Coupon brings cheaper PUBG and Destiny 2 up to 19% off

Much savings. So game.

In a rare move, digital retailer Green Man Gaming is running a week-long, site-wide coupon code worth 10% off. The code makes for some actual decent deals as a number of titles we’re listing below rarely receive a price cut, the most noteworthy of them all being PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. The popular battle royale title is cut down to $26.99 after coupon for the Steam copy of the game.

Titles hitting new low price includes late October’s release of Destiny 2 Deluxe and Standard Edition, both receiving discounts up to 19% off thanks to the stacking coupon code (for $80.99 and $48.59. Other goodies to consider include Final Fantasy XIV Online Complete Edition (includes A Realm Reborn, Heavensward, and Stormblood), today’s release of Dungeons 3, and next year’s Secret of Mana remake for $30.59.

In fact, there are a few PS4 digital titles in the mix below as well. While it’s a 10% off only discount, these are good alternatives for those who don’t have Best Buy GCU or Amazon Prime services and it’s a simple PSN copy up with an easy discount.

The sale runs through next week Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 4:59pm Pacific Time.

Use coupon code: SUCHWOW10

Highlighted Deals

Recent Releases

Upcoming Releases

PC Deals

Game deals from Dealzon. Sales help support Destructoid.

You are logged out. Login | Sign up




Disclosure-bot: Just in case the editor neglected to mention it, we have zero control when deals start and end. Deals can sometimes be gone within minutes (please don’t shoot the messenger). Trying deal links even hours after this article’s time stamp may lead to self-punching, so maybe bookmark our video game deals if you’re on the hunt. Also, it goes without saying, but some shopping links do directly support the author. If you’ve spotted any inaccuracy please let us know asap.




Filed under…

A smart thermostat is a great investment, and now it’s cheaper than ever

The Insider Picks team writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Business Insider has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

61OlIVCeC L._SL1000_AmazonOne of the biggest barriers to smart home tech is its price. 

There are ways to start your smart home without breaking the bank, but you have to get creative.

One of my favorite smart-home accessories is the Nest Thermostat, and its new sibling the Nest Thermostat E has many of the same features for a far lower price. Both models are widely regarded as the best smart thermostats you can buy.

The biggest immediate difference with this E model is its screen. Instead of having a full color LED display, the Nest Thermostat E has a custom “frosted” one that shows only the current temperature and whether you’re conserving energy. It’s more basic, but you still see all the information you’ll need to know. 

While it looks different, the Nest Thermostat E acts just like the standard Nest Thermostat. You can still control the temperature with your voice if you have the Google Home or an Amazon Echo. You can also use Nest’s app on your phone if you don’t have a smart speaker, and you’re still able to turn the temperature up or down by turning the ring around the thermostat to the left or right. The Nest Thermostat E employs all the same energy-saving features to help save you money each year. Basically, it’s a Nest. 

The one other consideration to make when you’re deciding between the standard Nest Thermostat and the Nest Thermostat E is compatibility with your heating and cooling system. According to Nest, the original model is compatible with “95% of 24V heating and cooling systems,” while the E model “works with most 24V heating and cooling systems.” You should check your system’s compatibility here before buying one.

If your system is compatible, and price is the only factor that’s held you back from buying a Nest in the first place, I can’t recommend one highly enough. Every time I’m faced with an old school thermostat I remember why I invested so heavily in the Nest Ecosystem. Both of these smart thermostats are featured in our buying guide to the best smart thermostats.

Anyone looking to make their home smarter without breaking the bank should consider the Nest Thermostat E a good investment. It’ll make your house a little less complicated, and may very well pay for itself over the course of a few years.

Nest Thermostat E, $169, available at Amazon

If you want to see more from Insider Picks, we’re collecting emails for an upcoming newsletter. You’ll be the first to hear about the stuff we cover. Click here to sign up .

Disclosure: This post is brought to you by Business Insider’s Insider Picks team. We aim to highlight products and services you might find interesting, and if you buy them, we get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners. We frequently receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising sales team. We welcome your feedback.

Have something you think we should know about? Email us at

Read the original article on Insider Picks. Copyright 2017. Follow Insider Picks on Twitter.

Apple may have found a way to make next year’s iPhone X successors much cheaper – BGR

Apple unveiled three iPhones this year, including two “boring” updates of the now-traditional 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch iPhone designs, and a brand new iPhone X that brings over a different type of screen technology. OLED displays make possible edge-to-edge phone designs, though the X also has an incredibly sophisticated facial recognition system that totally ruins said design.

A new report suggests that Apple may be looking to bring the iPhone X design to all its iPhones in the future, including the cheaper models, regardless of whether there’s enough OLED supply to go around.

For anyone who’s been following the OLED display saga, it’s no surprise to hear that everyone in the display business has been committing billions of dollars in investments for the sole purpose of securing iPhone business. Late to the OLED game pioneered by Samsung, Apple will make OLED screens great again and there are signs that more companies want to equip such devices on their main iPhone rivals.

However, Samsung, the only company that can meet Apple’s iPhone X requirements, can’t possibly make enough OLED screens for all the iPhones Apple sells each year. That’s why Apple is looking to secure OLED supply from LG and other companies in the future. Remember, these OLED screens are crucial for Apple’s all-screen design needs. But The Wall Street Journal says Apple is looking to use LCDs for similar designs.

Apple has apparently expressed interest in buying LCDs from Japan Display to be used in some of next year’s iPhones.

These aren’t your regular LCD screens that you see in other iPhones, but rather Full Active-branded displays. These display will account for 70% of JDI’s business in the fiscal year ending in March 2019, and it turns out Apple accounted for 54% of the company’s revenue in the year that ended this past March. Whatever Apple’s orders are for next year’s JDI screens, they should be significant.

How are they special? Well, they’ll let Apple significantly reduce bezels, thus enabling iPhone X-like designs for LCD devices:

In Full Active, the bezel or border space around each edge of the screen has been trimmed to 0.5 millimeters, the company says, compared with as much as several millimeters on older LCDs. Minatake Kashio, director of Tokyo-based consultancy Fomalhaut Techno Solutions, said current OLED smartphone panels have a bezel of about one millimeter.

It may not be as easy to cut an LCD screen’s corners like OLED for a perfect iPhone X-like design, but Full Active screens are what power all-screen devices like the new Mi Mix 2 from Xiaomi.

Using such a display on 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch LCD iPhones would allow Apple to significantly increase the screen-to-body ratio and add the Face ID “notch.” After all, TrueDepth is a camera technology that Apple will likely use in a variety of devices, not just this year’s iPhone X.

That said, it’s too early to guess how many new iPhones will launch in 2018. But it’s likely they won’t all have OLED displays. And if Apple does end up using JDI’s new Full Active screens in LCD iPhones, it’ll be able to offer iPhone X-like designs for a much cheaper price. After all, the OLED screen is the most expensive component in the iPhone X.

The smart home is getting cheaper

It’s getting a bit cheaper to turn your dumb house into a smart one. Price has been the biggest hindrance to the expansion of the smart home, and it still is, to a certain extent. But recently, some of the biggest players in the smart home industry, along with some new entrants, have helped lower prices to more acceptable levels for the masses.

Nest (thermostats), August (door locks), and Ikea (light bulbs) have led the way in providing cheaper products in their respective smart home categories. Nest introduced a $169 thermostat that’s just as good as the original $250 version, and there’s also the Ecobee3 Lite at the same price.

Photo by Jake Kastrenakes / The Verge

August’s revamped smart lock is now $149, down from $229, a price that should draw far more people in to consider buying a smart lock. Sidebar: August’s smart lock doesn’t work on garage doors, which is where most people who have a garage would like their smart lock to be (unless you have a deadbolt on your garage door, which is very rare). I rarely ever open my front door, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this. So, August (hi!), please make a smart lock that works for garage doors.

And then there is Ikea, with its low-cost line of smart light bulbs. Ikea’s Trådfri smart light bulbs start at $12 for a white bulb, compared to $20 for a TP-Link or $30 for a Philips Hue bulb. Given how many light bulbs you have to purchase if you want most of your home to be outfitted with them, the savings can be massive using Ikea bulbs instead of the alternatives.

That’s only three examples, but here’s the thing: you don’t need a lot of products to have a smart home. I have my entire house outfitted with Philips Hue bulbs (not cheap) and a Nest Thermostat E, and my home feels very smart. I can turn on my lights from across the country and my AC automatically cuts off when I leave the house — and that’s only two devices.

Photo: Amazon

Even the devices you need to control your smart home have become easier to use. You don’t have to deal with four or five different apps for the devices you get. These days, you can just use smart assistants like Alexa, Google Assistant, and Apple’s HomeKit to manage your collection of smart home devices. And those devices have fallen in price as well. Amazon just released a new Echo at $99, far cheaper than the $199 original version cost. Also, according to recent leaks, Google is expected to release a Home Mini at $50 to compete against the Echo Dot.

Theoretically, people can now outfit most of their house with smart bulbs, a smart assistant, and a thermostat or a smart lock for less than $400 — an impossible feat just a few months ago. The smart home may not technically be cheap, but it is getting cheaper, and that’s good for everyone.

That expensive iPhone X might be cheaper than your coffee habit – BGR

We already know the iPhone X will be Apple’s most expensive iPhone ever. At $999, it’s $300 more expensive than the iPhone 8, which also happens to be more expensive than regular entry-level new iPhones.

But that doesn’t make the iPhone X less affordable unless you want to pay the full price when you purchase it. Apple and carriers will offer plenty of payment plants, upgrade trade-in deals, and other promos to convince you to buy Apple’s best phone ever. And what if someone told you that the iPhone X is less costly than your coffee habit?

If you purchase a $3 caffeinated drink at Starbucks every day, you may be surprised to find out that you spend more for coffee than iPhones. That’s a conclusion Business Insider reached after factoring in the amount of time most buyers keep their iPhones around.

The average US smartphone owner uses the smartphone for 22.7 months before upgrading. That means it costs $1.10 to use a 64GB iPhone 8, three times less than that $2.99 Starbucks coffee that many people order on a daily basis.

The 64GB iPhone X is more expensive, at $1.57. But it’s still less costly than the same beverage.

Business Insider also notes that a typical smartphone user touches the phone more than 2,600 times a day. Yes, it’s a lot more useful than coffee.

When putting things in perspective like that, you might discover that you spend more money on stuff that isn’t as useful as a $1,000 phone. The same argument can be made for the Galaxy Note 8 which is priced at $930, or the Pixel 2 phones that should be more expensive than their predecessors. That doesn’t mean you should stop buying overpriced coffee.

You just have to train your mind and wallet to deal with the shock. Spending $999 on a device sounds scarier than paying $3 for coffee if you don’t do the math.

The same report says you’d pay $0.79 per day to use both Netflix and Hulu each month, and $0.49 for the mattress that you sleep on — check the full graphic below.

Image Source: Business Insider

iPhone X alternatives for a cheaper price

The iPhone X, an all-glass design with a 5.8-inch Super Retina display. (Apple)

Just last week, Apple introduced the new iPhone 8 and iPhone X. While the price for the iPhone 8 is $699 and for the Plus it is $799, the iPhone X features face ID recognition and the elimination of the home button located at the bottom-center of the product. The starting price for this product is $999.

However, if you don’t like the newest features of Apple’s newest products, there are plenty of other gadgets you can choose from. Here are five alternatives to the newest iPhone for a cheaper price:

The Samsung Galaxy S8:

The phone has an easy grip to hold onto and has pristine images for the screen. The S8 will make you scroll less. The price of the S8 is from $ 724.99, according to Samsung’s website.

The OnePlus 5:

The phone looks like an iPhone. It has more RAM and faster storage. The OnePlus 5 is an Android phone. The price of the OnePlus 5 is $479.00 for six RAMS and $539 for eight RAMS, according to OnePlus 5. The phone is now available in stores.

The Pixel:

The phone is created from Google. The battery life is can last up to 13 hours based on internet use. The storage is up 128 GB. It doesn’t have the waterproof capabilities like the iPhone. The cost of the phone is $649, according to Google. This phone is available now.

The HTC U11:

The phone is created from HTC. The HTC U11 is an Android phone. It has sensors for different touch options. The battery can last for 24 hours. There isn’t anything lacking since it is similar to the iPhone. It costs $649.00 and is available now for purchase, according to HTC.

The Nokia 8:

The Nokia phone has four GB of RAM. The screen is made of glass. It has great storage space such as 64 GB. The phone costs a measly $499. It is currently available in most technology stores, according to Nokia.

Nest’s cheaper thermostat is better than the original

Usually when a company releases a cheaper version of its flagship product, it’s notably worse in some way in order to justify the cheaper price and to keep from cannibalizing the original, more expensive option.

Nest didn’t do that. Instead, the company that made the smart thermostat popular with a $250 device made a new thermostat that is just as good as the original, and knocked $80 off the price (mainly because it won’t be compatible with some higher-end heating and cooling systems).

If you’re in the market for a smart thermostat and the Nest Thermostat E works with your system, you should buy it. (If you have a two story house or a basement you might want to look at an Ecobee thermostat, which comes with remote temperature sensors.) It works just as good as the flagship Nest Thermostat, it’s cheaper, and the features it is missing are inconsequential at best.

Here are the differences between the $249 Nest Thermostat and the $169 Nest Thermostat E:

  1. The Nest Thermostat has a full-color display and a feature called Farsight that will show you the time, weather, or temperature from across the room. The Nest Thermostat E has a frosted display that only shows the indoor temperature.
  2. The Nest Thermostat works with 95 percent of homes. The Nest Thermostat E works with 85 percent of homes.
  3. The Nest Thermostat has a metal ring and comes in multiple colors. The Nest Thermostat E has a plastic ring and only comes in white.

They both work with services like Alexa and Google Assistant (still no HomeKit support for some reason), you can control them both away from your home with the Nest app, and all of the energy-saving features that make the original Nest great are fully available on the cheaper edition.

Photo by Micah Singleton / The Verge

I’ve been using the Nest Thermostat E for the past few weeks, trying to decipher why anyone would buy the more expensive version if both are compatible with your heating and cooling system. There are no build quality issues, installation was easier than I expected, and the auto-scheduling feature works well enough that it hasn’t been too hot or too cold in my house in days.

I waffled for years on buying a Nest because, well, it’s $250 and I spend literally no time looking at my thermostat. But if you knock nearly $100 off that? With no missing features? Now we’re talking. And I think that’s how most people will feel about it.

If spending $170 will lower my energy bill and let me control the temperature from my phone, that’s hard to pass up. And that’s what Nest is ultimately hoping for. The company says it wants to sell two to three times as many units over the next four years, and the E will likely help it do that. But I don’t know if Nest expected its budget option to potentially cannibalize its flagship device. That’s always a possibility when you make similar products at different price points, and safeguards are usually put in to stop that from happening.

That apparently didn’t happen this time around. The best Nest is no longer the original. It’s the Thermostat E.

Tesla’s Gigafactory Will Not Manufacture Better Or Cheaper Batteries – Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA)

In my opinion, one of the best sources for accurate, comprehensive and unbiased information on the lithium-ion battery industry is Total Battery Consulting of Oregon House, California. As the organizer of the Advanced Automotive Battery Conferences, the firm has a global reach and unparalleled access to battery users, manufacturers and component suppliers.

I always learn something new from their publications.

In late May I received a marketing e-mail for the 2017 update to their Tesla Battery Report that included a hyperlink to download a free 33 slide extract from the report. What a treat! After unsuccessfully trying to wrangle a free copy of the full report, I decided half a loaf was more than I could say grace over and a huge load of balanced factual information is far better than the typical Tesla (TSLA) diet of speculation, hype, blue smoke and mirrors.

Bulls and bears can both have a field day with the extract since it clearly summarizes Tesla’s many accomplishments and dispassionately discusses its equally daunting risks and challenges. I’d encourage anybody who’s interested in the merits and risks of Tesla’s stock to download the extract and study it carefully. Frankly I’d encourage large Tesla stockholders to buy the full report.

For this article, I’m going to cherry pick a few points that were important to me and should be important to my readers. I’m sure I’ll read about all the critical points I missed in the comments.

  • First, the cell capacity ratings table on Slide 14 show that 2170 Gigafactory cells have slightly lower energy density than 18650 Panasonic cells. While the stated capacity of 4.9 Amp-hours for a 2170 Gigafactory cell is higher than the stated capacity of 3.4 Amp-hours for an 18650 Panasonic cell, a 2170 can has 46.6% more volume than an 18650 can and a proportional increase would give a 2170 cell 5 Amp-hours of capacity. These numbers are shockingly inconsistent with Tesla’s claims that Gigafactory cells have higher energy density than Panasonic cells.
  • Second, Slides 17 and 21 show that the NCA 83,13,4 cathode powder used in 2170 Gigafactory cells contains 3.7% more nickel and 13.3% less cobalt than the NCA 80,15,5 cathode powder used in 18650 Panasonic cells. Based on this new data, I’ve reduced my estimate of Tesla’s annual cobalt requirements from 7,000 MT to 4,465 MT, which doesn’t natter all that much since Tesla plans to rely on the kindness of the market instead of nailing down a reliable long-term supply contract like Volkswagen did.
  • Third, Slide 19 suggests that Tesla doesn’t have any significant partners beyond Panasonic in the Gigafactory, there will be no meaningful benefits from vertical integration of the supply chain for the Gigafactory and Tesla will simply buy components and supplies from the same vendors as everyone else.
  • Fourth, Slide 21 clearly states that the Gigafactory will offer “no reduction in cost,” another shocking inconsistency with Tesla’s public claims that Gigafactory cells will be cheaper than Panasonic cells.
  • Fifth, Slides 21 and 25 suggest that Panasonic will earn a gross margin of 5% to 7% for providing the manufacturing equipment and doing the heavy lifting of manufacturing cells in the Gigafactory so that Tesla can target gross margins of 25% for assembling those cells into battery packs and building EVs. While some might think it noble for Panasonic to sacrifice its stockholders for Tesla’s benefit, I have to ask, “What’s up with that?

By combining new information from the extract with information from other sources, I was able to cobble together this chart that summarizes extract data in the pie section and my estimated allocation cathode powder costs in the bar section. The numbers aren’t perfect, but they’re very close.

My undergraduate degree was in accounting and when I look at the chart, I see a cell cost of $140 per kWh under the best possible scenario. The cathode powder and other materials, roughly $83 per kWh or 60% of cost, are variable costs of producing cells that rise and fall with production levels. The remaining costs, roughly $57 per kWh or 40% of cost, are fixed costs of owning and operating a factory that don’t change with production levels.

If one assumes a production capacity of 100 kWh per month, the cost of materials used in cells would be $8,300 and the fixed costs of owning and operating the factory would be $5,700. In a slow month when Tesla only needs 50 kWh of cells, the cost of materials used in cells would fall to $4,150 but the fixed costs of owning and operating the factory would still be $5,700. In that low capacity utilization scenario, the fully loaded cost of the 50 kWh of cells produced would be $197 instead of $140.

The interplay between fixed and variable costs is the primary reason that Tesla must be successful in its efforts to develop a robust market for Powerwalls among customers who are willing to wait until Tesla gets around to filling their order. EV production will almost certainly bounce up and down from month to month. Optimal operation of the Gigafactory requires stable cell production from month to month. Without the ability to use Powerwall sales to ensure high levels of capacity utilization, the variability will be mind boggling.

Readers should note that my bar chart cost allocation is based on prices of $7,400 per tonne for lithium carbonate, $11,500 per tonne for nickel and $61,000 per tonne for cobalt. As those prices fluctuate, the metal components of the bar chart will change. However, I believe it’s reasonable to assume that processing costs are unlikely to fluctuate with commodity prices.

Since Tesla’s executives have made a big deal out of the fact that nickel is the most important metal in their cathode powder and the extract shows that nickel represents a whopping 83% of cathode powder weight, I believe a few words about the global nickel market are in order. In April, I created these graphs for an article titled, “Cobalt, The Weak Link In Tesla’s Supply Chain.” The graph on the left uses daily price data I got from and shows the 10-year price histories for copper, nickel and cobalt.

You can see at a glance that the post-crash period has not been kind to nickel miners. In fact, these graphs from Glencore show that the bulk of the world’s nickel miners were losing money in 2013 when prices were significantly higher than the current $11,500 per tonne.Since most of the world’s nickel miners are hemorrhaging cash, many are putting mines into care and maintenance mode until prices recover and they can make a buck by working. Under the circumstances, I think it’s patently absurd to believe nickel prices will remain anywhere near current levels over the long term or to think nickel miners will develop new projects because the battery industry wants more cobalt. A meaningful nickel price recovery will almost certainly add $10 per kWh to the cost of cells from the Gigafactory.


One of my favorite metrics for assessing the upside potential of a company’s stock is the spread between its market cap and its book value, which is traditionally referred to as blue-sky. While a modest blue-sky premium is normal, it’s a bright red flag when the premium gets too high. To simplify comparisons among companies, I like to calculate a ratio between blue-sky and book value. As a general rule, I’ve found that “BS to book” ratios below 2 are healthy while ratios above 10 are dangerous.

As of June, Tesla’s book value was $5.1 billion and its market cap was $60.2 billion. That gave Tesla an eye-watering BS to book ratio of 10.8. With a ratio that high, the upside potential of an investment in Tesla’s stock is insignificant while the downside risk is huge. It’s easy to imagine events that could result in a halving of the stock price but difficult to imagine events that could result in a doubling.

This article focuses on a second reason why I think Tesla’s business model is fatally flawed and its inherent investment value is zero. I will discuss several more reasons in weeks and months to come. That being said, Elon Musk is the most talented stock promoter I’ve ever seen and I can’t encourage anyone to short Tesla’s stock. From my perspective the only safe vantage place to watch this circus is the sidelines.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Cheaper, Redesigned Nest Thermostat Aimed at Integrators

The $169 Nest Thermostat E features a frosted white display and the option for a pre-configured schedule, in addition to the ability to be controlled by a smartphone.

Cheaper, Redesigned Nest Thermostat Aimed at Integrators

The Nest Thermostat E is aimed to help integrators expand their opportunity with clients who simply could not afford to spend $249 on a thermostat, while also satisfying homeowners who do not want technology to be “obvious” on the wall.

After an anonymous source spilled the beans about Nest’s plan for a cheaper thermostat earlier this year, the company has officially introduced the Nest Thermostat E, with a new look, added features and a lower price point ($169) than the Nest Learning Thermostat.

Similar to its progenitor, the Nest Thermostat E can be controlled from a smart phone, but it comes with a pre-configured basic schedule. The new frosted display helps it blend more subtly into the wall. All the same functions for Works with Nest partner compatibility are maintained allowing for third-party smart home control, along with voice control via Google Home or Amazon Alexa.

According to a Nest spokesperson, the unit is aimed to help integrators expand their opportunities to clients who simply could not afford to spend $249 on a thermostat, while also satisfying homeowners who do not want technology to be “obvious” on the wall.

For integrators, Nest is offering margin on the product and also a special program that allows professionals to purchase up to four “personal use units” at an even lower price point. There are currently 20,000 certified Nest Pros.

nest thermostat

Compare the two. On the left: Nest E. On the right: Nest.

Nest Thermostat E features:

  • New industrial design — The Nest Thermostat E moves away from the prominent look of the Nest Learning Thermostat and replaces it with a more subtle design, highlighted by a white exterior ring and frosted display.
  • Frosted display — The frosted display is designed to blend into the wall. It achieves this effect with display technology that lets light out but doesn’t let light in. When the frosted display is off, the screen is grey. When it’s on, it displays soft text and images that are designed to be easy to see and read with a slight glow. The frosted display uses an ambient light sensor to share information at just the right brightness.
  • Pre-configured scheduling — The Nest Thermostat E comes with a pre-set schedule managed directly from the Nest app. It has the same learning capabilities as the Nest Learning Thermostat. It’s ENERGY STAR certified and expected to save between $131 and $145 a year per the results of an internal Nest study and two independent studies of the previous model.

“In 2011, we reinvented the thermostat category to make it easy for people to save energy,” says Matt Rogers, co-founder and chief product officer, Nest. ”Fast forward six years: Nest owners have saved more than 14 billion kWh — the equivalent of providing electricity to all the homes in New York State for over 100 days — and now we are bringing beautiful design and proven energy saving capabilities into even more homes. To do that, we needed to simplify.

“The more subtle look and feel of the Nest Thermostat E will seamlessly blend into any environment. It’s everything our customers have come to know and love from Nest thermostats with a renewed focus on user simplicity and control.”


Nest Unveils the Thermostat E: Slick, Smaller, Cheaper

Nest is one of the primary sellers of smart thermostats, but despite the Google (Alphabet) buyout, the company is still struggling to hit mass market appeal. That could very well change in the near future with the Nest Thermostat E.

Here’s the thing, the Nest Thermostat E is very similar to the company’s flagship thermostat, but it differs in its cost and ease of use. This is Nest’s first big launch since May of this year, and the company’s first entirely new thermostat since the release of its primary product back in 2011.

Source: Nest

It has been in development for quite some time

According to a report from Business Insider, Nest has been working on this new device for the past two-years. It’s finally ready for consumption, and Nest is hoping it could boost its market share a great deal.

“Really what we want to do is talk to another kind of customer,” according to Maxime Veron, Nest’s head of product marketing, in a recent statement to Business Insider when giving a briefing about the new product.


“We believe the Nest Learning Thermostat is amazing for the top of customer food chain, versus the more mass-market customer who wants something more approachable that doesn’t stand out on the wall as a piece of design — something that just blends in and does its job.”

OK then, let’s talk about what’s different about the Thermostat E

First up, we have to look at the new image of the device. It’s not an entirely new design since the shape is still same. What’ different here is the color because the entire body is white, or almost. Furthermore, there’s a new display that is frosted rather than a bright LCD screen.

According to Veron, the display was inspired by watercolors. We don’t understand what that means, but it sounds great.

Source: Nest

Finally, we need to talk about the pricing here because that’s the main differentiator. You see, the original Nest Thermostat costs $249, but the E model stands to set consumers back a cheaper $169. That’s a massive $80 difference in price for a product that can stand toe-to-toe with its bigger brother.

Like the older version, the E will work just fine with Amazon Alexa and Google Home digital voice assistants. Additionally, if there’s no one at home, the product can realize this and turn itself off. Not to mention, there’s a rebate for homeowners who are interested in having a professional install the device.

What we have here is a great looking product that could transform Nest into a household name before long. Then again, it all boils down to whether or not most consumers feel the need for a smart thermostat.