn't allow you to manage files on your device, letting it be simpler than Creative's products. Yes, it also overcame a bunch of other barriers (physical interface, size, skipping, transfer speed, etc), but removing what everyone erroneously assumed was essential certainly contributed to their success. It's no surprise that the Nest guys are using the same playbook.
You sound like the slashdot review of the iPod: even if all of the features were possible before does not mean there's no benefit to producing a solid, high-quality implementation.
As for Nest's claims, I assume you're talking about energy savings and, if so, are so very, very wrong: I'm a software developer and rarely adjusted the program on my old Honeywell thermostat because it took a minimum of 7 * 3 button clicks (morning, evening, night for each day of the week) simply to navigate through the program. I'm rather confident that the average American is even less likely to put up with all of that clicking and simply leaves at anything which isn't uncomfortable, even if it does waste power.
Not really, unless your world is binary. There are a lot of extremely refined, slick implementations out there. You don't know about them because they couldn't be called the "ipod of thermostats" (with leading comparisons with the ugliest, most rudimentary thermostats, as if the giant industry doesn't exist).
As for Nest's claims, I assume you're talking about energy savings and, if so, are so very, very wrong...I'm rather confident that the average American...
It is interesting how you arrived at such an energy claim with no clear avenue between the beginning and the end.
You asserted that it was “a non-solution for a non-problem” - the onus is on you to explain why the stated problems aren't real or how the Nest doesn't solve them.
As for the promise of saving energy, either reading Nest's citations or spending a second or two on Google might prove educational as to the current gap between what is technically possible and what people actually do:
Just because someone isn't targeting you doesn't mean they aren't innovating.
It reeks of HN bias that no one in their right mind should ever become an employee of some corporation because they aren't making a shiny box or a X, Y, Z website (substitute your favorite tech of the month for X, Y, and Z)
If you're not innovating in an area, you aren't furthering "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Unfortunately, 35 U.S.C. § 271(d)(4) makes it ok to do nothing with a patent except sue, so you aren't doing anything illegal, but you sure as hell are gaming the system.
"Can you please tell me why you think Honeywell is a non-innovator?"
In general, I wouldn't defend that statement (which isn't mine). But I would defend the statement that these are either not "innovations", or certainly are innovations so obvious they are mostly or entirely not worthy of government-granted monopoly: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3558260