That's odd that the Hub Protection page is up showing "sold out" for a service not yet released. Am I reading that correctly?
Yes. It's just so that people don't buy it when it's not been finished yet. It was apparently "almost" ready a while ago but I bet the C-7 issues have put the finalisation of the code/program (what ever its called 
) on hold.
1 Like
OK, thanks for confirming, that was a surprise.
Hubitat ElevationĀ® Hub Protection also extends the warranty on your hub for the full period of your subscription.
So sounds like they want $35 a year for the backup capability and extended HW warranty. Sign me up.
1 Like
I know I think it's more than reasonable and everyone calls me a "tight arse". I'm hoping it will be kept in $ at the price and not converted to Ā£ and inflated, that always happens and it pisses me off 
. I'm happy to pay in $ direct to HE team, not some numpty scavenger. 
2 Likes
I believe the new process is that foggy islanders have to pay in gold. 
Yeah, we're still pissed about you guys torching the white house in 1814. That was not nice!
$35 per year plus $1 for each additional hub? Sign me up!
So seriously, does anyone know how much it will cost for multiple hubs tied to one account?
No, they haven't advertised that yet.
So, let me get this straight... the Hubitat homepage says:
"By combining the advantages of local automation processing with cloud IoT connectivity, Hubitat's innovative Hubitat Elevation hub ensures personal data privacy and is more reliable and responsive than competitive cloud-based solutions."
And our configurations CAN be saved, including the Zwave and zigbee settings, but the company who sold us a device featuring "local control" and "personal data privacy" now wants us to open a big hole in our firewall, and trust them with our backups.
After all the self-righteous posturing from the fanboys about Wink's subscription model, how is this not a subscription model?
This is not about a sold device being turned into a device that one must also pay rent to "own", this is simply about security.
This is not about a company's apparent failure to make money by selling a product, and shift to a "rental" model, after having sold some thousands of devices with a promise that users would truly own what they bought.
This is about firewalls, and the oft-touted "personal data privacy" that was sold.
So fine, sell me a code I can enter into my Hubitat to enable local backups, and put a timer on it so it needs a new code every year, and I'll pay the ransom.
BUT DON'T MAKE A HUBITAT INTO A CLOUD DEVICE FOR ANY CORE SERVICE
DON'T MAKE CUSTOMERS POKE HOLES IN FIREWALLS TO SIMPLY MAKE A BACKUP THAT IS ACTUALLY USEFUL, RATHER THAN ONLY PARTIAL
5 Likes
What?, just what are you on about?
Our future subscription service offering uses your internet service in the exact same way as your hub currently fetches platform updates.
So unless you've explicitly denied internet access to your hub, there's nothing that needs to be done to your firewall.
The backups will also include an option to further encrypt the data, though the database is already encrypted.
This is not a core service, it's a subscription add on, if you don't like the current feature set you don't have to purchase it.
5 Likes
I agree with @mike.maxwell and @bravenel on this one. While I will not purchase the service as I donāt want that data in their cloud. They are not taking away anything or holding it ransom. Donāt pay and have the exact same product you had before.
That being said I would pay for the service if (when?) I can backup the data locally(and to my cloud provider of choice).
Because I do have my hub firewalled from the internet.
1 Like
I find the below to be overtly dismissive and insulting to a reasonable customer's expectations based upon the explict claims made when marketing the product.
Others have addressed the awkward and completely unexpected need to poke a temporary hole in one's firewall to simply get an update, when such updates are traditionally something that can be downloaded to a PC via http/ftp, and loaded to the device by the customer.
(Don't get me wrong - yes, it is very nice to offer an idiot-proof option, but this cannot not be the only method.)
The expectation expressed above ("unless you've explicitly denied internet access to your hub") is profoundly backwards - A prudent resident of the 21st century explicitly ONLY ALLOWS internet access to a small number of specific device/port combinations, and given the dismal state of "IOT security", it should be expected that only a fool would allow any IOT device, moreso the hub, anywhere near the big bad internet.
If the default assumption is that everyone allows 24x7x365 internet access to their Hubitat hub, then the claims of " local control " and "personal data privacy are misleading to the point of being a failure to comply with the "warranty of merchantability and fitness for the particular purpose" (the raison d'etre of the entire stated business model for Hubtiat.)
So, don't be dismissive or hostile - this is the best input you'll ever get from a customer, as it advises you to ACTUALLY DELIVER what you promise, and not require a customer to sit and figure out what he has to open up on his by default locked-down firewall to make your product work.
"Local" has a very simple meaning.
3 Likes
seriously?, I really don't have anything further to add, other than we're sorry our product isn't meeting your needs.
3 Likes
That's me told.
You must have been speaking to my wife.
1 Like
That is a personal attack on people, and uncalled for. Shame on you.
2 Likes
Is it so hard to imagine that a customer would be willing to pay for added-value services, yet still have valid security concerns, and would be willing even pay MORE for the ability to use those services/features locally?
You need to look at this dispassionately - no one is challenging anyone here, we need to be hard on the problems, and soft on the people... why NOT offer an option for those who merely take "local" and "privacy" seriously?
More to the point, why be so dismissive of something that would be easy to build, and generate additional revenue... such as those who are in rural areas, and have only dial-up internet, and simply cannot maintain an "always on" connection?
1 Like
Does your wife work in network security, for a state/local/federal government, or is she just well-read? 
I'll double down - it is not a personal attack to state security concerns in plain terms, and the risks one introduces by "allowing internet access to IOT devices" is objectively measurable as catastrophic in peer-reviewed journals.
My statement was mild compared to the one taken by the journals:
"If you leave your laptop on the front seat of your car while you run into the store, you are begging for it to be stolen.
In this day and age, that's stupid.
If you leave the Internet of Things (IoT) devices you make purposely exposed on the internet, you are begging for them to be hacked."
Shame on anyone who thinks that asked pointed questions about security is in any way an attack on any person. Its a poor debating tactic to whine " argumentum ad hominem" among homies trying to make a machine work.
I just think that it's a bit odd to try to dicate to a company what they "must do" with their product in order to be fair/correct/behaving properly etc., towards me.
The reason someone goes through the extreme pain and suffering of opening a company is precisely to have as complete control over their products and services as possible (amongst other personal and potential financial benefits).
If they do not provide features that I want, then I can certainly ask, beg, cajole, or (unappropriately IMHO) castigate and command them to do so. If they don't I can vote w/my feet and find another product/service that I like better.
Telling HE they must do something, they have to do something, they are compelled by some external set of rules to do something just seems like trying to insert yourself into the HE Board of Directors.
HE is allowed to define their product, price, promotion, place, and people. "Local Control" is not a codified set of musts and imperatives, it's a marketing term that HE can define however they want for their product.
We can be unhappy, be upset, be disappointed by HE choices/actions, try to start a boycott or social media anti-HE campaign, etc. (it's a free country) but we don't have the right to dictate to HE (or any company) how they define their marketing terms and their product features.
7 Likes
If you are calling people disparaging names, it is a personal attack. Your "well others do it too" defense changes nothing.
Shame on you. Strive to be a better person.
Anyway, that's the last comment I'll make on this, as you are going on the ignore list. I don't condone that kind of behavior or negativity in my life.
6 Likes
