Nest Is Back And There Is A Layer We Did Not Consider

Undisclosed Manufacturer, you have made your point, repeatedly. In the future, if you want to criticize or debate with people, use your real name.

A, thank you for your honest and wise advice. :)

You will be happy to know that your concerns are unfounded in this case at least, since you may have overlooked a subtle, but significant nuance:

This discussion itself is not wild speculation, it's about wild speculation, at least so far. Can you see the distinction? Ari said Gizmodo was being wildly speculative, I said thought it was not so wild. I offered the reasons I though it wasn't. Even the tasty toaster tidbit is merely hypothetical, since I'm obviously not trying to convince anyone that Ari might actually find a microphone in his dishwasher, right?

So the posts themselves were not 'wild speculation' anymore than your own post would be considered such because of your use of the term.

As for the useful postings, the floor is yours, Senator!

But this story... it's about light and heat sensors in a device designed to sense light and heat.

Is that it? What happened to the PIR sensors and CO and the ultrasonic ones as well? What happened to the foreboding "Layer We Didn'T Consider"?

Maybe the discussion should be retitled "The Layer We Shouldn'T Consider" :)

On the other hand, if I mistook your energetic writing style as contempt of Gizmodo, when all you intended was a humorous jab, then I want to retract my earlier challenge to you, and apologize for diverting the thread from its intended destination.

Either way I would like to clarify that I'm not saying we should rip our Nests out, I'm just saying that it's worth considering what this device can do. It certainly has some novel monitoring capabilities of our offline activities, made all the more worthy of scrutiny, since they are now owned by the company that knows more about our online activities than anyone else. And who could conceivably attempt to use both in a targeted marketing campaign. Surely bolder plots have been hatched...

As for the light and heat detection alone, it's ironic that Consumer Reports recently thought that they were actually short a sensor

But fast fires are more readily detected with ionization sensors, according to CR -- and in this test, the Nest device did not perform as well as the well-reviewed detector from Kidde (which costs $23). The Nest device only has a photoelectric sensor, according to the review.