Hopefully the next wave of Xiaomi devices will actually be standard compliant. Then this whole conversation (eventually) goes away.
You always will need some backward compatibility.
Maybe... I see these devices going the way of the Iris v1 devices at some point if the new models are standards compliant. At some point hub vendors will (and should in my opinion) just drop them if it takes too much of their time.
But, that is speculation of the future. For today, we need them to work. 
Not in the next 2 years.
Any device should only be supported for a max of 3 years after Mft stop producing them. This is the EU recommendation for consumer products based on a 2 year warranty plus a 6 month stock out estimate.
No other brand will give money back for used devices... 
1 Like
I was invited to the beta program long time ago, I still have the PM, but for some reason that never happened, I thought beta program was discontinued until a few days ago that a new member posted asking for a problem and he had a beta firmware, I replied to him asking and then someone deleted the thread. I felt very nice by the way...
Very unlikely, I'm sure there are many more centraLite devices, nothing to back this up other than history...
I really hope that Xiaomi does produce ZHA compliant devices at a similar price point, i do like their form factor...
2 Likes
No other brand has sold even close to that many devices at a such low price, Xiaomi had in August 115 Million IoT devices sold. Tell me a brand that is even remotely close to half of that value. I would say the likelihood of my statement is quite high. Hey just my humble opinion.
That would be 115 million devices that do not follow established HA standards. In that case the statistic is meaningless.
With all respect to everyone, you can downplay it's importance anyway you want but it's a well off an impressive Number.
P.s The Zigbee ZHA protocol if specific configured to their settings they work rock solid. I have discussed this at length and is pointless to go on lengthy discussions. You can say that they use non standard methods (mostly to extend battery life) but you can't say that they are non compliant.
1 Like
Ummm.... What??? Just because they are not 100% standard compliant does not make the statistic meaningless at all. That is very faulty logic.
I get it, you don't like them and don't like the fact that they aren't 100% standard compliant. But that isn't a reason to dismiss the market penetration they are getting - for good or bad of the industry/standard.
1 Like
I can't refute this, however my comment was specific to installed device count on HE, not global units sold...
1 Like
Also, are people talking total devices or total Zigbee devices? Xiaomi makes a heck of a lot more than the Zigbee sensors a handful of ST and Hubitat users like, including a variety of WiFi devices and entire other categories like smartphones. I don't doubt they have a lot of devices out there. But in terms of Zigbee devices, I'd be shocked if Centralite wasn't more or at least close (they make a lot for OEMs and also have their own). Doesn't really matter for anything here though. 
Does that include calculating string lengths incorrectly? (Couldn't resist)...
6 Likes
Standards exist for the sole purpose of interoperability. If they don't comply, then the number of devices on the market is a completely irrelevent statistic when compared against other HA 1.2 compliant devices. My logic may be flawed, yours however is completely absent in this example.
Market share of home automation devices transcends the Zigbee HA 1.2 standard... Vendors support devices based on need and install base - not solely on HA 1.2 compliance reports. Thus it is valid to point out how many have been sold, and market penetration.
Trust me, if there were only 1000 of the Xiaomi devices out there, no one would support them and work around their quirks. The fact that every major zigbee supporting hub does support them to some level, reinforces my point that their sales volume and market penetration matter when it comes to vendor/hub support.
But regardless. No one is forcing you to use them (or comment in a thread dedicated to them).
And I'm not interested in arguing about random things on the internet. Use them, don't use them. Pay attention to the market share, or ignore it. Whatever, not my problem.
1 Like
Would you please elaborate?
Can you share an example explicitly not allowed per the standards (This is something that the ZHA protocol explicitly says that it can't be used), that is not optional within the protocol and that the ZHA protocol cannot understand by any method it has.
For Example check in times of the Xiaomi devices are outside the norm, but the protocols allows for the stack/coordinator to be set without a requirement for check in and also allow to disable the request to drop and rejoin. As such even though some people say they are not compliant because of this the fact is that this does make them not compliant as the protocol allow for non standard ( out of the ideal setup) configurations and the configurations used by Xiaomi are itself supported by the standard if the coordinator allows for that configuration as per the ZHA protocol.
It's a valid talking point, but there's no basis for comparison. Apples to oranges.
Wow... Just wow. Ignoring.
You might have caught me there.... maybe....
I thought that end devices did not calculate strings, I had the impression that they just report on information and not do anything with that.
Is my understanding that they send the string and than is upon the driver and the stack to translate the info. I might be wrong. Not familiar with this particular one.
Well, that one depends if it was on purpose or a bug (that they should have fixed, but didn't).
1 Like
Anyway is interesting that is a love/hate thing with Xiaomi devices 
