undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrft2y ago0 comments

> all smart home devices had to go through a hub

I fully agree, this is the reason I mostly buy Zigbee devices for my smart home. The problem with this rule is that there is already a device on the market that complies with it on paper, but not how you intended: Amazon Echo devices act as Zigbee gateways. While I never tried it, I bet it will not turn on your lights without calling the mothership.

If this rule were to become reality, vendors would just sell your their "mandatory" hubs that handle the calling home part. Smaller vendors would no longer be able to offer their ESP based devices, even though I can easily decloud them via ESPHome etc, if even necessary.

From a purely idealistic PoV, I guess the only way we achieve ownership as you described is if we require by law, with proper enforcement, that reasonable technical people are able to connect to the device on a local interface. But this has so many weasel words already, it would be ineffective and/or lead to regulatory capture ("implement this 600 page, 200$ ISO standard based on XML, don't mind the proprietary extensions ensuring no interop!").

For me, the way to have some degree of ownership of my smart home is doing research before buying to ensure the device either runs on Zigbee, has a local network interface and does not rely on the cloud even for initial configuration or can be flashed with Tasmota or ESPHome with minimal fuzz. I don't see this changing any time soon. It is sad that you need to have the knowledge and time to be able to "own" your smart home, but I at least can help my "tech support circle" where possible to make informed decisions.

0 comments

vidarh2y ago

I use (or used, I mostly have Lightwave switches instead of zigbee bulbs now) one of my Echo devices as a gateway, and sure it will call the mothership, but I really don't care about that as long as the switches and other devices themselves still works if/when I decide to tear out the Echos. To me they're not a problem, as long as they speak open protocols.

I think that part is more important than demanding a hub. Demanding that the device can connect to a local hub (where "can" means "can easily be reconfigured without going through the original manufacturer or requiring expensive tools"...) speaking open protocols (and specify clearly what "open protocol" means, to avoid your 600 page, 200$ ISO standard) is more important than requiring that they must connect to a local hub. Also necessary to specify that you can carry out all the functions of the device via open protocols, or you'll get bullshit where essentials get locked away.

Personally, I don't care if I have proprietary smart home devices. I do care that the maximum cost and hassle if a manufacturer goes "rogue" like in this linked article remains low. So each proprietary device in current use reduces my willingness to get another one. Currently, all of my devices can be controlled via open source, and though some of them (some cheap Govee led strips) do call home, there are open source to talk to them, and worst case I can literally cut them off with a pair of scissors and replace the controllers for a pittance if they ever become a nuisance, and that makes them an acceptable choice (though whenever there are multiple options I will look for the more open one).

darkwater2y ago

> If this rule were to become reality, vendors would just sell your their "mandatory" hubs that handle the calling home part. Smaller vendors would no longer be able to offer their ESP based devices, even though I can easily decloud them via ESPHome etc, if even necessary.

No, what should become the reality is that only HARDWARE vendors that make a living off the hardware and some corollary service will have the incentives to be on the market, instead of the behemoths like Amazon or Google that just want to harvest your data with mostly loss leader products.

rftOP2y ago

Yeah, I agree that this is what SHOULD happen. But I am far too cynical at this point to believe it WILL happen.

In our current system I see two ways to try to make this reality: 1) economic factors and 2) regulation. 1) will not happen, because the data is worth enough to big players that a small competitor can not compete on the hardware/software/service margins alone. You need to become as big and integrated as the current players to be able to offer similar features and prices. Sure, it is more choice, but the option is just as bad.

2) will not happen due to regulatory capture problems as I already stated. A big player can shoulder the burden of compliance easier than a small shop. Maybe, just maybe, there is hope if anti-trust actions split up the existing big players, but I am not holding my breath.

The third way, one small group of indomitable Gauls^Wnerds still holds out against the invaders, is what we currently have and what offers a little bit of hope to me. But I fear this will never become the norm.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse