Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

home-assistant.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 303 posts

Re: Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

#21

Post by fixermark »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #12
xutopia wrote: post #2

So what would you recommend we use instead?

I would strongly recommend that any home automation device you buy has a direct method that it can be interfaced with and programmed in a local way. If a device is only programmable by a web API, rule it out. You may also wish to consider looking for devices which are based on a switch, rather than a bulb. Controllable bulbs do not play nice with the state of physical light switches, and in the case of multi-bulb fix…

Any recommendations for your favorite smart switch?

I installed a few INSTEONS in my house and got bit badly when they just stopped communicating. The most frustrating thing is that there's no diagnostic tool, so I can't tell if the switches are broken or if their signals are getting sent but aren't understood by intended recipients.

Next time I get deeply into home automation, I'll make sure to use a kit that includes tools for sensing wifi signal and diagnosing bad connections.

Re: Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

#22

Post by gregmac »

This is the Philips controller software (app) that is refusing to talk to or control 3rd party light bulbs.

I don't really see this as being a problem. It's not the nicest thing, perhaps, but neither is 3rd party companies building bulbs (presumably by ripping off the design and protocol of Philip's bulbs), and then relying on Philips to build the software so they can actually be used. In other words, Philips is refusing to build software, for free, to control their competitors' and/or counterfeit products.

Do the Philips bulbs (still?) work without the Philips Hue software/app? If so, non-issue: you just have to use 3rd party software to control everything. If not, well, that's why you shouldn't buy into closed, walled-garden products.

Re: Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

#26

Post by fixermark »

roymurdock wrote: post #19
djhworld wrote: post #11

Why have they done this? Is it because the 3rd party bulbs were cheaper?

Official Reason: "The lamp that cannot be added may be a lamp from another brand. Philips does not test and cannot guarantee the behavior of all bulbs from other brands connected to the Philips Hue system. To guarantee the quality of consumer experience only Philips Hue and Friends of Hue lamps can be added using the the Philips Hue [Hub]." [1] Real Reason: We invested money into our hub and building out our partners…

Do you have evidence of the "Real Reason" scenario as opposed to the Occam's Razor scenario that (a) Philips really can't guarantee the protocol works with any lights they don't explicitly test against and (b) the reason some manufacturers can slide in at a fraction of the price is that they're cutting necessary corners in either hardware or protocol compliance? ;)

Re: Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

#27

Post by wvenable »

gregmac wrote: post #22

This is the Philips controller software (app) that is refusing to talk to or control 3rd party light bulbs. I don't really see this as being a problem. It's not the nicest thing, perhaps, but neither is 3rd party companies building bulbs (presumably by ripping off the design and protocol of Philip's bulbs), and then relying on Philips to build the software so they can actually be used. In other words, Philips is refu…

The slippery slope of "intellectual property" is so steep that even building interface-compatible products is now considered ripping something off. We've come a long way from the age of IBM compatibles and the PC revolution.

Re: Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

#28

Post by bitwize »

jcromartie wrote: post #20

Are there grounds for a lawsuit when a manufacturer pushes out an update to a product that intentionally degrades its feature set like this? This is no longer the same product that these users bought, it's effectively damaged by the update.

No, technically the third-party manufacturers were in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal offense with penalties up to five years in prison. From Philips' perspective, refusing to cooperate with those criminally infringing their IP is a feature, not a bug.

Re: Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

#29

Post by dheera »

JshWright wrote: post #8
rythie wrote: post #6

Surely with the Pi Zero selling at $5 there has got to be way to do this without Philip's locked in, expensive system?

Even more relevant is the ESP8266 at $2. The Pi Zero doesn't have WiFi, and has _way_ more computing power than you would need to run a few RGB LEDs.

The Pi Zero might be able to do some additional interesting things through with that computing power, including transmitting information over those LEDs at imperceptible modulation frequencies and such. Perhaps it could even be a Ethernet-over-Power to Li-Fi bridge, with some additional circuitry. No Wi-Fi sucks though. And putting Wi-Fi into a Pi Zero requires a micro-USB to USB dongle and then another USB Wi-Fi dongle, thus the Pi Zero as big as a Pi after that cable and dongle mess. If it had on-board Wi-Fi it would be ten times more useful.

Re: Philips Hue blocks 3rd party lights

#30

Post by chc »

gregmac wrote: post #22

This is the Philips controller software (app) that is refusing to talk to or control 3rd party light bulbs. I don't really see this as being a problem. It's not the nicest thing, perhaps, but neither is 3rd party companies building bulbs (presumably by ripping off the design and protocol of Philip's bulbs), and then relying on Philips to build the software so they can actually be used. In other words, Philips is refu…

I don't see how you can say that this is both "not a problem" and "why you shouldn't buy into closed, walled-garden products." Best I can tell, the thing Philips did here that people are objecting to is turning Philips Hue into a walled garden where before it was not. So if this is an example of why you shouldn't buy into closed, walled-garden products, then it sounds like this product's owners have a legitimate problem with what Philips did here.
Post reply on HN