If Apple wants to make money they should not follow but lead… So just pick up all together a company that does devices in a style similar to them. Make their technology usage easier. As easy as possible. Then just go for it.
Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 utilizzando Tapatalk
Will true HA ever be that simple as Apples products tend to be?
Sure you can buy Belkin/hue plugs/lightbulbs to turn off/on your plugin lights or wifi thermostats…but thats still “toys”…
MOST of the important devices like dimmers/zwave in wall switches etc still need to be installed by a electrician ( or someone who knows what they are doing )…or locks installed via a locksmith.
Its a big step from plug in gadgets to inwall/professional installed devices which really is what makes HA really good.
In my mind the $$ and tricky bit is not what controller or how it works, its the installation/capital and implementation cost which is the bigger hurdle!
The apple product so far doesn’t require the decision to purchase a controller. A typical home kit user, like a nest user, is making a device decision, not buying into a architecture. I suspect most buyers won’t consider that they’re buying a device that will only work remotely on home kit.
We still don’t know how Apple plans to do light switches and sockets. Perhaps they don’t know either. Sixty switches and sockets showing up as connected devices on the home lan seems somewhat unlikely. I wonder how much power advantage zwave has over wifi on a listening device. The wifi chips are presumably less complicated as these are not routers.
I’m still going with the prediction that when home kit appears as a fixed controller in the home it will run as part of the apple router. Or alternately some simple logic runs on icloud and talks to the local lan. Apple always starts with the simpler/cleaner approach.
An interesting aspect of Home Kit is that the pairing and device state is apparently stored in the cloud and shared between accounts. A non-trivial architectural decision for Apple.
I doubt what Apple is doing will be useful for HA enthusiasts with zwave devices.
@integlikewhoa - Don’t let Karma distract you. They can click Smite until their fingers bleed and ‘I shall become more powerful than they could ever imagine’ ;D
I disagree. The iDevice user is already there for the app developer(third party or controller manufacturer) to provide for. There are already numerous iDevice apps for Vera controllers. HomeKit doesn’t change that market at all. HomeKit makes it simpler for Apple and the app developer to to address disparate HA controllers. The app developer still has to provide the app to the end user and they are already doing that today with specific apps for specific controllers. There’s no advantage or increased market share for MCV to implement HomeKit and allow an iPhone user to use Vera and SmartThings from the same thirdparty app. There’s also nothing stopping the third party app developer from implementing that functionality without even using HomeKit. But it does make the developers work just a little bit harder to write for two or more APIs instead of just one(HomeKit).
HomeKit does not make the controller work any better. It does not make programming or understanding the controller any better. It does not make installation any easier. HomeKit just allows the app developer to more easily address multiple controllers, provided that the controller manufacturer spends the time and money to implement HomeKit. And the advantage to that manufacturer is? The opportunity to have Apple act as a gateway/gatekeeper to their device is an advantage?
[quote=“Z-Waver, post:64, topic:181409”]And the advantage to that manufacturer is? The opportunity to have Apple act as a gateway/gatekeeper to their device is an advantage?[/quote]The advantage is exposure to the world of HA from millions and millions Apple fans who, if the developers make good apps, will need to buy controllers.
True HA, IMHO, is not even here yet, at least not on the cost level we are talking about. True HA would be things “just happen”. There are plenty of people that do that here on the forums, but I believe that while their attempts are great, the sensors needed for really great presence detection in rooms just isn’t there yet. I’m not bashing people for their attempts. They, and myself, are working with what we have and in most cases it in fact works quite well. My hopes is that one day we can have just a “presence” detector that states someone is in a room without them having to carry anything around. I feel as though we are a while away from this type of sensor, so we use what we have to varying degrees of success.
I don’t feel that what Apple is getting into, at this point in time, is HA. I think it’s Home Control.
My Fiance would argue that the other stuff are just “toys” as well. It’s all a perspective issue.
[quote=“gregl, post:62, topic:181409”]MOST of the important devices like dimmers/zwave in wall switches etc still need to be installed by a electrician ( or someone who knows what they are doing )…or locks installed via a locksmith.
Its a big step from plug in gadgets to inwall/professional installed devices which really is what makes HA really good.[/quote]
This is most certainly NOT true. A DIYer could easily install switches/dimmers and locks without the need of a professional. Do they need to be careful? Sure, but it’s not all that hard. Now, if your house isn’t wired with a neutral at the box, it might mean you need to get an electrician to run one for you, but you can most certainly do it yourself and as long as one is careful, do it quite safely.
The same is even more true for locks. There is NO WAY I am calling a locksmith to install my door lock. If I have to have it re-keyed, I will then call them, but installing a z-wave lock is insanely easy.
Bigger hurdle, but money is money. Anyone can spend money if they have it. As I said above, I think MOST people could install locks and switches/dimmers/outlets as long as they follow some simple safety rules. The trickiest part to HA is the programming (true HA where things “just happen”). PLEG, IMHO, makes this possible on the Vera (as close as we can get), but also adds another level of complexity to the system.
If a user is just looking for “motion at X means turn on light Y”, I think it’s fairly simple on the vera and most people could do it. I do think most people are capable of grasping PLEG, but it has a much steeper learning curve. Installing devices seems much easier to me than that.
*I will note that I grew up with a grandfather who I don’t think ever called a professional to do anything, so I learned early that DIY just takes patience, research, and considering safety to get it done. I’ve re-run electrical in my house, run structured wiring, torn down closets and built them back up (equipment room), completely remodeled my back porch, and so on. It’s all a perspective issue. DIY isn’t has hard as some make it out to be. I do agree though that at some point, it’s just easier and faster to hire a professional. While I can do Drywall, I often call someone to do it because I HATE doing the mud and tape 
So the consumer sees the fancy app and likes it so much that they go out an buy a home automation controller and implement an HA rollout? That just seems like placing the cart before the horse to me, but I guess it could happen for small few cases.
I think the more typical decision process is/should be; decide to implement HA, determine the system/devices to suit your requirements, then find an app to interface with your controller. But, Appleites are often impulsive so you may have a point.
@SirMeili - So much passion in your posts. I think that your assessment of people’s installation capabilities is accurate for DIYers, but I think DIYers are a very small percentage of the general population these days. There’s a clear trend towards specialization and cluelessness outside of that specialization.
Vera could only control Home Kit devices through an iOS intermediary app. Putting an accessible API on only normally portable devices may be Apple’s strategy to prevent wide spread use of Home Kit devices by non-apple controllers like Vera. The response time for Vera to operate a Home Kit device would often be terrible.
We will undoubtedly see Home Kit integration with Vera on the client side with apps like Roomie Remote. But if Apple eventually puts Home Kit in the router they don’t need to make that API addressable. Or they can limit the API to keep some functionality exclusive to Apple.
Apple seems well positioned for the next wave of HA buyer. There doesn’t seem to be good reasons for them to want to share that market, any more than Iris wants non-Lowes devices on their system. So far Apple seems to have designed Home Kit to exclude devices such as Vera. Google/Nest probably has a better chance of producing a more open system attractive to HA enthusiasts.
Actually, this is how I finally pulled the trigger on Vera 1. Having been on the forum and watching for a long time, and knowing that the Square Connect guys were working on an app. SQ Remote was what convinced me to buy Vera 1, long before the SQ Blaster was on the scene. I know it isn’t being actively developed now, but those guys essentially saw what Vera could do and created something better than HomeKit that still functions well for me today with no hidden costs, years before.
The most annoying thing about HomeKit is that you’re going to hear about Home Automation from every doofus on the block as if Apple invented it. All of the guys who tell you about how they bought a Phillips lamp at the Apple Store that can be operated by iProducts (psst, I can operate every light in my house and a hell of a lot more, and I didn’t have to buy new bulbs).
So true, but you said it not me! :o
I have a dream… MCV goes out of the market and is bought through crowdfunding by it’s community and becomes an open Platform.
Having revenues by Licensing Platform and services. A lively and evolving Platform boosted by a powerful community
How do you see it?
[quote=“Dvbit, post:71, topic:181409”]I have a dream… MCV goes out of the market and is bought through crowdfunding by it’s community and becomes an open Platform.
Having revenues by Licensing Platform and services. A lively and evolving Platform boosted by a powerful community
How do you see it?[/quote]
I see it devolving into design by committee. International differences and licensing miring hardware development even further. Every user that contributed $20 demanding their unique feature requirement. Growing unrest and people jumping to other platforms. Suddenly a focused and experienced individual/company gets sick of the morass, sees an opportunity and launches the next big thing eclipsing openMCV overnight.
High hopes rarely make a successful company or open source project. But, a person can dream.
There is a LICENSE conflict between the Z-Wave software API and OPEN Software.
By the license agreement the Z-Wave access component can NOT be OPEN Software.
The API is needed for locks … much of the other parts of the API have been reverse engineered.
It is also needed as changes are added to the spec … although people continue to reverse engineer the new features.
[quote=“RichardTSchaefer, post:73, topic:181409”]There is a LICENSE conflict between the Z-Wave software API and OPEN Software.
By the license agreement the Z-Wave access component can NOT be OPEN Software.
The API is needed for locks … much of the other parts of the API have been reverse engineered.
It is also needed as changes are added to the spec … although people continue to reverse engineer the new features.[/quote]
Absoultely right the zwave is closed…
By reverse engineering I suppose you refer to the openzwave
it’s a pity.
I know that extracting money from open software is not easy however we also have a lot of examples:
Redhat Linux, Cloudera Hadoop, MySqL
And I am sure there’s also other examples.
Just in the domotics area OpenHab.
[quote=“Dvbit, post:74, topic:181409”][quote=“RichardTSchaefer, post:73, topic:181409”]There is a LICENSE conflict between the Z-Wave software API and OPEN Software.
By the license agreement the Z-Wave access component can NOT be OPEN Software.
The API is needed for locks … much of the other parts of the API have been reverse engineered.
It is also needed as changes are added to the spec … although people continue to reverse engineer the new features.[/quote]
Absoultely right the zwave is closed…
By reverse engineering I suppose you refer to the openzwave
it’s a pity.
I know that extracting money from open software is not easy however we also have a lot of examples:
Redhat Linux, Cloudera Hadoop, MySqL
And I am sure there’s also other examples.
Just in the domotics area OpenHab.[/quote]
The cool thing about OpenHab is that it is a community of people writing the code in their spare time collectively to bring a better solution to market. I don’t think any of them got into it with the expectation of making money and I don’t think any of us consumers of the product are demanding in a way that would drive them to want monitiary value from the work they are doing. The eclipse foundation has been very successful in these type of projects and I don’t expect OpenHAB to be any different. I just wish MCV would react to its users concerns as if they didn’t hold a monopoly on the HA industry (which they don’t but their response are pretty much oh well what are you going to do go to another product if this doesn’t get fixed?). So after dealing with MCV for 2 weeks of support I am almost fully converted over to the OpenHAB project.
I am also quiet tempted. The paradox here is that what holds me in Mcv is the users contributions. Probably the same think will take me to openhab shortly.
I am starting to read their fora. Right now seems quite complicated but I am probably forgetting the initial contact with Vera…
Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 utilizzando Tapatalk
Please be advised that they are a group of individuals but have a good plan and they adhered to relevant (backed up by Cisco, Panasonic and similar companies) alliances of the industry…
Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 utilizzando Tapatalk
[quote=“Dvbit, post:77, topic:181409”]Please be advised that they are a group of individuals but have a good plan and they adhered to relevant (backed up by Cisco, Panasonic and similar companies) alliances of the industry…
Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 utilizzando Tapatalk[/quote]
I agree 100%, and they don’t do hacks to make stuff work. It gets done the right way and I am very satisfied with openHAB running on my Raspberry PI using the Razberry Child Board for z-wave support!
Jpete… We have to talk how was the transitioning?
Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 utilizzando Tapatalk
[quote=“Dvbit, post:79, topic:181409”]Jpete… We have to talk how was the transitioning?
Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 utilizzando Tapatalk[/quote]
It really isn’t that bad. I mean there is more leg work as stuff isn’t automated like it is with Vera and some other baked solutions, but once you have it setup the stability of it is remarkable and stuff that I had issues with using the VeraLite no longer happen. The only downfall that I can comment on right now is the maturity of the z-wave binding. It doesn’t support door locks and thermostat support is minimal. So in the interim I have kept Veralite running but only operating my Thermostat and Locks and I used openHAB’s http binding to make remote calls to the Vera for status and updates. So I can unlock/lock my doors and set my thermostat via openHAB but it isn’t supported natively just yet but sounds like it is in the near future and on the road map.
Here is a conversation on this forum about the conversion and the interested party of users that are starting to test it out… http://forum.micasaverde.com/index.php/topic,25531.msg180750.html
Best Home Automation shopping experience. Shop at Ezlo!
© 2024 Ezlo Innovation, All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Forum Rules