Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Internet of things
Planning on anything to support this. Looks like a great way of expanding CQC.
What is Internet of thing?
tia, Ron

My HT...
Yamaha CX-A5100, (4) JBL 8320s), PS3, I3 NUC, (2) Furman rack conditioners, APC HT conditioner, (2) APC Battery Backups, Panamorph UH-480, Oppo 203, DIY B&O amp modules, Pro-Ject RPM Turntable, DIY audio rack, Klipsch Belle BBs, k402 horns.
As far as I am concerned OIT is really what we are doing right now.

IOT devices have a connection that allows the device to be part of a smart home. Not sure if there is a single standard yet - I dont think there is. THere are a few that seem to be popular and the hubs that are becoming available are bridging between these standards.

CQC can easily be the centre of the IOT universe and certainly that is my plan.

The best part about IOT is that is is bringing attention to HA and manufactures are now looking to enable their products. Would love to get a fridge, washer, dryer and many other devices onto my HA system without the need to hack them to give them that ability.
Mykel Koblenz
Illawarra Smart Home
Exactly. I think we need to determine whether driver standards exist. It would be terrific for CQC!
I dunno how it will work out. A lot of that stuff will likely still just be islands until themselves, and/or oriented towards very simplistic control, probably all too often cloud based, and I'm betting all too often not nearly secure as they should be.

In a lot of ways, like 'thugh cloud', it's just a buzz word for something that already existed but just didn't have a buzz word yet.
Dean Roddey
Explorans limites defectum
theres nothing to support with "IoT," and im pretty sure thats the point -

I think a good example of this is Works with Nest, or the Wink App (not Hub). None of these devices require any sort of dedicated hub, they simply speak to each other over open APIs. If my read of the landscape is right, Apple's Homekit is also another example.

So like this -- Nest (HVAC), Hue (Lights), August (Locks), Dropcam (Cam), Automatic (Location), Harmony Hub (AV). All are independent devices, with independent 'clouds', yet they all speak to each other via those open APIs. So when you leave the house, your phone locks the door which tells Nest you're away, which in turn tells Hue to turn off your lights, and then Harmony to turn off AV devices. When you get home, Automatic tells Nest that you've arrived, has August unlock your front door, Hue turn on your lights, and Harmony start some music. Similarly, if Dropcam doesn't detect motion (maybe a walk around the block), it can tell Nest to go into 'away' mode, and Harmony to turn off AV devices.

Hell, there is now a 'connected' smart plug called Zuli that can integrate like this, and the Hue integration with Nest will even 'mimic' your habits when away so your home never looks empty. The new Insteon Hub Pro will also support both 'Works with Nest' and 'Homekit'.

No hub required. Smile

I think there is still a place for hubs/CQC for advanced logic, but it's gonna get super tough competing against what are basically free connected services. It's gonna be a whole new world!
I think there is still some sort of hub or multiple hubs in the cloud they may not be obvious or explicit but you need a place to put your rules. You don't go into your Nest thermostat and say turn on my lights whenever x happens. Some devices are your controllers (i.e. Harmony) or there is a website somewhere to do the programming whether that is IFTT or a Google Page for Nest. That is the equivalent of CQC.

And if network/datacenter automation is any kind of predictor for this everyone will say they have open API's and play with each other but there will be a big fight over who gets to be that controller. Everyone will jumping on top of each other trying to be the orchestration layer at the top of the pile...
My Home Theater/Automation Website

[THREAD=5957]BlueGlass CQC Config[/THREAD]
[THREAD=10624]Wuench's CQC Drivers[/THREAD]
I've made many posts on this subject over on Cocoontech, so I hate to really reiterate all that here. But at best these types of open interfaces will only allow for the simplest of control. It always comes down to syntax vs. semantics. It's easy to provide a protocol that lets one device tell another to go into 'night mode', but the semantics of what 'night mode' means is a completely different thing. No device is going to automatically understand what it should do when some other device goes into a particular mode.

Something as simple as 'watch TV', well what does that mean for you? There's zero way that will be figured out automatically. It will require configuration of the system to react to either user input or the state of some device changing and do all of the things necessary to 'watch TV'.

It's going to be no easier for non-technical users to figure that out then than it is now. And of course, for the long foreseeable future, the vast majority of devices will not implement these protocols and so cannot be controlled by other devices that do. And, if there's more than one such protocol, it's unlikely that every device out there that does support one of them, will support all of them.

And, even to the extent that two devices do happen to support the same protocol, all of the issues I raised above still exist. There would have to be a massive amount of semantic definitions of devices, very strictly defined and enforced, even to get to the point where it would be feasible to provide some sort of tools to allow non-technical users to set anything beyond the simplest sort of automation.

And any such large scale semantic definition will run into the same wall that they all do (as our own V2 driver device classes do), which is that there will be for the foreseeable future so many devices that just don't meet the minimum requirement, and so cannot be supported. Either that or you make the semantic definitions so low end that they can only support very simplistic, loosely defined interactions, or so full of things that are only optional to support that it becomes effectively a non-standard standard.

So it's not like the internet of things is going to replace real automation products like CQC, except for those folks only looking for the simplest of solutions. And, for a long time to come, that will only be between a very limited number of devices so it will only amount to islands of interaction, whereas agnostic systems like CQC can be the glue between such islands and bring it all together.

I've been considering writing up a very well organized and argued article on this subject and submitted it to maybe CEPro or some such thing, to try to get a better understanding of these issues out there.
Dean Roddey
Explorans limites defectum
you mean you don't have a driver ready for this yet?
I just saw that Wink has filed for Chapter 11 and is up for sale.
Dean Roddey
Explorans limites defectum

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Mozilla iOT - Project Things znelbok 1 1,351 02-12-2018, 08:46 AM
Last Post: Dean Roddey
  Meltdown and Spectre Mitigation: 3 Practical Things to Do Now Mark Stega 2 1,198 01-08-2018, 02:47 PM
Last Post: Dean Roddey
  Who Makes the IoT Things Under Attack? Mark Stega 16 7,939 07-20-2017, 03:11 PM
Last Post: znelbok
  At times like this I want to disconnect my external internet connection Mark Stega 1 1,004 06-15-2016, 12:53 PM
Last Post: Dean Roddey
  Things not to do Dean Roddey 2 1,866 12-30-2015, 08:32 AM
Last Post: zaccari
  Anyone use CBus inputs for other things? willplaice 3 1,902 06-30-2009, 02:32 AM
Last Post: znelbok
  detecting when internet has disconnected znelbok 2 1,106 07-21-2007, 05:09 PM
Last Post: znelbok
  How in the hell do you remove these things Wynn 7 3,055 07-16-2007, 09:44 PM
Last Post: zaccari
  Nokia internet tablet penngray 0 1,147 04-19-2007, 09:36 AM
Last Post: penngray

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)