They sure have been pushing the C-8 lately it seems. Is the C-9 on the horizon? I'm still running a C-7 and have no plan on upgrading to the 8 but if a 9 were to drop soon I'd consider it. I think my C-7 is 5 years old in a few short weeks. LOL!!
Unless there is a 900 series z-wave chip, unlikely. The c8 Pro is going to be around for a long time...
C8p
800 series LR z-wave
Zigbee
Bluetooth
matter
wifi/lan integration
homekit integration..
Pretty good spread I think...
8 Likes
Mine is a C-5 
1 Like
I agree, C8 Pro is probably it for the next couple years, at least.
As this thread shows, there a plenty of people who are still on C5s, C7s, and C8s, so at least money wise, there are plenty of sales still out there for people who will still upgrade to the Pro, not to mention new users who might go right for the Pro, and for new users who don't, that just means even more Pro sales on the horizon in the next couple years.
I went from the C7 to the C8, and that alone seemed like quite the upgrade (they hadn't announced the Pro yet when I got my C8) 
Same processor and memory, but you get the Zwave 800 chip and external antennas, plus the Wifi connection option.
I've been pushing C8 now for over a year, memory and processor wise, so I will probably jump to a Pro at the next sale. It is certainly a big jump from the C7. You also get the Homekit integration and bluetooth on the Pro now.
I'm not sure what you would need right now from a generation beyond the Pro that you could actually make use of.
There's plenty of space for an upgraded model and I hope they do it sooner than later. As the devs have shown, they have stuff on their list and they end up getting limited to C8 Pro. At some point even it runs out of capacity/power. Radios are no longer much of a differentiator, the only thing needed is a Thread radio. And upgrades are a good source for new revenue.
5 Likes
That would be a nice add, but I don't think it is going to push a whole hardware revision. That is a pretty costly endeavor up-front. I'm sure that will make the next revision, but I'm not expecting that anytime soon.
I agree that beefier processing guts would be a tempting upgrade, but I also admittedly have no current or foreseeable issues with the 8-Pro's performance.
I'm torn about embedding a Thread radio since they seem to be so commonly available on so many other devices already... Unless it could be fully disabled, that would not be a selling point for me.
I realize the Standards illuminati are supposedly working on a revision that would enable the meshing of all devices' own Thread networks into just one, but that's been "coming soon!" for a disappointingly long time now. Until that capability goes live and is well-proven, I need yet another Thread radio like I need a kick in the junk 
Given the memory/CPU demand of some recently added built-in integrations and apps, I agree 100% with your sentiments.
But before that happens, I anticipate that it will become possible to reconfigure the zigbee radio on C-8/C-8 Pro hubs as a Thread radio. That would let users with two hubs to dedicate one of them to be a Thread Border Router (and Matter controller).
There are OpenThread commissioners that have been implemented in Java; OpenThread itself can be run on the Linux host OS for the hub platform; and finally, the SiLabs zigbee chip used in the C-8/C-8 Pro also supports Thread.
7 Likes
To clarify, Hubitat no longer sells the C-8 (or lower models). The only hub they currently sell is the C-8 Pro, which offers a better automation experience than older models - with twice the amount of RAM and a faster CPU. It also supports additional hardware and software tech.
3 Likes
here I am still on a C3 
Platform Version2.4.4.156
Hardware VersionC-3
13 Likes
At this point I think they are only doing the Pro. Remaining inventory for the 8's is for warranty swaps....
4 Likes
Just an idea (a very brief description).
Instead of putting all eggs in one basket my preference will be Lego-like modular system.
- Management/Control Module. Should not have any support for the Devices but will handle all Automations and Management for the Device Bridge Modules.
- Number of dedicated Device Bridges such as:
- ZWave Bridge;
- Zigbee Bridge;
- Matter/Thread Bridge;
- Bluetooth Bridge;
- Ethernet/WiFi Bridge;
- Whatever else may popup;
All Modules should/could be interconnected with the High-Speed Serial Link (there are few ready to go solution). Physical assembly is a Tower when any other Module sits on top of previous and it should not matter in which sequence.
From the HW point of view it could be the same Box and PCB. The difference is – different PCB population.
From the SW point of view, it could be the same Platform auto-configurable according to Module function.
Advantages:
- True multiprocessing system.
- Easily debugging , troubleshooting and maintenance because each Module has only specific function.
Disadvantages:
A bit higher cost/price.
Though i think the concept is really cool I think you are missing some cons. The biggest one being added complexity and mental investment for a user to setup.
I think there are some users here that would love the robustness of such a solution, but i also think it would push away allot of users as well that don't want what they would percieve as a complicated solution. You know someone would get the control module and then ask why they can't use zigbee bulb, or zwave device.
More simply put the IT guy in me would really be excited for such a setup from hubitat and could totally get into such a setup. The home user of me would take it home though and would just ask why did we have to make it more comlex.
I have had a running HA instance at home and i never use it. That is simply because as much as i want a powerful Home Automatioon platform to use, i also want it to be easy to use and maintain. The more parts inovolved the less i adhear to that mentality.
5 Likes
Aside from you've pointed out, it will next to impossible to create all that in a consumer grade appliance that sells for $150, meaning it has to be manufactured for about a third of that cost.
5 Likes
They could sell the modules as add-on accessories. This way, the initial cost wouldn't be as high, and people could buy only what they need. However, I guess the D&D and manufacturing costs might be too expensive.
1 Like
True, but it would raise the cost of the hub to be beyond the reach of some fraction of potential customers.
1 Like
That model already exists:
As I said, radios are no longer much of competitive advantage. Hubitat has the best IMO automation framework. I wish they could spend more time on automation and less time on all the Z-Wave and Zigbee stuff that fills the forum.
1 Like
Not really. All egs are still in the same basket.
Frankly I am thinking about rebuilding my system using modular approach.
HW-wise each Module could be one of the existing hub.
The show stoppers are:
- I don't like to use existing Ethernet and WiFi as an interconnect between Module. However, the isolation could be achieved by using VLAN(s);
- I don't want to load the entire platform on each hub.
Unless the SW modules will not be activated if they are not in use. Say, Zigbee is not enabled. Does it mean anything Zigbee related will not be loaded in the RAM and executed? This could be the case. And if this is a case - the current platform is already configurable for using only active HW.
