Govee's New Outdoor Light Has You Covered In All Directions
Govee has just revealed its latest Matter-compatible outdoor smart light, one that can cast color in all four directions, which it is claiming as a first for a wall-mounted fixture.
The brilliantly-named Outdoor UpDown Wall Light is available now for $129.99 (or $229.99 for a two-pack), and features independently controllable RGB zones on the top, bottom, left, and right sides of the unit, letting you create dynamic color effects across up to 12 square meters of wall space.
The up and down beams use RGBWW LEDs to allow for tunable white light as well as color, while the left and right sides use Govee's RGBIC tech, which supports individual LED zone control.
The total brightness tops out at 1,200 lumens in bright white mode.
Mounting is possible through either an existing outdoor light fitting, or by simply plugging into a regular plug socket.
As with Govee's other smart home devices, the Outdoor UpDown Wall Light is controlled through the ever-improving Govee app, with its multitude of scenes and effects.
See also: Govee Goes Big On Design For New Smart Lamp Line-Up
For the Outdoor UpDown Wall Light, we're told that includes 64 preset scenes, 19 DIY modes, and also access to Govee's AI-powered 'Lighting Bot' that generates color suggestions based on typed prompts.
Voice control is available via Amazon Alexa and the Google Assistant, and the light also supports Matter-over-WiFi, opening up pretty much any other smart home ecosystem that your connected abode may be running on.
As always with Matter though, you will want to use the Govee app for those aforementioned advanced features, such as custom scenes and AI effects.
The Outdoor UpDown Wall Light boasts an IP66 rating, making it resistant to dust, heavy rain, and pressure jets, and it's rated to operate between –4°F and 113°F. Govee says the light is also UV resistant for long-term outdoor use.
The Outdoor UpDown Wall Light is available now via Govee's website and Amazon. There are also bundles that include Govee's motion sensor.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Reddit Stock Skyrocketed This Week
Key Points Reddit reported its second-quarter results on July 31, and the stock has been on a tear since then. Reddit's sales and earnings are rising rapidly. Data licensing for artificial intelligence models has turned into a powerful growth driver for Reddit. 10 stocks we like better than Reddit › Reddit (NYSE: RDDT) stock continued to rocket higher in this week's trading thanks to strong quarterly results. The social media player's price rose 14.2% over the last week of trading. Reddit published its second-quarter report on July 31, and the results spurred a surge in bullish momentum that extended into this week's trading. The company's share price is now up roughly 308% over the last year of trading. Reddit stock roars higher on big Q2 beats Reddit's second-quarter report arrived with results that caused investors to adopt a far more bullish stance on the company's outlook. In Q2, Reddit reported a profit of $0.45 per share on sales of $500 million. The performance came in far better than the average analyst estimate, which had targeted earnings per share of $0.19 and revenue of $426 million. The company's sales increased 78% year over year in the period, and the strong performance beats caused a wide range of Wall Street analysts to significantly increase their one-year price targets on the stock. With excitement surrounding Reddit's future growing, strong post-earnings valuation gains continued over the last week of trading. What's next for Reddit? For the current quarter, Reddit expects its sales to come in between $535 million and $545 million. Hitting the midpoint of that guidance range would mean posting year-over-year sales growth of roughly 55% in the third quarter. Reddit is seeing strong sales and earnings momentum in conjunction with data generated from its platform being a go-to resource for the training of artificial intelligence (AI) models. While the platform's user base has historically monetized at relatively low levels compared to other social sites, data licensing for AI models seems to have changed the game. Should you invest $1,000 in Reddit right now? Before you buy stock in Reddit, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Reddit wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Keith Noonan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Reddit Stock Skyrocketed This Week was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CEO Bob Iger Announces Joint Hulu and Disney+ Streaming Service. What Does It Mean for Investors?
Key Points Hulu is to be absorbed into Disney+ by the end of this year. Also, Disney will no longer be updating subscriber counts for any of its streaming services. Wednesday's resulting setback in Disney stock provides a buying opportunity. 10 stocks we like better than Walt Disney › It's official. The Walt Disney Company's (NYSE: DIS) stand-alone streaming service Hulu is going of. The company announced on Wednesday that Hulu will soon be fully integrated into Disney+, although it will still be its own category within the Disney+ menu. Hulu will also replace Star in the international version of Disney+. That's not the detail that interested investors will care the most about, however. Even more noteworthy is the fact that Disney will no longer be reporting the number of streaming subscribers for either service, or how much revenue these accounts generate every month. The decision removes two of the most closely watched metrics that investors are currently using to gauge the health of the company's increasingly important streaming business. Here's what you need to know about all of it. Another (mostly) solid quarter As a recap, The Walt Disney Company turned $23.7 billion worth of revenue into an adjusted per-share profit of $1.61 for its fiscal third quarter of 2025, which ended in June. The bottom line was up from the year-ago comparison of $1.39, and handily topped expectations for earnings of $1.47 per share. The top line, though -- while 2% better than sales in fiscal Q3 2024 -- fell just a bit short of analysts' estimates, sending shares lower as a result. Blame the company's cable television arm, mostly. Linear network revenue slipped 15% (with most of the setback stemming from Disney's international TV business), dragging cable TV's operating income down 28% year over year. Theme parks, films, and sports ventures, in contrast, did pretty well given the challenging economic environment. And Disney's streaming division? It's doing pretty well too. Its revenue grew 6% year over year to nearly $6.2 billion, leading to an operating profit of $346 million versus the slight loss reported for the same quarter of 2024. This extends a healthy streak of slow but persistent progress: The company's direct-to-consumer arm added another 1.4 million Disney+ subscribers to the fold last quarter as well, with 1 million of them signing up for the U.S.-Canada platform. Hulu added 1.3 million streaming subscribers of its own, although it also lost a couple of hundred thousand subscribers to Hulu's live-TV service. And again, this extends tepid but long-established growth trends: This is the next-to-last time, however, the chart immediately above will be able to be updated. No more subscriber metrics It's true. As CEO Bob Iger noted in his executive commentary published along with Wednesday's earnings report, "We believe quarterly updates on the number of paid subscribers and ARPU [average revenue per user] have become less meaningful to evaluating the performance of our businesses, and we will no longer report these metrics starting with the first quarter of fiscal 2026 [beginning in October] for Disney+ and Hulu." The company will, however, continue to share information about its streaming business's overall profitability. Iger explains: "We believe our reporting going forward will better align with changes in the media landscape, the unique nature of our integrated assets, [and] how we operate our businesses, and will reflect how management evaluates the progress and success of our strategic initiatives." If it sounds like CEO prattle, though, that's because it arguably is. Don't misunderstand. At least in some ways the decision does "align with changes in the media landscape." Early last year streaming rival Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) made the same decision to stop disclosing its subscriber counts and ARPU (as of the beginning of this year), aiming -- as Disney is now -- to put the focus on more meaningful metrics like revenue and profitability. Like Netflix's then, the timing of Disney's decision suspiciously coincides with a measurable slowing of its streaming business's subscriber growth, removing two of the more-watched measures of the entertainment giant's progress when investors need them the most. Perhaps at least some of Wednesday's setback was the result of waning transparency, and wasn't just in response to the company's revenue shortfall. Opportunity knocks So what does this mean for investors? The market was largely prepared for the fold-in of Hulu into Disney+ already. The possibility was first floated several quarters ago, and making Hulu's content available to its subscribers from within the Disney+ app early last year was an obvious step in this direction. Combining the two services into a single one now -- with a single payment -- isn't exactly a big leap, technological or otherwise. As for its impact on marketability, although the combo isn't any more marketable, it isn't less marketable either; the cost of subscribing to both is only between $1 and $4 more per month, depending on your plan. Indeed, in light of the media company's relatively new focus on monetizing both streaming services' content by injecting advertisements into its programming, anything that makes it easier to watch any of Disney's streaming content is a win for this fast-growing business. Adding Hulu to Disney+ at least does that. It will also just be cheaper to manage one content stack rather than two different ones, which is another modest win for The Walt Disney Company. But the decision to not share a couple of key customer metrics that investors had grown accustomed to seeing? Sure, that's a sticking point for some current and would-be maybe not as much of one as you might think. Netflix's shares also initially stumbled in response to word that it would no longer be reporting subscriber numbers, but its stock has more than doubled since that April 2024 low, reaching record highs in June. Investors mostly just want to see strong top and bottom lines, which Hulu and Disney+ can certainly team up to deliver. Data from streaming-market research outfit JustWatch indicates that, when combined, Hulu and Disney+ are collectively just as watched within the U.S. as Netflix, as well as Amazon's Prime. They were also two of only three streaming platforms to gain U.S. viewing time during the second quarter of this year (with the third being Max). So, this pairing should hit the ground running. Let's also not forget that the entirety of Disney's direct-to-consumer business still only makes up about one-fourth of its total revenue. Whether its streaming arm thrives, flops, or something in between, almost all of its other ventures are doing just fine anyway. More to the point, there's nothing about the Hulu-Disney+ decision, or last quarter's results, that's a reason to steer clear of the stock. In fact, since it's already down from its early-July peak, Wednesday's setback is arguably a great opportunity to step into very ownable Disney shares. The analyst community thinks so, anyway. The vast majority of them currently rate Disney stock as a strong buy, with a consensus price target of $135.12 that's 17% above the ticker's present price. Should you invest $1,000 in Walt Disney right now? Before you buy stock in Walt Disney, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Walt Disney wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 James Brumley has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Netflix, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. CEO Bob Iger Announces Joint Hulu and Disney+ Streaming Service. What Does It Mean for Investors? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Gizmodo
5 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
The Real Reason You Haven't Been Replaced by AI Yet
It's the ticking time bomb in the global economy, and every CEO knows it: AI is already powerful enough to replace millions of jobs. So why haven't the mass layoffs begun? The answer has little to do with technology and everything to do with fear. Corporate leaders are quietly waiting to see who will be the first to pull the trigger. My discussions about Generative AI reveal a stark generational divide. Most people under 35 are convinced that AI is a reality, not a gimmick, and that the displacement of human workers is an urgent, present-day issue. For many over 35, the assessment is more cautious; they believe the replacement will happen, but not for another five or ten years. The problem is that the second group is several steps behind. The AI revolution isn't being held back because the technology isn't ready. It's being held back for political reasons. CEOs are nervously looking at each other, waiting for someone else to make the first move and announce that they are eliminating a significant number of jobs because AI can do the work faster and cheaper. They are tiptoeing around what they already know. And they are telegraphing their intentions subliminally. Take Palantir's CEO, Alex Karp. During an interview with CNBC in August, he said: 'We're planning to grow our revenue … while decreasing our number of people.' Karp then continued: 'This is a crazy, efficient revolution. The goal is to get 10x revenue and have 3,600 people. We have now 4,100.' The subtext is clear: Palantir already considers 500 of its employees to be a surplus that AI could replace. It could increase its revenue by 10x while reducing its workforce by almost 12.2%. Look at Amazon. The company has more than one million robots (Hercules, Pegasus, and Proteus, its fully autonomous robot) in its facilities and believes that AI will help increase its robot mobility by 10%. The number of its robots is nearly equivalent to the 1.546 million people (full-time and part-time) that the company employs globally. CEO Andy Jassy has already warned his workforce of what's to come. 'We will need fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today, and more people doing other types of jobs,' Jassy told employees in a memo last June. 'It's hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce.' CEOs are waiting for political cover that isn't coming. None of them want to become the poster child for the revolution that killed human jobs in America. They don't want to become the target of politicians, knowing that on this issue, the attacks will come from both the populist left and the populist right. The problem is that politicians are just as unprepared as the over-35s. They seem to believe this is a problem for the next administration, a challenge for a few years down the road. They are wrong. The problem is here now. The questions are urgent: what will the displaced workers do? What safety nets need to be built? What happens to the healthcare of millions who are still a long way from retirement? These are questions politicians have not yet addressed, likely because they don't have the answers. So, for now, the CEOs are buying them time. Instead of mass firings, a quieter trend has emerged: hiring freezes. Increasingly, managers are being forced to justify why a human is needed for a role that an AI could potentially perform. This is already devastating the job market for young people. According to Handshake, a career platform for Gen Z employees, job listings for entry-level corporate roles have declined 15% over the past year. And for those who still think the great displacement is far away, the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported a few days ago that AI is already one of the top five factors contributing to job losses this year. Companies have announced over 806,000 private-sector job cuts since January, the highest number for that period since 2020. The tech industry is leading the charge. The machine is in motion. It's not that AI can't replace us, especially in knowledge jobs. It's that your boss doesn't yet have the courage to tell you they're firing you for a robot. They don't want to be the villain. They're waiting for one of their peers to be crucified before they enter the stage. But for how long?
