Zigbee allows using multiple vendors with ease, not tied to just one manufacturer.
Again, no internet connection required.
It's not just about cloud connectivity though: I don't want my home automation hardware speaking IP or anything like it. Nor do I want them to need a complicated enough protocol to justify requirements like firmware updates. All of this introduces opportunities for security flaws and the ability to create botnets.
Home automation hardware should be simple, take simple instructions over local communication bands, and then a single central controller should bring the greater intelligence and access.
I think my Insteon thermostat is nearly the ideal smarthome product: It's a thermostat, and can work entirely standalone as just that. It cannot be updated or reprogrammed. But it will accept commands (no different than button presses on the front of it) over the RF protocol, and of course, send its sensor data and operating status.
Things like incidents where Nests had software updates that let everyone freeze or whatever in the winter just... isn't really a concern with a good design like this.
One of the benefits of non-proprietary (especially IP based) is that you're more immune to company failures, like when Insteon shut down.
> I don't want my home automation hardware speaking IP or anything like it
Why? Its just a protocol? It doesn't mean a cloud is involved, it doesn't even have to be networked to your main LAN.
> Home automation hardware should be simple, take simple instructions over local communication bands, and then a single central controller should bring the greater intelligence and access.
IP seems the simplest option. Even though its more layers than a binary protocol, the interoperability and easy ability for most software people to create IP software means longer future.
> It cannot be updated or reprogrammed. But it will accept commands (no different than button presses on the front of it) over the RF protocol, and of course, send its sensor data and operating status.
What was your plan when Insteon went belly up? The lack of ability to reprogram means you couldn't update it to work with a newer hub/protocol.
Agreed, though I am not reliant on the Insteon company for anything but parts, since it's an entirely local protocol. And they're producing new parts again! I was also in a bit lucky of a position: I had plenty of spare hardware on hand while the company was shut down.
> IP seems the simplest option
If security is unimportant, sure. Insteon hardware has been around for three decades, but nobody in their right mind would be using network hardware from back then. This is a case of where complexity kills. Home hardware needs to work for decades.
> Plan when Insteon went belly up
I use their PLM interface which is just a COM port on my PC. The company's existence has no impact on my ability to connect it to newer things.
