Apple, Amazon, Google, and Zigbee Alliance Standard For Smart Home Tech On Track For 2021 Release (macrumors.com) 69
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MacRumors: Last year, Apple, Amazon, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance, which includes Ikea, Samsung, and Philips, announced a new working group known as "Project Connected Home over IP" that set about developing an IP-based open-source connectivity standard for smart home products, with a focus on increased compatibility, security, and simplified development for manufacturers. The group has today announced a major update on the project, stating that development is ongoing, and that work is on track for a 2021 release.
The update reveals the first concrete information about how the open-source smart home standard will work. A large number of devices will be supported by the protocol, including "lighting and electrical (e.g., light bulbs, luminaires, controls, plugs, outlets), HVAC controls (e.g., thermostats, AC units), access control (e.g., door locks, garage doors), safety and security (e.g., sensors, detectors, security systems), window coverings/shades, TVs, access points, bridges and others," as well as additional "consumer electronics products." The announcement also reveals that the group has grown significantly, now with 145 active member companies. Between these companies there are hundreds of product, engineering, and marketing experts, working across 30 cross-functional teams to deliver the new standard. The group aims to provide a "draft specification" by the end of the year, and release the completed standard next year.
The update reveals the first concrete information about how the open-source smart home standard will work. A large number of devices will be supported by the protocol, including "lighting and electrical (e.g., light bulbs, luminaires, controls, plugs, outlets), HVAC controls (e.g., thermostats, AC units), access control (e.g., door locks, garage doors), safety and security (e.g., sensors, detectors, security systems), window coverings/shades, TVs, access points, bridges and others," as well as additional "consumer electronics products." The announcement also reveals that the group has grown significantly, now with 145 active member companies. Between these companies there are hundreds of product, engineering, and marketing experts, working across 30 cross-functional teams to deliver the new standard. The group aims to provide a "draft specification" by the end of the year, and release the completed standard next year.
no forced cloud and maybe Ethernet on some stuff (Score:3)
no forced cloud and maybe Ethernet on some stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just having "local automations that require no cloud connectivity" doesn't mean "no forced cloud". Requiring creation of an internet account in order to set up a smart things device, which I did yesterday, does.
Re:no forced cloud and maybe Ethernet on some stuf (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Re:no forced cloud and maybe Ethernet on some stuff"
Bingo. I was about to post just that. The only standard I care about is an truly open one that enables ME to control MY stuff using MY stuff with no "cloud", no sharing of my info, and no "subscription" in between those. I doubt Apple, Amazon, and Google have any interest in that, whatsoever.
And yes, I have a full X10 system in my house, still working. Would have moved to Zwave or similar had they similar devices and for reasonable prices.
Re: no forced cloud and maybe Ethernet on some stu (Score:2)
Or you can have both z-wave and zigbee without needing cloud based crap in the form of hubitat or homeassistant. Personally I use hubitat as it's all self-contained and stable, and the hub is relatively cheap and works with a lot of stuff, plus I've had no problems integrating it with my home made Arduino sensors and controllers.
Re: no forced cloud and maybe Ethernet on some st (Score:2)
Or you can have both z-wave and zigbee without needing cloud based crap in the form of hubitat or homeassistant. Personally I use hubitat as it's all self-contained and stable, and the hub is relatively cheap and works with a lot of stuff, plus I've had no problems integrating it with my home made Arduino sensors and controllers.
Hubitat: Would love to live it; but, no HomeKit support: Deal Breaker.
And $130 is not "relatively cheap".
So, I guess we're still not quite "there" yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Hubitat: Would love to live it; but, no HomeKit support: Deal Breaker.
Pretty much everything would be a deal breaker in that case - homekit doesn't work with anything. It's kind of a POS too because Siri is a dingbat compared to the competition in the form of Alexa and Google, and that's pretty much the only thing you'd ever really need homekit for. Even officially supported devices are a PITA to get working. Like everything else Apple, they want the device makers to pay up in order to support homekit, and most of the better devices out there are made by small startups that c
Re: (Score:2)
Like everything else Apple, they want the device makers to pay up in order to support homekit, and most of the better devices out there are made by small startups that can't afford to do that.
Is that still the case? I honestly don't know.
I know there was an Mdi-Like licensing program when the Authentication had to use Apple-Supplied Microcontrollers; but once they made it so there was a "HomeKit SDK" (don't know the actual name of the Framework, sorry!), then I thought the Licensing requirement was dropped, too. But if there is still the Licensing, then I agree that is a severe impediment to Device-Adoption.
It is not a "Rah, Rah, Apple!" sort of thing with HomeKit. Rather, it appears to be the o
Re: (Score:2)
the last thing i need is to have my home network laid bare by some dumbass lightswitch or doorbell-camera
I'd stick with z-wave or zigbee then, they can't even route to your network. Z-wave S0 has a protocol vulnerability that is only exploitable during the pairing process, and even then they have to be very close by to exploit it; S2 is secure though. Either way, it's a very tiny risk and I'd only worry about it for barrier devices (i.e. garage door openers, door locks.) Some older zigbee devices have protocol vulnerabilities, and because I can't adequately control that I only use z-wave for barrier devices, a
Re: (Score:2)
the last thing i need is to have my home network laid bare by some dumbass lightswitch or doorbell-camera
I'd stick with z-wave or zigbee then, they can't even route to your network. Z-wave S0 has a protocol vulnerability that is only exploitable during the pairing process, and even then they have to be very close by to exploit it; S2 is secure though. Either way, it's a very tiny risk and I'd only worry about it for barrier devices (i.e. garage door openers, door locks.) Some older zigbee devices have protocol vulnerabilities, and because I can't adequately control that I only use z-wave for barrier devices, and zigbee just for things that don't control entry, including motion sensors, leak detectors, door sensors, lightbulbs, etc.
In any case, all of these just talk to the controller hub you have them joined to, and one another if in a mesh, and that's it. Your hub effectively becomes your choke point as far as security goes, just keep that secure and you're good. I personally don't bother with IoT, as a general rule if it uses IP networking then it's going to want cloud connectivity, and in addition to that, you're a slave to the vendor for firmware updates for as long as you own it. The sole exception to that rule is my thermostat (ecobee3) which is pretty good about firmware updates, and my arduinos, which I ultimately control the firmware for.
Thanks for the info!
I looked into Zigbee back in 2008 for an industrial Controller product I designed; but never knew what Z-Wave was. I just wish HomeKit supported it natively.
It would sure be nice to be able to use the AppleTV I already have in my living room and bedroom as a Hub for a wider assortment of peripherals. Especially since TVOS 14 (just out this week), definitely increases AppleTV's capabilities in that regard...
Re: (Score:1)
That appears to be possible. Basically the system uses IP and can make use of various transport layers like Zigbee, ethernet or WiFi. Discovery and communication is all done locally.
So if you have a decent router you can create a separate network for your IoT stuff that can't access the internet. Have a one-way gateway with your primary network that allows devices to talk to your IoT network for control.
The vultures gather (Score:5, Insightful)
I notice this is all manufacturers. There are no consumer representatives or public advocates involved. The final spec will require subscriptions and locked-down hardware and software. There will be much data collection. Much like current smart TVs.
Do not want.
Re: (Score:2)
Zigbee is a standard, isn't it? IEEE 802.15.4.
I am a bit worried that Google will depreciate their existing Google Home connected standard, though, and I'll need to buy new smart light bulbs.
Re: (Score:3)
I am a bit worried that Google will depreciate their existing Google Home connected standard, though, and I'll need to buy new smart light bulbs.
Well that's a major problem with all "Smart Home" systems, isn't it? Once you start fitting equipment for one particular system you're mired in vendor-lockin and can't easily add equipment from other systems. If you want to migrate to another system you have to replace all the equipment you have already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The vultures gather (Score:2)
Re: The vultures gather (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple make sure to collect zero data from HomeKit devices.
Until their next license update. Currently they don't have enough market share to make it worthwhile, the day they do you'll get a nice email asking that you acknowledge the slight change in their license agreement and the data collection and sale will be on the third paragraph of page 132.
Re: (Score:2)
"It is locked down, because holy fuck don't you want devices that people could potentially control or access from outside your home being locked down as much as possible???"
No, because "locked-down hardware and software" wouldn't be done to prevent that. Furthermore, HomeKit does not solve this problem. HomeKit can control ZigBee networks but it cannot prevent "control or access from outside your home" of that same network.
I would also like my drinking water not poisoned, but I don't want "locked-down har
Re: That's not how HomeKit works at all... (Score:2)
No, because "locked-down hardware and software" wouldn't be done to prevent that. Furthermore, HomeKit does not solve this problem. HomeKit can control ZigBee networks but it cannot prevent "control or access from outside your home" of that same network.
HomeKit has nothing to do with Zigbee, at least not directly.
For one thing, HomeKit is designed for Bluetooth and Ethernet; not Zigbee. But additionally, I'm pretty sure that HomeKit Protocols operate at a different level than Zigbee. Zigbee is a Physical/Transport Protocol.
While it would theoretically be possible, I guess, to establish a Zigbee Mesh connection that would enforce HomeKitâ(TM)s handshake and security protocols, and would be discoverable using the Bonjour protocol; something like that wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The final spec will require subscriptions and locked-down hardware and software.
Not unless they fundamentally change the scope of what this is and re-write it from scratch, which seems unlikely to happen if it launches next year.
This is a set of protocols running over IP for discovering and managing IoT devices on a local network. It doesn't require internet access, in fact it only specifies how the local part will work and any internet functionality would be out of scope.
It's open source on Github, you can go read it yourself. This is good, we might finally get decent interoperability
Re: (Score:2)
Interoperability with what, devices that don't exist? We MIGHT get that with every future and existing standard. Also, you're going to make your own ZigBee gateways?
Re: (Score:1)
People have been doing that for years.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018... [mozilla.org]
ObXKCD (Score:2)
This smells familiar. Oh yeah, I remember why! https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Oh boy, stand by for SHIT (Score:3)
I've no doubt they'll make this as hard to use for a hobbyist as they possibly can.
It'll be full exploits and require subscriptions and will also have a shitload of DRM and deliberate interoperability issues. It'll need Alexa or Siri or Bixby or whatever the latest "home assistant" is. You'll see.
X10 gear sucked but it worked and was reasonably inexpensive- the exact opposite of this crap coming down the pike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon will insist on the same number of exploits as currently exist in their equipment; zero.
If you think setting up devices under Alexa and/or Home is hard then there is something wrong with you, not the device. They've spent a TON of money to make sure that stuff "just works" in a manner so easy a Louisiana redneck can set it up. Maybe you should take it to your grandma's house to have her do it for you, it's that easy.
The purpose of standards is to make things interoperable, there are already over 2
Re: (Score:2)
If you think setting up devices under Alexa and/or Home is hard then there is something wrong with you, not the device.
Yeah, except I never said that, so piss off.
Re: (Score:2)
You said, "they'll make this as hard to use for a hobbyist as they possibly can". Apparently I misunderstood your meaning, care to elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
You said, "they'll make this as hard to use for a hobbyist as they possibly can". Apparently I misunderstood your meaning, care to elaborate?
Yes, you misunderstood my meaning.
What I said was "they'll make this as hard to use for a hobbyist as they possibly can", and what I meant was "they'll make this as hard to use for a hobbyist as they possibly can".
Note the word "hobbyist". I'm not talking about you or Joe Sixpack plugging in an Alexa device.
Maybe you imagined it, but I don't see anything that I said about having "difficulty setting up devices under Alexa and/or Home", and I also never said it was hard to do.
Perhaps a reading comprehension c
Thanks, but no thanks. (Score:3)
I'll keep cobbling together tech that I'm in full control of, no cloud, and control it either with OSS like Home Assistant, or code I write myself. And if they stop making devices I can communicate with directly, I'll just go back to normal old dumb light switches and thermostats.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not directed at geeks like you or I who are capable of setting up and managing a system like that. It's aimed at normal people who don't have a clue how it works nor the interest in finding out, who want to take it out of the box, follow less than a half-page of instructions, and have it "just work".
I have a professional-grade security camera setup in my house, but that's what I do for a living. I certainly wouldn't expect my niece to be able to set up the equivalent, much less her stupid boyfrien
Smart? 'Suckers' would be more appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually the home owner won't control who has access to the smart devices or control of the data collected by devices or have a right to repair.
'Smart' applies to the grifter vendors, not the devices or the suckers that buy into this tech.
Wireless trash (Score:3)
It would be really nice to have a modern low cost home automation devices with communication over power, not dragged down by 3 decades old signalling and unauthenticated and unencrypted protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wireless trash (Score:2)
But not with low cost dimmers, sensors etc. Insteon is the closest for relatively affordable modern devices, but it's proprietary.
Re: (Score:2)
and unreliable
Re: (Score:2)
---
Re: Wireless trash (Score:2)
With wireless they don't even need that. When there's a zero day they just do a drive by with a high gain antenna and they'll have a map of every vulnerable home.
Ethrnet to everywhere is better, but that's a high cost retrofit.
Re: (Score:2)
Unauthenticated and unencrypted? What kind of garbage are you buying? Even our backyard trail camera transmits an encrypted signal, and we only got it online by it authenticating with both myself through the device configuration software and the manufacturer, as well as the wireless network.
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying, but I'm mainly thinking of Universal Powerline Bus. There's some more modern open protocols and signalling technologies, but nothing with significant adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
UPB dates from the 1990s, I wouldn't expect encryption since nothing smaller than a desktop PC CPU could have supported the overhead at that time. Anyone not supporting encryption by default on modern hardware needs to get out of the market.
Opportunity missed (Score:2)
I suppose it would have been too much to expect for them to adopt an "IPv6 only" specification.
I will never ever comprimise! (Score:2)
What I want out of this: Good Smart Smoke/CO2 unit (Score:2)
How is it that in this modern age, the closest thing we still have to a decent smart smoke/CO2 alarm is still the Google controlled and monitored Nest devices?
All of the other choices seem pretty poor by comparison, some not even seeming to work well in terms of being a basic smoke alarm.
How hard can it be to take a first-rate smoke and CO2 detection unit, and marry that with something that can network a signal that goes out to let you know an alarm was triggered, along with the ability to send a signal bac
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd like to see smoke alarms continue roughly as they are - that is, a super-simple device with a super-simple interconnect between them. It does what it's meant to - it makes a lot of noise if there's a fire, and if it fails, it fails safe.
Indeed, such a simple setup is insurable too - dunno about where you live, but no one insures the "smart" smoke alarms as a solution here. You have to have the old simple ones along side whatever smart you want.
If ever there was an addition to make, it would
Re: (Score:1)
That way, the smoke alarms just work as they ever were meant to, but the "smart" can see what they're doing and can report that to the user.
This is what I am basically after, though the additions I would like beyond that are (A) know which one is triggering, and (B) be able to silence them with a smart device (or, even pre-disable one for say a half hour if I'm cooking something I know will smoke a bit).
I haven't checked, but I suspect the interconnect is just "connect to X volts when activated" though, so
Re: What I want out of this: Good Smart Smoke/CO2 (Score:2)
I don't know what it is either but it sure seems like it should be possible to make a smart device that listens in for whatever signal traditional alarms use... that alone would be really useful, I agree.
Every few years, I search for what I agree should be a drop-dead-simple Embedded Project. Never any joy so far.
I used to think that the issue was cost. But now that we have smartplugs that cost around $20, there really is no excuse for the continued non-existence of this class of devices. For example, Iâ(TM)d be happy as hell to pay $50/node for a HomeKit-connected Smoke Detector. That should be 100% doable at this point. Philips or Samsung could do this in a weekend. And could do it without costing $2
Re: (Score:1)
For example, IÃ(TM)d be happy as hell to pay $50/node for a HomeKit-connected Smoke Detector. That should be 100% doable at this point. Philips or Samsung could do this in a weekend.
Yes, there's the mystery to me as well! Or like you say, where is the open source embedded project? It has got to be dirt simple, and cheap with the hardware that is around now.
Re: What I want out of this: Good Smart Smoke/CO2 (Score:2)
Yes, there's the mystery to me as well! Or like you say, where is the open source embedded project? It has got to be dirt simple, and cheap with the hardware that is around now.
Actually, I just ran across a "Why didn't I think of that?" Product that answers a few of your (and my) requirements.
It is called the "SmartBattery" by a company named Roost.
At $35.95 apiece (2 for $65), it offers the ability to convert virtually any 9V-powered Smoke/CO detector to a home WiFi network!
Sounds great; but it has a few drawbacks:
1. You have to buy directly from Roost to get the vastly-improved 2nd generation hardware. Do NOT buy from Amazon!!!
2. It only communicates over your LAN to a dedicate
Re: (Score:2)
It is called the "SmartBattery" by a company named Roost.
I saw those on Amazon when I was looking at smart fire alarm options, but the reviews were pretty bad - thanks for letting me know you can get a better model directly. I think I will try that out as it's a lot better than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called the "SmartBattery" by a company named Roost.
I saw those on Amazon when I was looking at smart fire alarm options, but the reviews were pretty bad - thanks for letting me know you can get a better model directly. I think I will try that out as it's a lot better than nothing.
That's what I thought, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What I want out of this: Good Smart Smoke/CO2 (Score:2)
if that existed, it would have to be certified as capable of doing it's job by NFPA.
Considering that there are a couple of ridiculously-expensive residential-class devices like that already out there, I'm not sure the stranglehold/collusion is quite as tight as you suggest.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/b... [tomsguide.com]
Now, all we have to do is to get the cost below a fucking chromebook...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of detectors like these [systemsensor.com] that are slaves to a loop. The individual sensors aren't a huge expense, and their control system isn't complex [douglaskrantz.com], but nowhere have I found a device that will let a computer poll SLC sensors directly.
I am not sure that is the best idea, anyway. I think that Push-communicating as directly as possible with a cellphone is best, along with a similar Notification sent to a Cloud (yes I said Cloud) Service that can then notify whoever you set-up.
Actually, the Roost SmartBattery (2nd gen!), at $34.95/unit, seems to be the best bet so far. And a major advantage is that you can use it with most 9V-battery-driven Smoke/CO Detectors. Not shilling for them; it just looks pretty cool, as long as they stay in busines
Re: (Score:2)
Security is achieved via long term iteration (Score:1)
Such a bad idea (Score:2)
I like Zigbee precisely because it doesn't create an IP network. For me all this will do is increase the attack surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, security by obscurity! What a concept!
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I don't have any lights in my house.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree completely. The reasons why they promote wifi is because 1) well over a third of the population rents (including the majority of their target audience) so can't run cabling, 2) the vast majority of people aren't competent to run cable throughout their home.
When wifi was still new, expensive and insecure I ran CAT-5 cable to every room in the house. Only two of those connections have been used in the last ten years, my office and the port the WAP is plugged into. None of our IoT devices use them,
Re: Such a bad idea (Score:1)
Re: Such a bad idea (Score:2)
I like Zigbee precisely because it doesn't create an IP network. For me all this will do is increase the attack surface
IIRC, a Zigbee Mesh PAN is a type of IP network. Just not an 802.11 - style one.
May well improve everyone’s daily life... (Score:2)
Now, Apple is part of the group and so far they seem quite privacy oriented, hence probably that will help in coming to an acceptable spec from a privacy POV. However it would be preferable if an independent customer privacy group were involved as well.