242
IKEA moves to Thread (and away from Zigbee) (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/homeassistant@lemmy.world
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

But that is not a fault of WiFi as a medium, but rather of the ecosystem of devices as we know them. Some company might launch a "Home Automation WiFi" product, which would be simply a home hub with a builtin WiFi router pre-configured with the recommended security settings. Zero config nor admin work required, just buy the right (hypothetical) hub.

Though the real problem is that every other device relies on cloud connectivity, which highly limits such hubs effectiveness. Again, that isn't an inherent fault of how WiFi works, rather I see it as a problem with the ecosystem and how consumers want their devices to work without any hub. Hopefully with more local-only devices that trend can still be reversed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    But that is not a fault of WiFi as a medium, ...

    but it is a fault of WiFi as a choice for that application. Just because it does wireless communication doesn't mean it's suited for any application that needs a wireless protocol. Using it for very-low traffic applications is simply not what it was designed to do, and it has significant negative effects if you do. Any device you add basically slows down any other device by a bit. And wifi network you add in a physical area decreases the effectiveness of all other wifi networks in it's vicinity. In even medium densly populated areas, wifi is already borderline unusable due to congestion. Your proposed (dedicated) hub is a good idea for network isolation, assuming it's designed and configured correctly, but that also comes with more and frankly just as bad security implications, just different ones. To be clear, having like a light bulb or two wifi is a fine choice. For 50 or a whole smart home network, it no longer is.

    Both Zigbee and Matter do not rely on cloud connectivity as a protocol, though many of the manufacturers implementations do effectly add that on top: you get the exact solution you propose here as well. At least with these standards you can control everyhing locally, if you want to, and you don't congest the spectrum nearly as much as wifi does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Using it for very-low traffic applications is simply not what it was designed to do

    Was it not? Sure, it wasn't specifically designed for low traffic, but it was designed with a wide range of traffic levels in mind; after all, virtually every WiFi capable device, home automation or not, uses very little traffic most of the time as it idles. Now, I absolutely appreciate Zigbee or ZWave being optimized for minimal energy consumption, which is useful for some device types; but I feel it isn't right to call WiFi a poor choice for low traffic just because it also handles very high traffic well.

    You raise an interesting point about congestion, though, and that is very much was I hoped to learn about. I am sometimes under impression that device designers assume everyone lives in a detached house so interference can be ignored. Do you know how specifically is Zigbee better in this regard? Living in a condominium I always had very poor experience with Zigbee reliability, which might or might not have been due to local radio noise at various ares of the spectrum, so I'm curious to learn about details how exactly these purpose-specific transfer layers deal with noisy neighborhoods.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    In the context of communication networks, WiFi is a high speed netowrk. It was designed to be basically a "normal" (ethernet-like) network, but wireless. It acts for all intents and purposes like an ethernet network. There are significant requirements that devices need to follow, many include frequently saying "hello" (simplified). The complexity of the protocol to be able to send at gigabit and faster speeds over dozens of meters is significant. Having relatively low latency adds to this as well. If all you need is a few bytes every now and then, that isn't ideal. Having devices in your network that follow older/slower standards is essentially like pulling the handbrake for your network (again, very simplified). But explaining this in detail is also very much beyond the scope of a comment here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ZigBee devices form a mesh network, which WiFi devices don't do. This means I can have my hub on one side of my house and a bunch of bulbs and smart outlets maintain a backbone through the house for a bunch of low power devices (like thermostats and door sensors) to connect to it.

    If you're having a bad ZigBee experience, I recommend making sure your bulbs can serve as a general ZigBee bridge, and not just a bridge for other bulbs of that brand. Otherwise, a well placed smart outlet can serve the same purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Both Zigbee and Matter do not rely on cloud connectivity as a protocol

    In my ideal world, no devices would not rely on cloud connectivity ever, regardless of their choice wireless transport layer. The fact that the nature of Zigbee or Thread stop device manufacturers from stupid practices (such as relying on direct WAN access) is nice, sure, but does being less capable really make them better suited for the job? I would prefer to appreciate Zigbee or Thread for what they are and have, rather than by the fortunate side effects of what they can't do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I also don't want devices I'm actively using to needlessly compete with random logistical packets from a dozens of devices around my house. I also don't want the devices themselves to need all the power of a WiFi connection when another protocol suited to low power home automation devices is sufficient.

    ZigBee/zwave were fine for me, though. I personally haven't seen a clear benefit to matter+thread yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Zigbee or Thread doesn't actually stop them from adding cloud connectivity, they all still do. But you yourself can stop it. Similar to the "gateway" you suggested with dedicated WiFi, they sell you a gateway for Zigbee or Thread, which then connects to the cloud/internet to allow you to control your stuff. As they would with a WiFi gateway. The protocol isn't "less capable", it's intended use is around (home-)automation. It is low power, low bandwidth and most importantly both are a mesh network. That means that while you have a central point to access them (at least Zigbee has exactly 1), they all talk to each other and for a fully connected mesh. A device doesn't need to be able to see/hear that central point. It can send it through a multi-hop route, and that route is dynamic so when a device leaves (out of power, turned off, ..) the packets basically just find their way. Generally anything that has a stable power sounce will act as a router and forward packets. The low power part means that if you have a battery powered thing (remote switch, thermometer, ...) it can run off a single button cell for like a year or so. With wifi it would last a week, maybe two. The bandwidth thing is related to that as well, as a thermoeter needs to send the temperature and/or humidity maybe every few minutes, or even just when it changes and there is no need for that. That comes with power usage, complexity and many other downsides, but of course a zigbee device can't stream video or something (like a security camera would need to).

    When using wifi, any device needs to be in range of the access point. You can have multiple access point but those aren't that cheap, and should be wired in. Devices only ever talk to the access point. When multiple devices talk to each other, it goes to the access point who then sends it out again to the other device.

    There are great writeups on the internet, just google "zigbee vs wifi" or something. I'm not gonna repeat what

    Side note: you can reply to more than 1 paragraph in a reply. No need to reply three times, but I guess I'll stick with it now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    but that also comes with more and frankly just as bad security implications, just different ones

    What do you have in mind? Surely, no solution is perfect, but at least on the surface it sounds much better than the alternative of no isolation at all, so I'd love to learn what worries you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    If I'm gonna install a device by some random manufacturer that acts as a wifi access point inside my network, I also give them full access to my network. That access point can do all sorts of things, and I would describe this as a security nightmare. It also doesn't even have to be malicious: the manufacturer could get hacked, and now the hacker has access to all these wifi access points all over the world, and all their home networks. Fun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent