Title text:
It’s important for devices to have internet connectivity so the manufacturer can patch remote exploits.
Transcript:
Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com
Source: https://xkcd.com/3109/
Title text:
It’s important for devices to have internet connectivity so the manufacturer can patch remote exploits.
Transcript:
Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com
Source: https://xkcd.com/3109/
Ok, two things.
First, the cost of the Wi-Fi chip is clearly not the issue here. The real expense/concern is the effort and software mechanisms needed to secure that network connection. Connecting to the Internet is easy, securing that connected device is hard.
Secondly, at some point you still need the hygrometer, there’s no way around that. Either your dehumidifier is tracking humidity, or your home automation system needs to track humidity. And you can’t like… get that data from the web somehow, you need a local sensor, and it will generally only make sense to have it in the same room as the dehumidifier (meaning not necessarily where other smart home components are set up).
You’re missing my point. It’s likely that the cheapest way to design and build a dehumidifier these days will already include a microcontroller interpreting results from a digital hygrometer because these components are cheap and easier to work with than purely electronic/electromechanical designs with no microcontroller. The cost of switching from a non-WiFi/Bluetooth/Zigbee microcontroller to one with one or more of these networks is negligible, and once you’ve got it, it’s not meaningfully more expensive to pay a software engineer to expose the on/off switch and hygrometer readings via that network and have the marketing people write Smart! Now with WiFi! than it is to skip it and pay the marketing people to come up with some other nonsense to put on the box. If you care about security as little as the average IoT vendor does, then it’s nearly free to turn a dumb device into a smart one, so if it makes a handful of extra people buy the device, manufacturers will make things smart. For a dehumidifier, there are reasons why a handful of people will prefer a smart one, so smart dehumidifiers get made.
Well this part is definitely not true. A microcontroller and Wi-Fi chip are definitely more expensive than a wire, a variable resistor and a knob, which is all a purely electro-mechanical system would need in addition to the hydrometer.
The fancy digital version wouldn’t be a lot more expensive, but it certainly wouldn’t be the cheapest way to go.
That said, I think you’re right that most companies will opt to go the fancy digital route to try to sell a “smart” product with more features. But then I expect there will also always be companies that manufacture simpler, cheaper products as well.
The cheapest hygrometers these days only have a digital output, and a wire and a potentiometer aren’t going to be able to query an i2c bus to ask the hygrometer what it’s measured without the help of a microcontroller (and the microcontroller might be cheaper than the potentiometer anyway depending on the specific model of each - have you actually looked at the 2025 prices of things before making assertions about what they cost?). The analogue component of a hygrometer that actually does the measurement gives fairly small changes to the resistance/capacitance (depending on the kind of hygrometer), so the results need amplifying. If you’re measuring on the same chip, you can get away with a simpler amplifier and digitally compensate for any nonlinearity, whereas to get a strong enough signal to make it to the rest of an analogue circuit without much degradation, you’d need an amplifier that ends up being more complicated than doing everything digitally.
Look, I’ll be honest with you, I’ve never built a dehumidifier (I’m sure you’re shocked). I don’t know what exact components tend to be used. What I do know is that I have a fairly new dehumidifier and we have another one from probably the early 80s. Somehow they both work. Again, I’m not sure what components were used in the older model, but given the age I’d be very surprised if the electronics it uses would be more expensive to manufacture than the newer one.
Really, I think the idea I’m trying to get across is just that you can always aim lower. Sometimes the goal isn’t achieving perfect precision, but rather achieving something good enough. Take toasters for example, most toasters don’t have a timer at all. They have a little piece of metal almost touching a contact. When you turn the toaster on, that metal heats up and it bends until it touches that contact, ding toast is done. And when you turn the little dial from light to dark it just moves that piece of metal slightly further from the contact. My point is, it’s not exact, it won’t be the same on every toaster, and it will probably shift over time. It’s a low tech solution for something that could absolutely be done in a more modern, more precise, and still inexpensive way (a simple timer). But it’s cheaper and simpler to just do it the old way, and for many applications, that’s fine.
Hell, I’m certain there are dehumidifiers on the market that don’t have any kind of humidity sensor at all. Even simpler…
So, first off, smart devices shouldn’t need to connect to the internet, only the local network. I have everything connected to Home Assistant, and then for access outside the house I have HA connected to the internet, meaning I only have one point I need to secure.
On your second point, I think the poster above was talking about having both an in-built as well as wifi-accessible external sensor. It makes it possible to have a more powerful dehumidifier in one space, running to a lower humidity than needed based off what’s going on in other rooms. Then have that air circulated by other fans, etc.