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

Update on Mozilla WebThings

discourse.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#51

Post by Angostura »

dolmen wrote: post #43
atonse wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple’s HomeKit Is another ecosystem that doesn’t spy on you. It’s the main reason I picked it even though there are fewer, more expensive devices to choose from.

From HomeKit Accessory Protocol specification ( https://developer.apple.com/fr/support/homekit-accessory-pro... ): "a HomeKit accessory that will be distributed or sold must incorporate the Apple Authentication Coprocessor" Do you know what the Authentication Coprocessor do? At least those proprietary processor and proprietary protocol are the opposite of the WebThings approach to home automation.

This hasn't been the case since 2018 https://www.imore.com/how-homekits-software-authentication-w...

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#53

Post by izacus »

atonse wrote: post #12
dahfizz wrote: post #3

I hope this goes well, but I am worried. This is a project that I really care about. Mozilla seemed like our only hope for a smart home that doesn't spy on you between WebThings and all the speech processing tech they had. It's important that we have open source alternatives. I will be contributing to this project and I encourage others to do so as well.

Apple’s HomeKit Is another ecosystem that doesn’t spy on you. It’s the main reason I picked it even though there are fewer, more expensive devices to choose from.

For a small cost of being forever locked into Apple's DRM laden ecosystem and where each device needs to carry Apples proprietary authentication chip to make sure you don't accidentally actually own the device.

This is exact opposite for what WebThings stood for.

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#54

Post by dominicl »

dahfizz wrote: post #6
josteink wrote: post #2

In other words: It's dead. And to be clear, IMO that is absolutely fair. At this stage WebThings seemed more like a conceptual thought, rather than actual marketable products, protocols or even code. If Mozilla need to cut for real, they should definitely get rid of stuff like this which lacked a complete and convincing story.

I strongly disagree. They have a W3C spec for the WebThings API[1]. Not a protocol as such but its a big step in the right direction. And the existing product is great. I have been using it for months to control my TV, stereo, lights, etc with no issue. I have even added custom adapters for my own little projects. It's a great product to work with and use. I agree that this project was unlikely to make Mozilla any mo…

Indeed they did do quite something in standardization of thing controls for which it so sad to see it going unmaintained. On the tunnel side though which they are also shutting down there are plenty alternatives e.g.[1]

[1] https://diode.io/download/

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#55

Post by CryoLogic »

Mozilla seems to be really underperforming in upper management - all of these initiatives that have failed have resulted in engineering layoffs.

When will the business unit leaders responsible for repeated failure be let go and replaced?

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#56

Post by Firehawke »

slantyyz wrote: post #50
dvionoth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have you heard of HASS? https://www.home-assistant.io/ it seems like the perfect fit for you.

There's also OpenHAB https://www.openhab.org/

OpenHAB is still a bit user unfriendly from my experiences working with it. My existing stuff will talk to Google or Amazon's assistants, but getting OpenHAB to talk back and forth with those devices and Google/Alexa is proving to be a pain in the ass.

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#57

Post by hadjian »

Disclosure: I work at Siemens on an implementation of the Web of Things not related to the Mozilla Project.

What is mostly misunderstood about the Web of Things, is that it does not define a network protocol but a document format to describe devices in terms of properties, actions and events.

Interactions are then further described by „forms“ that contain Hrefs with the protocol scheme supported by the device (e.g. coap://, opc.tcp://). The idea is not to introduce the next unifying protocol, but to unify the description of devices that support arbitrary protocols. Think of OpenAPI for IoT.

It serves us well in industrial settings where protocols like opc-ua, bacnet, coap, modbus and the like will stay the leading protocol in their respective domain for the foreseeable future. Such a descriptive approach to me seems the only option to at least write applications in a uniform manner.

Looking at efforts like MS Device Description Language (DTDL) or AWS Things Graph Data Model (TDM), it makes sense to have at least one openly standardized description language to prevent fragmentation at that level. The war on fragmentation at the protocol level is already lost IMHO (and everybody lost).

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#58

Post by kalleboo »

izacus wrote: post #53
atonse wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple’s HomeKit Is another ecosystem that doesn’t spy on you. It’s the main reason I picked it even though there are fewer, more expensive devices to choose from.

For a small cost of being forever locked into Apple's DRM laden ecosystem and where each device needs to carry Apples proprietary authentication chip to make sure you don't accidentally actually own the device. This is exact opposite for what WebThings stood for.

All the HomeKit devices I have also support other protocols in addition. You can also add third-party/custom devices using HomeBridge. The authentication chip hasn't been required for a few years now.

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#59

Post by baybal2 »

detaro wrote: post #46
baybal2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having tried 10+ "IOT Frameworks," and still had to write our own because none of them managed to even boot on the most beefy MCU on the market without extra RAM. Another example of something begging for a question "Do these people ever use their own software?"

Specific to the software discussed here: Bit weird criticism of software that obviously is not intended to run on end-devices with MCUs, but on a more powerful gateway. (But yes, there is overall too much focus on that part compared to the bits that run closer to the hardware)

They were specifically advertised as something that can run on MCUs

Re: Update on Mozilla WebThings

#60

Post by danielscrubs »

rvz wrote: post #32
detaro wrote: post #7

Maybe just a marketing failure, but WebThings to me always seemed like a project with no clear purpose in the ecosystem. Not enough mindshare and nothing unique to attract that mindshare. Open-source home automation projects is not a field lacking options. While the idea of standardization for protocols has some merit, a W3C group working silently and then tying it to another new standalone "gateway" project is not t…

In other words another Mozilla project failure. It seems like they still have no clue how lucky they are to have the Rust Programming Language and yet they still really cannot create any revenue outside of their contract with Google. Without it, Mozilla would cease to exist. That's the actual reality of open-source. It is funded by the same companies that oppose privacy - contradicting Mozilla's mission.

Luck and luck. I’d guess they listened to PhDs instead of managers which is very very rare.
Post reply on HN