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

The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

csa-iot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#71

Post by tzs »

windexh8er wrote: post #65
willseth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with Matter?

It didn't solve any of the issues it proclaimed to. And, if you look across open platforms (e.g. HomeAssistant) it has, comparatively, low uptake on available integrations because Matter is a vehicle for proclaimed interop by walled garden experts (e.g. Apple, Google, etc).

Could you be more specific?

I've got several Matter smart plugs and a couple Matter smart bulbs.

They all were quick and easy to set up with their first Matter controller (an RPi4 running Home Assistant or an iPad with Apple Home), and quick and easy to add to whichever controller I didn't use as the first controller.

They all worked then without requiring me to get their manufacturer's proprietary app or make an account or anything like that.

Some needed a firmware update to support Matter 1.3, and so I had to use the manufacturer's app for that. Some also have proprietary functions and options (for example one of bulbs supports some kind of presence detection if you have at least two of those bulbs in the same room) so I might get the manufacturers app if I decide I want to use those functions.

Adding them to the manufacturer's app does not interfere with their use as Matter devices so if I do decide I want to use some of the proprietary stuff it doesn't break things.

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#72

Post by indolering »

petre wrote: post #29
indolering wrote: post #26

Any particular advantage to Suzi over Thread? Why didn't they adopt an IP based standard that is interoperable with ... all major networks since ~1995 (if not before)?

Multiple reasons like not enough v4 IPs, devices being able to sleep most of the time to conserve power, security cameras and IoT devices getting hacked and faling prey to by botnet operators etc.

Don't use IPv4 and NAT Why would IP based routing be inherently more power hungry?

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#73

Post by windexh8er »

tzs wrote: post #71
windexh8er wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't solve any of the issues it proclaimed to. And, if you look across open platforms (e.g. HomeAssistant) it has, comparatively, low uptake on available integrations because Matter is a vehicle for proclaimed interop by walled garden experts (e.g. Apple, Google, etc).

Could you be more specific? I've got several Matter smart plugs and a couple Matter smart bulbs. They all were quick and easy to set up with their first Matter controller (an RPi4 running Home Assistant or an iPad with Apple Home), and quick and easy to add to whichever controller I didn't use as the first controller. They all worked then without requiring me to get their manufacturer's proprietary app or make an acc…

1) If you have to use a manufacturers app for updates that's already falling into my point. 2) There are plenty of threads out there discussing manufacturers that leverage Matter but they force their own controller to be able to be used. A lot of these are together at builders as another revenue stream for them.

Finally... This [0] does a better job of explaining the issues with Matter. But, Matter is ultimately a joke. It was promoted as a standard by vendors nobody should trust for interoperability at this point.

[0] https://community.home-assistant.io/t/if-matter-is-a-suppose...

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#74

Post by ur-whale »

doug_durham wrote: post #61
sashahilton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standards side of things is true, however this can be largely solved by providing a reference implementation, given that no device manufacturer is going to implement the stack from scratch. Automated testing of firmware would also work. As for high conformance... WiFi and BT devices manage to work well enough by simply buying a tested chipset and building on that, no external testing/fees necessary. I understand…

Having been in the business of creating standards compliant equipment in the past, the problem is not as simple as you state. You can provide all of the reference implementations you want and you still will get variances. The state-of-the-art solution is to put a bunch of people on planes and burn a bunch of jet fuel to attend a "test fest". You can't issue interoperability until you do this. This costs money that ne…

> ou can provide all of the reference implementations you want and you still will get variances.

A proper reference implementation should first and foremost come with an extensive battery of regression tests, something many a vaunted "standard" utterly fails to provide, being instead tomes upon tomes of impossible to decipher specifications, written - of all things - in human language.

Such a battery of regression tests, if properly design ought to take care of your "variations" in fairly short order.

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#75

Post by ur-whale »

surajrmal wrote: post #54
sashahilton wrote: post #34

All these new standards looking to become the successor to WiFi/Zigbee IoT devices, yet every single one makes the same mistake - they think that because they find ways to force certification, take away end user control and extract licensing fees, that they’re somehow going to convince people to buy it as the next big thing. I was cautiously optimistic when Matter/Thread was in its early days, but predictably as with…

The model seems to work. Is there precedent for the alternative working out well?

> The model seems to work.

It "works" in the sense that it excels at separating implementors from their money and locking up end users in a cage, sure.

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#76

Post by rpcope1 »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #56
andsoitis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To succeed, consumers need to be able to rely on standards conformance. Certification is an obvious way and that costs money. Is there a way without certification that results in high conformance that consumers can rely on?

Certification is desirable to me, so long as it doesn't mandate taking away the freedom of the owners of devices for local control and the ability to install whatever software they want on those devices. I had no idea that Matter/Thread mandates secure boot. Presumably that's secure boot without end user freedom to load their own keys. That's no good.

This is the Z-Wave approach and is honestly probably why IMO it sucks the least.

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#77

Post by Nextgrid »

andsoitis wrote: post #52
sashahilton wrote: post #34

All these new standards looking to become the successor to WiFi/Zigbee IoT devices, yet every single one makes the same mistake - they think that because they find ways to force certification, take away end user control and extract licensing fees, that they’re somehow going to convince people to buy it as the next big thing. I was cautiously optimistic when Matter/Thread was in its early days, but predictably as with…

To succeed, consumers need to be able to rely on standards conformance. Certification is an obvious way and that costs money. Is there a way without certification that results in high conformance that consumers can rely on?

Standards conformance is one thing. But to guard against manufacturer end-of-support and/or bankruptcy there must be provisions for adversarial interoperability too, which I believe is currently lacking. This is not the case in other, even commercial systems like KNX, where while the configuration tools are paid and proprietary, communication between devices works based on well-defined types and “registers” and any device can interact with any other regardless of the manufacturer’s wish, ensuring cross-manufacturer compatibility even in case of manufacturer failure.

This is why all the (commercial!) high-end home automation uses KNX, because installers can mix and match products and know they won’t get cornered even if a single manufacturer goes out of business.

(And if you want a cheaper system that can be operated with fully-free tools, you’re already covered, that’s ZigBee! But even KNX is “open” once you buy the license for ETS - the config tool - and then you can go to town on your system and reconfigure it at will.)

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#78

Post by Nextgrid »

Thread/Matter is a bullshit standard for “growth and engagement” home automation whose primary purpose is to get users locked into an ecosystem and watch ads or “engage”, with the “home automation” part being secondary (if it automates the home too well they won’t have to “engage” so we can’t have that).

Ignore and move on.

If you want home automation, either pony up for KNX (you can do it yourself, the only “closed” part of the ecosystem is that the configuration tool is paid), or use conventional Zigbee with an open-source coordinator like Zigbee2MQTT and Home Assistant, or Wi-Fi devices that either have an official local API like Shelly or reverse-engineered one.

Matter/Thread/etc is just the latest iteration of creating the next batch of e-waste 5 years down the line.

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#79

Post by teleforce »

ajross wrote: post #53
sashahilton wrote: post #34

All these new standards looking to become the successor to WiFi/Zigbee IoT devices, yet every single one makes the same mistake - they think that because they find ways to force certification, take away end user control and extract licensing fees, that they’re somehow going to convince people to buy it as the next big thing. I was cautiously optimistic when Matter/Thread was in its early days, but predictably as with…

FWIW, the "Suzi" thing they're talking about seems like an attempt to compete with LoRa, which while technically an open standard is entirely dominated by Semtech. It's not clear to me why the manufacturers aren't just making LoRa radios. This feels like an xkcd 927 situation to me.

The sub-GHz Suzi is for LPWAN or Low Power Wide Area Network, similar to LoRa, SigFox and Wi-Fi HaLow.

LoRa PHY is proprietary by Semtech but LoRaWAN the data link layer is open, that's why the manufacturers aren't just making LoRa radios.

SigFox is full-stack proprietary LPWAN solution but the founding company already went south.

Currently the main open standard alternative to LoRa is IEEE Wi-Fi HaLow.

The main problem with these LPWAN standards, however, is that all of them struggling with limited Line-of-Sight (LoS) or Non-Line-of-Sight (NLoS) LoS environment that's very common in LPWAN. For example LoRa is very low power but its limited chirp spread spectrum (CSS) based modulation is bad for any limited LoS environment. In addition, its spreading factor (SF) only work for a single channel per user.

I'm now working on the LPWAN PHY alternative that's much better for very limited LoS than LoRa. Looking forward to benchmark against Suzi.

Re: The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi

#80

Post by lucideer »

andsoitis wrote: post #52
sashahilton wrote: post #34

All these new standards looking to become the successor to WiFi/Zigbee IoT devices, yet every single one makes the same mistake - they think that because they find ways to force certification, take away end user control and extract licensing fees, that they’re somehow going to convince people to buy it as the next big thing. I was cautiously optimistic when Matter/Thread was in its early days, but predictably as with…

To succeed, consumers need to be able to rely on standards conformance. Certification is an obvious way and that costs money. Is there a way without certification that results in high conformance that consumers can rely on?

> Is there a way without certification that results in high conformance that consumers can rely on?

Sibling commenters have already answered this in the affirmative but a better question is: what examples can you give supporting your thesis that certification drives high conformance?

I'm likely in a bubble but most certification systems I've seen exist in highly "competitive" landscapes (read: competing standards) & exist purely to support an ecosystem of institutions relying solely on certification to make money & providing no other value back to the system (e.g. in the form of standards advocacy, conformance testing or even standards maintenance). To the point I've come to anecdotally equate "certification" with wild-west/scammy corporate practices.

So as far as I've seen certification often has the opposite effect that you propose. At least in the IT & software space.

Post reply on HN