Just because the technology is there, it doesn’t mean that we need to install it. Geoff Meads explores a worrying trend in the AV space and offers a solution.

A very good tech friend of mine has a saying that goes: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” I take this to mean that, if you only know of one solution, you may find yourself using it to solve every problem, regardless of how well (or not) it works.

I believe this has been, and continues to be, a really worrying trend in technology. I see countless examples of needless technology, deployed because ‘we have it’, trying to solve problems that didn’t really exist.

Yes, technology is fun, but sometimes it just gets in the way. At its worst, misplaced technology can lead to slower operation, user frustration (due to added complexity) and reduced reliability.

This leaves me asking a question – are we really using technology to improve people’s lives or are we simply changing people’s lives to accommodate the technology we’ve invented? Let’s look at an example.

I’m currently working on a large project that uses thermostats in each room to control the HVAC system on a room-by-room basis. I didn’t design this job, I’m just working on some of the programming. The thermostats in each room are housed within the lighting keypads, I presume to save ‘wall acne’. That all sounds good right? It is, apart from when things go wrong.

The chosen lighting keypads, from time to time, simply stop working. When they stop working, they continue to send out temperature data, but the data they send is a constant value and not the temperature in the room. The net result is that the room either heats up or cools down constantly, never reaching the setpoint.

Now, we all know that devices go wrong sometimes, and we just need to repair or replace the offending device. But here’s the rub… older ‘conventional’ thermostats can be picked up from any local hardware supplier for less than US$10. They’re made in huge numbers and offer almost bullet proof reliability.

The one in my house is 45 years old and works faultlessly. To replace a thermostat in the project I mentioned means ordering a smart lighting keypad with custom etched labels, at a cost of more than US$500 and a lead time of eight weeks. Yes, it looks nice and is one less tech thing on the wall but is this really a ‘better’ solution? Thermostats are relatively simple devices by nature but, by integrating them with a more complex control device, we’ve made the long-term user experience worse.

Carrying on with the thermostat theme, a large and very well-known manufacturer has recently announced that support for some of their smart thermostats will end in October 2025. According to the information I could find, they last produced this model in 2015.

Stopping support includes firmware updates and, perhaps more importantly, this will stop the control app working. When it was launched, many of us marvelled at the sleek design, remote management capability and potential energy savings of this ‘learning thermostat’.

But I’m now wondering, if we knew at launch that support (including the app which is an important feature) would be removed just ten years later, would we still have been so keen to spend 20-times the accepted cost of a conventional thermostat for a ‘smart’ one? I suspect not.

As an industry we have a huge toolbox of tech that we can deploy to solve problems. Some save time, some save energy and some deliver entertainment, relaxation or improve well-being. However, when it comes to user experience (UX) we also must consider the ongoing operation of the systems we supply. UX includes so much more than just the initial impression of the product. Other factors continue to influence customer perception of not just the product & the installers but the entire ‘offer’ of our industry.

With that in mind, I’d like to highlight two factors that influence UX that are often not talked about– reliability and obsolescence.

Firstly, I would wager that, if we took an honest poll of clients, most, if not all, would sacrifice 10% of system performance to achieve 100% reliability. Now, I am fully aware that it’s impossible to ever guarantee 100% reliability, however, we should always be thinking of how we can maximise it. Maybe that’s adding redundant systems, better heat management or paying more attention to power supplies. Heck, it might even be moving away from models or even brands with reliability issues, despite attractive margins.

Secondly, and this is one for the manufacturers, yes, we know it’s difficult or even impossible to support products indefinitely. However, dropping ongoing support for product features entirely is, in my view, wrong.

We have moved away from features being just hardware based, to a situation where product features can be determined by software of even remote cloud service. Another saying applies here: “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas.”

Well, so is a customer. And the features you sold them. If you are still in business, you should continue to support the product features you sold. You should continue to make good your initial product promise, especially if the device in question controls key home infrastructure. Failure to do so not only reflects poorly on you as a company, but also on the entire industry.

I love interesting sayings and quotes. While they rarely cover every possible scenario, they do tend to serve as a warning or test when considering possible actions. Our toolbox is full of new, shiny and often expensive tech. It includes our skills, our creativity and our ongoing support. They go together to form our hammer.

However, we should remember that it’s the combination of all these things that make up the user experience in the long term. It starts at the first contact between a customer and a smart home company, and may never end. It’s a big responsibility and we owe it to our customers to make it as good as it can be for as long as possible.