Since I've been "forced" to use the new SmartThings app - I totally hate it and it's a bad experience. Slow, wi-fi disconnects, etc.
I haven't stood up Hubitat proper yet but ST is dead to me.
ST was an absolutely great, amazing, open-source platform which is why I supported it and I think thats how Hubitat got it's roots.
I understand why Hubitat isn't/can't open up everything from an open source mindset and hardware integration, but I think it's critical that having an open community to make the platform better is crucial. Having an individuals security outside the control of a corporation is even more important.
I like clouds to look at and see Snoopy.
I don't what snoopy clouds looking at everything I do, say, open, close, interact, etc. with.
Well, the good news is that if Hubitat ever gets sold (like SmartThings did), the local aspects of your Elevation hub will continue to work as they currently do. Including the capacity to write apps/drivers (and use apps/drivers written by others).
You may lose things like cloud dashboards and Alexa/Google integration, but there are ways around most things of that nature.
I did not say that (or imply that). Hubitat (the corporation) has been pretty open with users. Their past indicates it is unlikely they will do any such act. However, platform updates are completely at the discretion of the end user; they are not pushed.
I am not a lawyer, but I strongly suggest that you read the Hubitat Terms of Service very, very carefully and make your own decision.
My own understanding of that document includes:
Hubitat (the corportation, or it's corporate heir, if sold) owns the software (firmware) running on your hub, and may revoke the right for you to run that firmware. I do not know whether "revoke" is used in a strictly legal sense or if they have a technical mechanism to disable the firmware.
You don't have the right to transfer that firmware to anyone -- ie., you can't sell a used Hubitat hardware with the Hubitat firmware installed or even give it to someone to encourage them to develop an app or driver for the community. Not a very open or developer-friendly attitude.
The terms under "4. Customer Intellectual Property" seem to prohibit individuals from making their own software available to 3rd parties for commercial use. I am not a lawyer, but it's unclear to me what constitutes a derivative work, given that Hubitat's software is closed-source. Do they mean customer-written apps & drivers that rely on (but do not distribute) Hubitat libraries & APIs? Given that Hubitat's own product is fundamentally based on their use of open-source software (Linux) for commercial use (completely allowed by licenses covering the underlying OS and drivers), this is a very unfriendly attitude toward community developers.
I really do welcome corrections to my reading of these terms, particularly since I'm not a lawyer. If the comments are from HE staff, it should be made clear whether their statements are ammendments or corrections to the terms of service, or merely opinion.
A revocable right is not an absolute right. It generally means rights may be revoked if the other party commits a breach of the terms of the agreement. (imagine if Elon woke up one day and decided not to let you use his cars anymore)
The T&C's is a legal document and it should read that way, regardless of whether there is a "kill switch".
I'm not sure that Smart Things is more "open" than Hubitat. I find them both to be around the same level.. On the surface both offer an "opensource environment" for development of apps and drivers but the system itself is proprietary even if built on opensource roots like Linux. Whether that's a good, bad or meh thing is entirely the users choice..
On the plus side and backing up what @aaiyar said - unlike Smart Things you are not forced to upgrade if you don't want to. Once your system is running it should continue to do so for as long as the hardware (devices/hubs) hold out.
Very good insights. I understand how the "legalese" has to work. I also realize that the question was probably too open ended, knowing that IP can be bought out.
Frankly, it was a bad question.
The horrible experience I've been having lately with being forced into Samsung's ID/app sphere - I'm hoping that there's a solution to not being a slave to "The Man".
I use HE as a device manager. Its job is to handle all the traffic to and from devices and seems very well suited to this task. For the rules and everything else I use Node-RED which is an opensource (originally created by IBM) visual control manager. It allows me to control my own environment for rules etc. I can add what I want to the environment - memory/cpu power/storage and diagnose down to the hw level.. Also it offloads some of the processing freeing up resources on the HE. On the downside it takes a separate "computer" to run which means some technical setup, gets away from the HE rules paradigm/logic and everything is now my responsibility. Also the visual aspect may not appeal to everybody.
I've found HE and NR to be a fantastic combination - striking a good balance between proprietary and open.
