Because it adds complexity and cost? It's not just the cost of the chips, it's the cost of licensing the chips, and the cost of supporting a bunch of stuff that isn't really necessary.

I think Google is doing one better by saying "frick z-wave and their licensing" and creating their own "standard", and making it easy for zigbee products to interoperate (I think the zigbee alliance is already doing this).

Long story short: it's pointless to ask why Google is or is not doing something. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by CAD703X

Liberty Island

Member since Jul 2008

78086 posts

Posted on 8/31/15 at 12:37 pm to Korkstand

quote:
Because it adds complexity and cost? It's not just the cost of the chips, it's the cost of licensing the chips, and the cost of supporting a bunch of stuff that isn't really necessary.

yet wink is doing this in a unit they sell for 99 cents during the holidays

eta 'isn't really necessary?' so i should just throw away my $200 schlage lock, 6 lightbulbs, 2 smoke detectors and 4 dimmer switches and wait for something not yet invented?

quote:
I think Google is doing one better by saying "frick z-wave and their licensing" and creating their own "standard", and making it easy for zigbee products to interoperate (I think the zigbee alliance is already doing this).

did you read dirt's post on the previous page regarding the ARS review?

quote:
It's important to note that while there are tons of smart home protocols out there, Google isn't playing nice with any of the existing solutions—it will be going its own way. OnHub's 802.15.4 support is close to ZigBee but isn't compatible with ZigBee. ZigBee devices can toss off the ZigBee label, get a software update, and join Google's team, but it doesn't seem like Google will be making itself compatible with them. OnHub also doesn't support Z-Wave, which is probably the most popular IoT ecosystem out there.

This post was edited on 8/31/15 at 12:48 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Korkstand

Member since Nov 2003

28708 posts

Posted on 8/31/15 at 1:03 pm to CAD703X

quote:
yet wink is doing this in a unit they sell for 99 cents during the holidays

So? They make their money selling shite that connects to it. You say that as if they're making money by selling the hub for 99 cents. And it's not a router, OnHub is. OnHub also has 13 Wifi antennas for some fricking reason, and tons of processing power. It is already an expensive device to build, why would they want to add 'fake' costs in the form of z-wave licensing, and whatever other issues that licensing brings up? Same reason they aren't going official ZigBee, I'd imagine.

quote:
eta 'isn't necessary?' so i should just throw away my $200 schlage lock, 6 lightbulbs, 2 smoke detectors and 4 dimmer switches?

No, you should just not buy an OnHub until it makes sense for you, if ever. Your definition of 'necessary' obviously differs from Google's.

quote:
did you read dirt's post on the previous page regarding the ARS review?

I did, and what it tells me is all that is required is a software update to make zigbee devices work with OnHub. It is also easy to find news about the Zigbee Alliance working with Google's Thread Group to make it a sort of official thing.

Page 1 2