Map: https://www.fontanelle.org/Mappa-Fontanelle-Roma-Lazio.aspx
Rome's population is 2.8M so that's 1120 people per fountain.
Zürich has a population of 409k and 1200 fountains, so only 341 per fountain.
Let's stop trying to monetize everything.
So they monetized the pipe, they say, not because they wanted money, but because they want people to stop giving money to their competitors (plastic/chemical companies).
Please do question their motive, but at least understand what they are saying.
"Ewww look at that dirty TAP water ugh, get some beautiful island fresh water in this bottle!" Of course, it's the same water anyway, but now someone has made money off it.
Capitalism (and since saying that word makes people so mad, let's say "capital seeking behavior" instead) is so hilariously perverse, we've now got advertisement supported tap water, because we advertised tap water v1.0 into obsolescence. And then realized tap water v2.0 (bottled water) actually had unintended consequences (plastic). So THIS time it'll work! Tap Water v3.0!
AMA
However, it is certainly just as annoying and invasive.
Do you ever stop and ask yourself "am I really making the world a better place by doing this?"
The reality is your attention had a cost, and the price of quality tap water is less than that cost.
We will also enable a donation based model for water. Future revenue generating opportunities include sparkling and flavored water at a fraction of the cost of what you would buy on the shelf at a convenience store. 65% of the cost of any beverage is packaging and transportation. By carrying your own bottle, you’ll save money, save the planet from plastic pollution, and yes, water will be free.
How much will you be paying in rent to the places where you put your water dispensers?
Have you accounted for the cost of water? It turns out that most water supplies aren't actually free, they're run by municipal or county water authoritities that tend to send a bill every so often.
2. I won't comment on this, but for a comp, LinkNYC (Free Wifi kiosks) pays hundreds of millions to its partner cities
3. Currently, cities are providing free tap water at water fountains (e.g. bus station, train station, library), the issue is not the cost of the tap water, but the cost to upgrade the infrastructure so that people trust it.
If it had just been some marketing hype for a standard juicer, they might have been fine (with a budget).
This thing at least conventionally outputs water... not sure about it's viability, but it seems somewhat less absurd than Juicero.
I'm a little perplexed about why this needs to be internet connected. Hire someone to change the ads on the machines and you've made a small dent in unemployment, too.
And if an area doesn't have clean water, isn't it reasonable to believe it doesn't have internet connectivity, too?
It’s the same reason we dig ditches with power equipment rather than shovels or spoons or have walk-up ATMs rather than bank tellers on the corner.
One noted how ecologically considerate. They didn't mention anything they actually do that was ecologically relevant. They did have a photo(s) in that section were the team was outside in the midday sun at some wire tables you'd find at some coffee shops with their laptops working away and laughing ... I guess one of them had a water bottle ... maybe that was what I was supposed to pick up from that.
Anyway the whole lifestyle brand / company thing is weird generally.
damn ads everywhere..
That can't be possible — and I think estimation is way off. Even if there were a drinking fountain for every American (which I'm sure is an over-estimate by an order of magnitude as well), that would still imply an upgrade cost of $3,000 per drinking fountain. If there's a fountain for one in ten Americans; that's $30,000.
For context, most modern Elkay drinking fountains are around $1,000.
I think this overwhelming figure serves to enhance the point of the author but I think it bares no basis in reality.
Instead of having a central location where water is filtered and distributed from, Tap is trying to have filtering occur at each endpoint in a more distributed manner.
But drinking fountains add some funny flavors of their own. And what incentive is there to avoid that?
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking_w...
Are you sure it isn't satire?
And while we're on the subject of internet-connected devices, how much thought have you given to black-hat hackers pwning water fountains remotely, or with a few minutes of physical access, to stream racy videos or promote their garage band's next show?
[1] https://store.wikimedia.org/products/wikipedia-language-wate...
No one argues that water in the best case should be free and that it’s in the public interest to provide it, but that’s just not realistic in a lot of cases. And in this specific case, the net good provided supersedes whatever argument people have against the commercial aspects, IMO. If it’s this or a vending machine or another rack of clothes, isn’t this better?
I disagree. I don't believe there is a single good reason for why our world has both trillions of dollars of wealth but also people without access to clean drinking water. It's just not right.
Read up on Coke's "Cap the Tap" program and you'll see why I started Tap
Shelters should be free, and so should water fountains. But free doesn't mean nice. I've seen some poorly maintained bus shelters and water fountains.
If people want to slap ads on the side, and increase the quality, then that's great. If your VC funding, or ad funding can pay for a filter on a water fountain, even better.
Also, why is it the size of a vending machine? That feels impractical.
The tap project is a noble effort, so nothing is taken away from it, but we're going from phonograph records to HD streaming with logistics in what amounts to a very short period of time and skipping radio, TV, casettes and DVD's in the process.
When all of the pieces come together, the ingredients for rural metropoles/metropoleis to sprout up where the will exists should provide a more reasonable approach than some of the current inferior innovations/policies/codes[1] that they currently have in place for growth and sustainability.
Energy (renewables), water (desalinated), connectivity (low orbit satellite), sustainability (new construction/models/raw materials/resources) and logistics (ML, drones, autonomous roads/vehicles) should make it a whole new ballgame (without having to destroy or burden the existing system).
I do like the fact that tap wants to test and report on water quality, but profitability trumps health. They [utility companies] probably don't want to be reminded of whats in the water. They already know.
[1]I'm more concerned with the accumulation of prescription meds, but heres a pfas nugget instead. Perhaps the expiration date has passed on public water stewardship.
https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination...
I've never met anyone who wouldn't use a public water fountain to fill up a bottle they had. Not saying they don't exist, just that it's not "the biggest problem".
The biggest problem is obviously forgetting to bring your water bottle with you everywhere you go. When that happens to me I buy a disposable bottle and refill it till I lose it. Why don't we just require that all disposable water bottles are built to be reused? With wide mouths so they can be cleaned, maybe even compatible with Mason jar lids.
It seems like it could be a very logistics heavy business and hard to account for a lot of things.
I know a few people like this but I don't understand it. Why is the water coming out of a faucet not safe, here in NYC?
