> I've never understood the desire to add smart technology to the smoke alarm.
Because very few things suck more than coming home from work and your house is burnt down because the smoke alarm wasn't heard by anyone and by the time the fire crews arrive it's too late. Happened to a friend of mine, house was beyond repair even though fire crews arrived 10min after a passing driver noticed the blaze.
A smoke detector is there to alert the occupants of the building so that they get out. If it was an actual alarm system that is connected to a dispatcher, the firefighters would've been notified.
Yeah, as originally designed perhaps, but what if you could add a bit of tech to make sure your pets are safe? Or you're not coming home only to inhale carbon monoxide? I don't think $99 is a ridiculous expense for such peace of mind, even if it's not proven to be full proof just yet.
Because CO kills surprisingly quickly -- unless your commute is in the order of a couple of minutes you'd be too late. Also you don't send a person into a house with a CO leak so asking you neighbour to retrieve your cat would be placing them in danger.
My point is that the smoke alarm and the CO alarm should be exactly what they are simple alarms that allow occupants to escape in an emergency. Adding IOT capabilities doesn't add to the alarm functionality in sensible ways. However, it does risk introducing vulnerabilities. I don't want my smoke alarm to start sending spam emails (this really happened with a smart fridge a couple of years ago).
You're being awfully pedantic. Have the neighbor shut your gas off. Have your landlord alert the neighbors. What if you just left for work? I can find a bunch of scenarios where the information can be useful, whereas you seem determined to argue that only the occupants (who might just be kids burning toast) should have this information.
The information is intended to allow the occupants to escape safely if required. In the case of a CO alarm no one should enter the premises until qualified engineers have made it safe. The the case of a smoke alarm the occupants are the only ones that can safely decide if it is a false alarm -- if there is a fire no one should enter the premises until the fire has been dealt with by qualified personal. What you are suggesting would mean adding a general purpose computer to essential safety equipment. Anything that adds complications and could affect the main function of the safety equipment would need to be considered very carefully.
I never suggested that unqualified personnel should enter an unsafe environment or people add anything to essential safety equipment. The Leeo just listens for alarms and lets you decide what to do with the information. It does not affect the operation of the safety equipment whatsoever.
In the case of CO2, is it better to have qualified personnel attempt to arrive at 6pm after you get home from work and hear the alarm, or sometime closer to when the leak occurred and you were alerted on your smart phone? (I don't think emergency responders are twiddling their thumbs in the evening or there's light traffic)
In the case of fire, is it better to call the personnel before the retired lady down the street notices the flames and smoke while your at work??
Because very few things suck more than coming home from work and your house is burnt down because the smoke alarm wasn't heard by anyone and by the time the fire crews arrive it's too late. Happened to a friend of mine, house was beyond repair even though fire crews arrived 10min after a passing driver noticed the blaze.