Prices have come down. I paid about $38 for many of my light switches. Locks have fallen in price.
It looks like this market may evolve into several major “ecosystems”. Perhaps zwave is the Linux of HA.
This thread is very interesting. I don’t log into the forums often unless I am working on something but I was curious to see what the community thought about HomeKit. It seems this topic makes it more obvious the two groups of people that use Vera. Those that love to tinker with it and fill in the gaps in the functionality and therefore are completely happy with it; and those that bought it hoping it would “just work”, don’t have time (or perhaps the skill) to tinker with it, and are unhappy with the UI but bought because of the price point.
I don’t mind scripting some specifics like email notifications or event triggers but overall I am disappointed (and somewhat shocked) at the UI. The things that are overlooked are, well, frustrating. IMO Vera could be far better than it is with a more polished UI and once that is done, it is done! I don’t see that being a huge resource issue for the company in the long run. One clearing example is the whole login and access to settings problem. As we all know, if you got directly to the ip, then you can do whatever you want with Vera like change all the settings and delete devices. I have created two users because I wanted to have others in my house be able to control devices without changing the settings. If I login through getvera this (almost) works but is completely bypassed by going to the ip! I say it almost works because even with my non-admin user, the setting button appears and lets you type this in, THEN it was you don’t have permission. This is what drives most people crazy with the “unpolished” complaint. If the user does not have permission, please don’t show the button!
So my point to that example is this: IMO if MCV were to adopt Homekit into the philosophy I think we would all benefit greatly. From what I read Homekit is the software “glue” for various hardware solutions. MCV and Vera would be the zwave bridge. MCV could focus all resources on the zwave (and other protocols they support) functions. Let Apple do the UI. I think they would co-exist wonderfully.
Do you really think apple will play nice with anything other then Apple?
Do you think Apple will have the “OPEN” interface to “Co-Exist” with anyone else?
Do you think Apple is going to let you customize in depth scenes and the like to your needs?
People are making all these assumptions that this Homekit (not even demoed yet) will provide the ultimate solution.
I don’t own many apple products for some of the reasons above. APPLE is very basic and closed minded in order to make money and keep things easy to use.
Easy to use is great but that comes with limited options or customizing (some only need the basic). Half the people on this forum that complain about MCV are the ones that think PLEG and like are to difficult and complicated to use. They are right. But you don’t have to use it. You can use the basic scenes (which I’m banking is all that’s going to be possible in APPLE’s software).
those that love to tinker with it and fill in the gaps in the functionality and [b]therefore are completely happy with it[/b];
No, I think that’s extrapolating too far! I don’t know anyone who is completely happy with their Vera encounter.
[quote=“akbooer, post:44, topic:181409”]
those that love to tinker with it and fill in the gaps in the functionality and therefore are completely happy with it;
No, I think that’s extrapolating too far! I don’t know anyone who is completely happy with their Vera encounter.[/quote]
My biggest complain isn’t necessarily functionality, but device support. Either that be support of new devices or support of manufacturer specific features. The latter is more foregivable in my eyes, but it is a complaint of mine.
I wish that MCV would find a way of separating the z-wave command support from the base firmware. This way it could be updated more regularly. This is the way that Google has moved with Android. Moving more and more core functionality into apps so that it can be updated outside of firmware updated. I don’t know how possible this is with the z-wave stuff, but it would be a giant step forward.
Do you really think apple will play nice with anything other then Apple?
Do you think Apple will have the “OPEN” interface to “Co-Exist” with anyone else?
Do you think Apple is going to let you customize in depth scenes and the like to your needs?
People are making all these assumptions that this Homekit (not even demoed yet) will provide the ultimate solution.
I don’t own many apple products for some of the reasons above. APPLE is very basic and closed minded in order to make money and keep things easy to use.
Easy to use is great but that comes with limited options or customizing (some only need the basic). Half the people on this forum that complain about MCV are the ones that think PLEG and like are to difficult and complicated to use. They are right. But you don’t have to use it. You can use the basic scenes (which I’m banking is all that’s going to be possible in APPLE’s software).[/quote]
The API is already available on their developer website. I really don’t understand these questions.
And I am not making an assumption on this being an ultimate solution… just very hopeful it will be a better solution than what we have now
Do you really think apple will play nice with anything other then Apple?
Do you think Apple will have the “OPEN” interface to “Co-Exist” with anyone else?
Do you think Apple is going to let you customize in depth scenes and the like to your needs?
People are making all these assumptions that this Homekit (not even demoed yet) will provide the ultimate solution.
I don’t own many apple products for some of the reasons above. APPLE is very basic and closed minded in order to make money and keep things easy to use.
Easy to use is great but that comes with limited options or customizing (some only need the basic). Half the people on this forum that complain about MCV are the ones that think PLEG and like are to difficult and complicated to use. They are right. But you don’t have to use it. You can use the basic scenes (which I’m banking is all that’s going to be possible in APPLE’s software).[/quote]
The API is already available on their developer website. I really don’t understand these questions.
And I am not making an assumption on this being an ultimate solution… just very hopeful it will be a better solution than what we have now[/quote]
And I think that @integlikewhoa’s point is that Apple can’t be better because they tend to focus on the lowest common denominator. How can it be better for Home Automation if apple only really gives you Home Remote Control.
<The below is just my thoughts on how I THINK this is going to work, but I could be completely wrong>
I seriously doubt that Apple will provide anything better than the Vera. I actually think it will be far more limiting. The only possible benefit is that it will let you talk to multiple Controllers. Note that apple won’t actually be controlling the devices directly. It will still require a controller for each of the different protocols. This of course won’t be true for any that are IP based, but I could almost guarantee that those will have their own controller as well (think Phillips Hue).
At best what Apple is giving you is a way for developers to talk to multiple HA controllers using a common API, which must be implemented on the controller as well. The latter makes me think that it won’t be on the Vera any time soon because they are so slow to react. Most of the other z-wave controllers that are coming out actually seem to be multi-protocol controllers, so the only benefit to the Apple solution is that there is only 1 api to learn for your app (meaning out of the box your app could support any controller that supports homeKit ).
Finally, all the above only actually benefits 1 group of people, iOS users. This can in no way be MORE beneficial to HA in general. Android currently has an 85% market share globally (granted, a lot of that are budget devices). Apple does not like “Open” because they want you using their equipment only. In this case, their hope is that you buy a HA controller and it says “Apple HomeKit certified” which makes you go “Hmm…I better trade in my phone/tablet for an iOS device so I can use it with this!!”.
The only benefit to HA as a whole is if they decide to open up HomeKit like WebKit is (which Apple is a part of). Open standards benefit consumers. Closed proprietary standards, IMHO, do NOT benefit consumers.
They did a deliver an upgrade path for z-wave device, but, as reported does not currently support the new generation.
http://apps.mios.com/plugin.php?id=3846
Yes I see that. Does that mean its been demoed? I haven’t seen it.
Questions I thought were very simple and straight forward.
1)Do you think apple will play nice with anything other then Apple?
(Try using a Universal Serial Bus cable or USB on an Apple Product works for every other brand out there but not APPLE)
2)Do you think Apple will have the “OPEN” interface to “Co-Exist” with anyone else?
(Apple is to controlling and Money Hungry to allow others to do what they think they can, I bet not to long before they try and make a controller and light switches)
3)Do you think Apple is going to let you customize in depth scenes and the like to your needs? (limitations we face now for advanced scenes are not due to MCV and apple will face the same challenges)
The API is only the phone app (which we have several already not made by MCV) if the scenes are controlled by your phone what happens when its off, out of network? All this still needs to relate back to VERA (which means Vera UI isn’t going away or even chaining) or any other controller for that matter. Is every automation controller supposed to change software to fit Apple’s needs? Probley as that’s what they are know for.
What happens with devices that are not a light switch? Like a MIMOlite which can control anything from a garage, to a fireplace, to sprinklers to who knows. How does APPLE or VERA know what your going to use it for and have everything setup for what ever you think up.
They did a deliver an upgrade path for z-wave device, but, as reported does not currently support the new generation.
http://apps.mios.com/plugin.php?id=3846[/quote]
I knew this added some support for some devices, but since they were having to do Firmware upgrades for things like the smoke detectors, it means that it really isn’t at the level I’m thinking of. I would prefer them be able to add support for a whole new device (and protocol) via a method OUTSIDE of a firmware update. Maybe that’s just not worth the trouble for them or not all that practical from a coding stand point.
Do you really think apple will play nice with anything other then Apple?
Do you think Apple will have the “OPEN” interface to “Co-Exist” with anyone else?
Do you think Apple is going to let you customize in depth scenes and the like to your needs?
People are making all these assumptions that this Homekit (not even demoed yet) will provide the ultimate solution.
I don’t own many apple products for some of the reasons above. APPLE is very basic and closed minded in order to make money and keep things easy to use.
Easy to use is great but that comes with limited options or customizing (some only need the basic). Half the people on this forum that complain about MCV are the ones that think PLEG and like are to difficult and complicated to use. They are right. But you don’t have to use it. You can use the basic scenes (which I’m banking is all that’s going to be possible in APPLE’s software).[/quote]
The API is already available on their developer website. I really don’t understand these questions.
And I am not making an assumption on this being an ultimate solution… just very hopeful it will be a better solution than what we have now[/quote]
And I think that @integlikewhoa’s point is that Apple can’t be better because they tend to focus on the lowest common denominator. How can it be better for Home Automation if apple only really gives you Home Remote Control.
<The below is just my thoughts on how I THINK this is going to work, but I could be completely wrong>
I seriously doubt that Apple will provide anything better than the Vera. I actually think it will be far more limiting. The only possible benefit is that it will let you talk to multiple Controllers. Note that apple won’t actually be controlling the devices directly. It will still require a controller for each of the different protocols. This of course won’t be true for any that are IP based, but I could almost guarantee that those will have their own controller as well (think Phillips Hue).
At best what Apple is giving you is a way for developers to talk to multiple HA controllers using a common API, which must be implemented on the controller as well. The latter makes me think that it won’t be on the Vera any time soon because they are so slow to react. Most of the other z-wave controllers that are coming out actually seem to be multi-protocol controllers, so the only benefit to the Apple solution is that there is only 1 api to learn for your app (meaning out of the box your app could support any controller that supports homeKit ).
Finally, all the above only actually benefits 1 group of people, iOS users. This can in no way be MORE beneficial to HA in general. Android currently has an 85% market share globally (granted, a lot of that are budget devices). Apple does not like “Open” because they want you using their equipment only. In this case, their hope is that you buy a HA controller and it says “Apple HomeKit certified” which makes you go “Hmm…I better trade in my phone/tablet for an iOS device so I can use it with this!!”.
The only benefit to HA as a whole is if they decide to open up HomeKit like WebKit is (which Apple is a part of). Open standards benefit consumers. Closed proprietary standards, IMHO, do NOT benefit consumers.[/quote]
ok… I see what is meant by “open” now (in that context). Obviously the interface and apis are “open” but not to that level. Still digesting how you explained this and I am not sure how that would work if it was completely open and apple-free. You would still need something to be the central database and I was thinking (perhaps incorrectly) that could be vera. Then use home kit as the UI and IF you had an iOS device then you could use Siri, etc. Obviously if you weren’t on an apple device you couldn’t use Siri like someone could not use Cortana if not on an MS solution. hmmm, well I have an apple tv, iPad, and iPhone… so I am curious how this is going to play out. But I guess my ChromeCasts could not do this. It would be weird if that database was on the iPhone itself and left with me, how would someone else control the house? Or the house control itself? If vera can’t be the hub / bridge for my devices and some apple device somehow becomes that, I might actually be sad. Vera always had so much potential; it just never seemed to get there.
[quote=“SirMeili, post:47, topic:181409”]And I think that @integlikewhoa’s point is that Apple can’t be better because they tend to focus on the lowest common denominator. How can it be better for Home Automation if apple only really gives you Home Remote Control.
<The below is just my thoughts on how I THINK this is going to work, but I could be completely wrong>
I seriously doubt that Apple will provide anything better than the Vera. I actually think it will be far more limiting. The only possible benefit is that it will let you talk to multiple Controllers. Note that apple won’t actually be controlling the devices directly. It will still require a controller for each of the different protocols. This of course won’t be true for any that are IP based, but I could almost guarantee that those will have their own controller as well (think Phillips Hue).
At best what Apple is giving you is a way for developers to talk to multiple HA controllers using a common API, which must be implemented on the controller as well. The latter makes me think that it won’t be on the Vera any time soon because they are so slow to react. Most of the other z-wave controllers that are coming out actually seem to be multi-protocol controllers, so the only benefit to the Apple solution is that there is only 1 api to learn for your app (meaning out of the box your app could support any controller that supports homeKit ).
Finally, all the above only actually benefits 1 group of people, iOS users. This can in no way be MORE beneficial to HA in general. Android currently has an 85% market share globally (granted, a lot of that are budget devices). Apple does not like “Open” because they want you using their equipment only. In this case, their hope is that you buy a HA controller and it says “Apple HomeKit certified” which makes you go “Hmm…I better trade in my phone/tablet for an iOS device so I can use it with this!!”.
The only benefit to HA as a whole is if they decide to open up HomeKit like WebKit is (which Apple is a part of). Open standards benefit consumers. Closed proprietary standards, IMHO, do NOT benefit consumers.[/quote]
You say it so much better and I could’t agree with you more.
What I don’t fully understand yet is scene setup or control from the software. I can’t possibly think the Apple Device is going to be fully responsible for the handling all the scenes. People their phone batteries die or your out of town without reception or the like does that mean scenes stop working? If not that would mean that the controller is still responsible but I can’t see APPLE being able to get into the controller that deep to make any advanced scenes on so many different controllers.
I mean sure turning on an off a light when your home is cool. But to everyone that already has a Home Automation controller that’s like 101… nothing special. To my friends and family that never seen it they jump up and down thinking its cool and want to know more about it. I’m thinking this is what apples doing. It’s APPLE and it’s cool to so many people that alot will jump on board, but for the few that already doing scenes, controlling more then a few light switches and doors it’s not going to be as good as we would hope.
Lets face it they only making a iPhone App (for now but I see a device like apple TV coming soon with their own wireless protocol and their own devices).
I am far from an Apple fan boy, but I think dipping their toes in this area is great.
As it stands today, home automation is for hackers (used in the positive sense). It is no where near being a mainstream product. Apple is a closed system. BFD. Because it is, they dominate the markets they choose to enter. The reality is people on forums like these (including me), tend to be fiddlers. We like to tinker, play around. The journey is much more fun then the destination. And yeah, there is a bit of ego involved in getting this stuff to work.
We are the minority.
I welcome Apple’s involvement. If they can help stitch together this mess of HA technologies currently in use, I’m tickled pink. If Apple can bring to HA what they did to the smart phone, that means an Android like HA alternative is right around the corner.
I think this is where it’s going to be hard. Apple want’s the control and to do it their way (and maybe you do to). But how’s apple going to dumb down MCV and take all the controlling out of it and use it only for a bridge? what does MCV want and why should they surrender all control to an iPhone app?
I do see Apple Making their own bridge as I can’t see it being able to fully function to any depth with so many different companies and devices all with different software, ideas and goals (and probley non the same as Apples). Not only do I see that, but I also don’t see all the companies like MCV switching everything up to fit apples new needs. Especially since not everyone has a iPhone/Ipad and that’s all this is going to help for now.
Actually, they are not “open”. They are only for use by Apple Developers for Apple devices. It will open in the sense that Manufacturers of Controllers will be able to integrate it into their devices so that developers of iOS apps can utilize 1 API for accessing any kind of HA gear. When we say Open, we mean stuff like DLNA, WebKit, UPnP, etc.
Like other standards, Apple would start a “committee” and that committee would determine what the API would look like. You’re thinking of this a wrong way. This is not to hold a set of “devices” this is for accessing a set of “devices”. So, instead of Developer A having to know how to access a Light from Controllers A, B and C, they can use 1 API call and it will work on any of the controllers because they have all adopted the Standard.
Your phone would likely still keep a list of devices from all the controllers. Currently Vera Apps do this by getting the user_data from vera (I believe). All controllers likely have a similar call for getting a list of the devices and their types. HomeKit merely makes this call the same for all controllers that are HomeKit ready.
Actually, if it were an “open” standard, it would work in any of these, but I don’t think homeKit is tied to voice control. I don’t know how much control Devs have over Siri interaction (I’m actually guessing none), so I don’t think HomeKit will bring any kind of Siri Interaction unless Apple themselves implement it or add a hook for Apps to do it (something I don’t see them doing since you can’t even change the default apps on Apple devices for things like the Browser, maps, etc).
This is just an API for controlling controllers. Lets assume all the following controllers are “HomeKit ready” (they aren’t as far as I know). You have a Phillips Hue controller, a Vera Controller, and an ISY controller (Insteon). What homeKit shoudl allow is for a Developer to make a call to “turn on a light” the same way for all 3 of these devices. Let me tell you that I do not believe that is the case now. I’m not sure if HomeKit will actually let you merge multiple controllers (perhaps this would depend on the App, it’s definitely possible), but if you had all 3, The developer only needs to know which device is for what controller and it’s “address” to turn it on and off. No “if it’s Vera, make this call, if it’s ISY, make this call, if it’s X make this call”. In stead they can jsut do something like (and this is completely made up): ChangeLightLevel( Controller , device , level ). Controller would be the address (or an object that contains it), the device would be the device ID (or an object that) and the status would be something like the % of light (this would be for “dimmable lights”).
I’m just guessing here, but once again, I don’t see how this adds to the HA at large. It’s great for iOS Developers and users, but like I said, they make up 15% of the market (That could be just phones, I"m not sure if it’s phones or all devices). Also I know that the other 85% contains a lot of “budget” devices, though technically, they would still be able to utilize this type of system as it’s not very resource intensive.
Thanks 
I tried and most the time I think I actually fail at describing situations like these.
I think it will work just like any other app we have for controllers with a few small differences:
[ul][li]It will use 1 API for all controllers. The app won’t have to worry about what type of controller the device is on, just it’s “address”. This would allow Devs to support multiple controllers with minimal code.[/li]
[li]Scenes would have to be stored on device (except for scenes loaded from the various controllers). I don’t know if HomeKit actually supports loading scenes from controllers, but I think it would be a huge omission if it didn’t. That being said, I can fully see it allowing you to set up “scenes” in the device itself. This would mean that scene’s are device specific, but Developers could add ways of “sharing” scenes between devices. That being said, I think this would make apps like iViri actually more usefull because they could support more than just the Vera with not much more code. Granted the Vera would have to HomeKit ready, and the developer would have to rewrite the app using the API, but at that point, the app could control any other HomeKit ready controller (potentially)[/li][/ul]
[quote=“integlikewhoa, post:52, topic:181409”]I mean sure turning on an off a light when your home is cool. But to everyone that already has a Home Automation controller that’s like 101… nothing special. To my friends and family that never seen it they jump up and down thinking its cool and want to know more about it. I’m thinking this is what apples doing. It’s APPLE and it’s cool to so many people that alot will jump on board, but for the few that already doing scenes, controlling more then a few light switches and doors it’s not going to be as good as we would hope.
Lets face it they only making a iPhone App (for now but I see a device like apple TV coming soon with their own wireless protocol and their own devices).[/quote]
I think ultimately, at least for this version, Apple is looking to do nothing more than Home Control which has been simplified on the Developer end. Basically, the User will not see any benefit from this quite yet except maybe more options in Apps. I don’t see MCV supporting HomeKit anytime soon, so I don’t think it’s something Vera owners or Devs even will worry about unless they jump ship.
I know a company That for me is a perfect fit for apple.
If i had the ir pile of $ i world buy fibaro alltogether and… Basically jump in a with a very good starting position.
I accept bets …
[quote=“Dvbit, post:56, topic:181409”]I know a company That for me is a perfect fit for apple.
If i had the ir pile of $ i world buy fibaro alltogether and… Basically jump in a with a very good starting position.
I accept bets …[/quote]
And you know I could see Apple doing something like this! If they push out the Homekit and it takes off quickly I see them doing something like this. I personally see it more profitable then an iWatch assuming they are making the devices.
As it stands right now with Homekit they won’t make any money off this “homekit” (besides new customer wanting a phone because of it, which I don’t think is huge for them) but if a Apple Tv device (or look alike) now is a 500.00 (Apple price for a normally 200.00 controller) controller plus jumping in on a company like you suggested it would come to make more sense.
Right now it’s probley all just a testing the waters game.
I’ve avoided this thread for nearly five pages now, but…
HomeKit offers some advantages to iOS developers, lots of advantages to Apple, and some advantage to consumers(if it gains traction).
What’s in it for Vera to implement HomeKit?
What’s in it for Homeseer to implement HomeKit?
What’s in it for Fibaro to implement HomeKit?
What’s in it for SmartThings to implement HomeKit?
What’s in it for Leviton to implement HomeKit?
I see no advantage in implementing HomeKit for the controller manufacturers. Allowing Apple to become the gatekeeper to the manufacturer’s interface is not an advantage to the manufacturer. This is especially the case when we see that all of the manufacturers are attempting to be just like Apple and implement their own selfish walled garden ecosystems exclusive and incompatible with everyone else.
In my opinion, HomeKit is DOA. Unless Apple pays the manufacturers to implement it why should they?
Now you did it… be repaired for bad Karma. Mines threw the roof since pointing out the flaws and giving my opinion.
@zwave what is in it for the manufactures is the non-tech type. The average iDevice user isn’t like us, but that is a whole market that these controllers are missing out on because the users won’t get into their products with them having such a difficult learning curve. So what apple has done is opened up the ability for controller makers to reach that user base that just wants something to work. I doubt Vera will get in on it but I am sure those other manufactures are already working on something. With that said money has to be made for apple and what I mentioned above doesn’t really do that except the few users that would switch to have an easy to use setup and interface. So with that I said I think they will purchase a well known company that has solid products and great support with an already large user base. Just my thoughts.