What are some exceptions to the standards problem?
What are some exceptions to the standards problem?
You're viewing a single thread.
132 comments
-
For home automation, Matter/Thread has the potential. We’ll see over the next five years, but yes market forces can make a new standard work
Reasons I’m hopeful
- this is the first time major companies are involved: Apple, Google, Amazon agree
- first time home automation hubs “just happen”, with the millions of people who have Echo, Google Home, Apple devices
- small companies that dominate home automation seem to realize the problem of the market can’t reasonably expand without interoperability and ease of use
Matter/Thread is the new kid on the block. Will it be yet another home automation standard, or will it gradually replace the previous ones? We’ll see.
-
Matter/Thread
i still think IP based smart home kit is a mistake. The internet is already such a big vuln, we don't need a shit ton of garbage sitting on the network only making it more vulnerable.
communication standards like zwave, and zigbee, are preferable here. It looks like at least one of those supports it, but perhaps both will be protocol agnostic.
-
Think of Thread as Zigbee with an IPv6 stack. It’s a local communication standard but with a compatible protocol.
I was excited that my current phone has a Thread radio so it can be on the local network for presence and control. Unfortunately not supported yet.
I’m definitely worried about the recent Matter standard for internet access. They say it’s optional, but that capability is easily hijacked by unscrupulous vendors.
- my thermostat has cloud functionality that I want, so I’m fine with the option of giving them internet access
- my air purifier requires internet access to report back to a vendor-specific portal filled with advertising. I’m not ok with that tradeoff so don’t use any smart functionality.
-
it's definitely cool that we have the capability of things like thread/matter zigbee and zwave now.
I would be more ok with local IoT devices being IP based if they were intended on being used with an "offline" network. Though that's a little funky to setup, and causes interference issues, so i think i prefer the zigbee and zwave solution of using a different protocol entirely, especially since it mandates offline handling.
My two biggest concerns with IP connected devices are most home networks are not properly delegated, so people aren't creating a second subnet specifically for IoT devices for example, and they most definitely aren't properly providing access controls through that network as well. So if someone manages to get into one of the devices, you basically have the entire network at that point.
One of the big advantages of non IP based systems is that you have a "point of relay" or gateway between all of your IoT devices and your network, which becomes the attack vector, making it a lot easier to secure, and manage. Even if you managed to hack into a zwave/zigbee network, it would only be locally, and IoT devices only, so it's not going to be hugely problematic.
theoretically you can do all of this on a traditional IP based network, i just don't think it's the correct approach. Sort of like making a carboat, or a boatcar. You could, but why?
I think at minimum, a standalone IoT device should not be capable of connecting to the global internet, period. Through something like a gateway or "point of relay" sure, that's fine by me, but even then i would prefer open standards and documentation on that specific feature set.
-
You may be misunderstanding my description a bit. Think of Thread as Zigbee 2.0. It’s not, but that’s a useful way of thinking of it. It’s a_local_ mesh network just like Zigbee, even using the same frequency. The protocol stack is different: it’s IPv6 for capability, but completely separate from your Ethernet/wifi. There is no online requirement, at least from the standard.
Matter is Ethernet/WiFi based and can act as a gateway for Thread, but theirs is no online requirement, at least from the standard.
But yes, companies will ignorantly or willfully violate things like that. My most recent example is effing Netgear. I didn’t think I had to ask whether my new router’s “separate IoT network” was actually separate. I set up a different ssid, configured it to 2.4GHz only, separate password …. WTF, it’s on the same network with no separation? How is that even a useful thing?
-
-
-
My guess is that the speed with which new device types are supported is too slow to make it truly revolutionary. It was a good idea, it just does not happen fast enough to become dominant.
-
Definitely a problem - but the positive side of that is the slow pace is from reaching a consensus. It’s easy to be impatient with how slow the rollout is going but if that means that most manufacturers of each type are on board it could still be a good thing
-
Let's hope so, I would love that! It is so frustrating shopping for new Home Assistant gear, finding something nice and then realizing it uses FlooSnorb instead of zigbee or wi-fi or bluetooth or whatever you already have. And yeah, sure, you can buy a controller for that, and there is probably an integration for that for HA, but damnit....another one? 😁 ™️
-
At this point i already support the most common protocols in HA, so i really hope for the end of WiFi, and vendor specific portals
-
-
-
132 comments