Live data from Hacker News

Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

apple.com

231–240 of 364 posts

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#231

10 years in the trenches here. Apple’s smart home protocol famously does not support multiple users. Amazon is choosy on what features you can implement (turn on alarms but not turning them off, locking doors but not unlocking them). Google loves using radio hardware no one else supports. Zigbee has delightful legacy security vulnerabilities and consortium drama. I look forward to these groups putting aside their dif…

> Apples smart home protocol famously does not support multiple users.

Can you clarify this? I set up my "home" and was able to share it with my wife, who sees all of the same controls in the Home app that I do. We don't have any family sharing, etc set up.

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#233

For someone who thinks Zigbee already is an open standard, well, it is NOT really open though. A standard being publicity available does not always make it open-source friendly. Linux considers it a proprietary protocol [1] so Zigbee driver cannot be part of Linux kernel. Although Zigbee spec allows non-commercial individuals to freely use it, a commercial organization must be a member of the Zigbee Alliance in order…

There's also the bit where Zigbee devices have to share a secret key to talk to each other, mostly to prevent competition from low cost devices manufactured in China.

> mostly to prevent competition from low cost devices manufactured in China.

mostly to prevent competition from patent-infringing clones manufactured in China.

FIFY

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#234

For someone who thinks Zigbee already is an open standard, well, it is NOT really open though. A standard being publicity available does not always make it open-source friendly. Linux considers it a proprietary protocol [1] so Zigbee driver cannot be part of Linux kernel. Although Zigbee spec allows non-commercial individuals to freely use it, a commercial organization must be a member of the Zigbee Alliance in order…

There's also the bit where Zigbee devices have to share a secret key to talk to each other, mostly to prevent competition from low cost devices manufactured in China.

When they kept the already known secret key for pairing bulbs in the new supposedly secret version of Zigbee it was obvious they didn't care about security at all

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#235
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon is choosy on what features you can implement Allowing someone to holler into an open (or recently broken) window to open my front door sounds terrifying.

I, on the other hand, am on the 17th floor. Anyone who can holler at a smart device in my apartment has already compromised something important, and could probably get in anyway. Also, just require a passphrase? To go full star trek, "[Alexa/Google/Siri], unlock the front door, authorisation singingboyo Alpha Pi Pi Zulu" sounds workable.

IIRC Amazon does allow for this. I use Smartthing + Homebridge for operating my lock (Prompts me on my phone to unlock the door when I get near the house and locks the door when I close it) but I do have Alexa as well and I at least looked into using it to lock/unlock. For the unlock I have to read off a pin, it will lock without needing a pin.

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it also talks about using Thread, which I just learned has the same "must be a member of blahblahblah" restrictions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(network_protocol) ).

It reminds me of the old "FireWire vs USB." Firewire was an originally open standard, but there came Apple and demanded to exact a symbolic 1$ per device payment. Despite FireWire being an indisputably better standard from technical standpoint, that 1$ completely ruined the mood with OEMs, and they lost the market. USB on the other hand, was not really open, but Intel's central leadership in it guaranteed that there…

FireWire also had a few port types which required different cables and connectors, while USB at the time only had one (this was before Mini and Micro USB). Apple even included dongle converters with their iPods.

USB also had the advantage of Intel pushing it, resulting in almost every PC with an Intel CPU (large majority) having USB ports.

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it also talks about using Thread, which I just learned has the same "must be a member of blahblahblah" restrictions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(network_protocol) ).

It reminds me of the old "FireWire vs USB." Firewire was an originally open standard, but there came Apple and demanded to exact a symbolic 1$ per device payment. Despite FireWire being an indisputably better standard from technical standpoint, that 1$ completely ruined the mood with OEMs, and they lost the market. USB on the other hand, was not really open, but Intel's central leadership in it guaranteed that there…

>Firewire was an originally open standard, but there came Apple and demanded to exact a symbolic 1$ per device payment.

What? Firewire was a project initiated by Apple in mid-1980s, which then was further developed by the IEEE P1394 Working Group. Patents and pooling was part of it from the very beginning, with the primary drivers being Apple, Panasonic, Philips, and Sony (there were also a half-dozen odd smaller contributors). I don't remember there being any sort of "originally open standard" part to it whatsoever. Yeah, Apple owned the trademarked name "Firewire" for IEEE 1394, while Sony and TI used "i.LINK" and "Lynx" respectively, and Apple initially tried charging extra for that which was really stupid (but late 90s Apple was pretty dysfunctional). But even without that wasn't there still the standard $0.25/unit manufacturer royalty?

If you've got some other sources I'd be happy for the trip down memory lane because it's been a really, really long time since that particular battle. I'm not disagreeing that Apple's charge definitely harmed momentum, just that it's not like they came out of nowhere. Though it's worth noting that Firewire was inherently more costly anyway since it required dedicated silicon rather than handing everything off to the CPU. At the time that also gave it vastly more reliable real performance and latency vs USB, and Firewire 400 would typically obliterate USB 2 despite the latter having a sticker speed of 480 Mbps. But it was more inherently costly IIRC.

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#239

LOL ... there has been a standard for years for smart home devices, it is called KNX ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNX_(standard) ) ... what is wrong with KNX? Hundreds of companies already support it, so why not join them instead of re-inventing the wheel? I think I know what im talking about, because my (smart) home automation is based on KNX, I use Alexa voice commands or a KNX app on my mobile devices to contro…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon, Apple, Google, and the Zigbee Alliance to develop connectivity standard

#240
post #63

> The project is built around a shared belief that smart home devices should be secure, reliable, and seamless to use. By building upon Internet Protocol (IP), the project aims to enable communication across smart home devices, mobile apps, and cloud services and to define a specific set of IP-based networking technologies for device certification. Yet I don't see any mention of making those being able to work comple…

I am personally really against my IoT devices being able to "speak" TCP/IP, I want them to use dumb radios (Z-wave or if I must, Zigbee) that cannot talk to the internet. I get the draw of Wifi/IP devices but I avoid them at all costs. I don't want 10's or 100's of devices on my network that all are talking to servers in China.

I bought a few cheap POE Chinese cameras that I use with Zoneminder but they are all blocked from any internet access except talking to Zoneminder (local).

Post reply on HN