I would compare the two option to PC's
SimpliSafe = Apple, closed system all hardware and software is Apple controlled or authorized (or at least was)
Hubitat = MS operating system + an untold number of hardware / software vendors.
What about the un-certified devices that are also paired to a hub? Plenty of ways they could impact the reliability of the certified devices.
Seems like it would have to be an all or nothing thing to me.
1 Like
That's a decent comparison. Might also explain my Apple-centricity. I like it when stuff "just works".
Fair point. But I find that most of my problems come from some manufacturer doing something proprietary or wonky (often a desire to implement some feature that's unnecessary, but that they think will differentiate them). So, I just avoid those manufacturers in the future.
That's a great analogy.
Sent from my MacBook Air.
2 Likes
I remember watching a Ted X talk by Simon Sinek talking about "why" being an important element to the way business' act and how they convey their philosophy in order to bring customers along with them, encouraging them to buy into the reasons why the business has taken the direction it has and the decisions it has taken, compared to focusing on "how" they have achieved those outcomes. From memory the Apple example was used, re-inforcing the "it should just work" and be easy to use mantras, rather than always focusing on the nuances of how (or if) they achieved those outcomes.
I think Hubitat have adopted this in some regards, highlighting their point of difference being local control (not to say it was/is the only selling point for the platform). People crave(d) that feature for various reasons, whether it be speed, security or reliability, etc. And they have held true to that promise, I would suggest.
All of this is not so much any kind of counter-argument or rebuttal, more so my own observations and reflections....
One point of contention I have is with reliability, with the natural extension onto "trust". Devices or software can be 100% reliable in my setup, but be woefully inadequate in others, whether that be due to some conflict with other devices or software, other external factors or as a result of my choice on how to use the device or software. This can result in areas of grey when it comes to reliability and trust, what works for some does not necessarily work for all. I will acknowledge, however, that changes in company direction are something worth focusing on and discussing, as this can be a betrayal of trust.
Simon
2 Likes
Precisely. Apple also makes the hardware and the software - it's basically a closed ecosystem. They don't have to worry about some third party sensor that "almost" meets a standard. And their engineers are brilliant, which helps a lot.
Apple is also one of those companies that doesn't anticipate consumer needs or wants - it creates them!
I had the privilege back in '83 of having lunch with Steve Jobs. Brilliant. Kind of a d*ck but brilliant.
3 Likes
I like Apple and for what I use it for - general computing etc it's fine. In some ways nice that I don't have to think or spend time tinkering with the basics.
With Apple it seems like one of the problems is hubris.. yes they have some amazing people working there but if they don't think a feature/device is worthy (until they do) you aren't going to see it. Even worse since it is a closed echo system and community you might not even be aware such possibilities exist in the first place...
A home automation system tailored to a users specific use-case requires flexibility - every location / environment is different. The wider the range of devices and features available the greater potential for more creative solutions at reduced cost. The drawback of course is unreliability - this is where knowledge and experience come in to play.
Home Automation is not a simple thing to just set up and expand... there are a lot of underlying complexities that the average user just does not understand. The issues start to appear once they get beyond the "turn on my lights at 17:00 hours" stage.
On the other side - I've had clients with never ending issues with devices that their security companies put in as well - devices not responding due to poor range or interference or triggering unexpectedly (glass break sensors FTW!). So even having a walled garden type of provider is no panacea either - and in some circumstances an issue can become nearly impossible to solve given the limited set of devices available.
1 Like
Guilty as charged
1 Like
Me too for various things not Apple related sadly.. 
@erktrek I agree with a lot of your post. Apple certainly moves in its own way. But there are some benefits. Companies that build for HomeKit tend to be the ones that invest in higher-quality performance (other than Chamberlain/MyQ). The bar discourages the low end cheap white label companies from developing for the Apple ecosystem.
Apple ecosystem companies Eve and Nanoleaf are delivering Thread devices now (including border routers). (Remember that Nest has had Thread technology in its smoke detectors since the start and Google/Nest couldn't gain traction for the radio standard.) And iOS 15 will have Matter support (in some beta-ish format) from the start. So apparently Apple can have impact beyond its own walled garden. As a side note, I find it somewhat interesting that Apple has not tried to shut down/thwart Homebridge.
I think we're coming upon a new age of HA capabilities. So many of the complexities that you rightly identify are really device communication related BS. Just look at all the threads on this board! If device related issues go away that will allow companies like Hubitat to focus on the automation part. Which is good for end users.
Threads/Matter (whatever) is still in it's infancy, still not sure how well it will be adopted. A question mark is China who now has a fairly large and established HA presence even if for the cheap stuff.
As long as the big players like Apple and Google decide allow the little guys to their interoperability party I'm in.. also on a higher level hopefully no cloud accounts required for functionality as well.
Yup, it is all a "wait and see" thing.
The players involved all want to funnel things to the cloud to get data and monetize it through ads and services.
While it may/should/hopefully will allow full local control, I would be VEEEEEERY skeptical (at least long term) that they will allow it to be local ONLY and waive their right to the data and subsequent monetization.
They most certainly are not making Matter because they are nice/altruistic companies, and just want to see devices all work together in harmony with no other motives.
You just have to think about the fact that most of the big Matter/CSA members don't actually make or sell devices... So how do they benefit from Matter? Getting the data.
5 Likes
I'm sure you're correct. Yet if you have Alexa or Google Home that ship has sailed. They already know when you turn off your lights. I imagine the highest value data is what you're watching and everybody (TV sets, streaming devices) is already tracking that too. About the best you can do is run some sort of Pi-hole type device.
Take a look at the BOD. Most are component manufacturers, device manufacturers, or end users. Google and Amazon are the 2 big data gatherers.
Also note that the Nanoleaf guy thinks the Thread/Matter can make things more local.
It definitely could make things more local. I'm just not optimistic it will.
To your point, though, there are also quite a few manufacturers on the board and participating.
So who knows? Maybe it will be great.
