5 ms·

That doesn't seem like a fair view of the analysis. If the real value was in the hub, and these other lights were getting a free ride on it, then the opportuni

by cbsmith 11y ago

That doesn't seem like a fair view of the analysis. If the real value was in the hub, and these other lights were getting a free ride on it, then the opportunity would be to charge more for the hub. What is far more likely to be the case is that the support costs around problems caused by random third party components messing with the Zigbee network were exceeding the value of providing that support, particularly when you factor in that the customers they really wanted to grow wouldn't be using anything other than Hue's. So, while blocking out 3rd party devices decreases the perceived value of the hub, the drop in perceived value is far exceeded by the drop in support costs. Easy win. It's still hostile, but to a distinct use case, rather than their entire customer base.

crystalmeph 11y ago
That's basically saying that you can't expect anyone to profitably provide support for a device that anchors an "open" system. There will always be bad actors who screw up the network for everyone else (especially when you're talking about a wireless network), and "civilian" (meaning non-tech-savvy) customers will usually call the network hub manufacturer for support, because that is where they will see the problem, regardless of where the problem actually originates. Put another way, if your analysis is correct, it presents a fundamental weakness in any standardized architecture that relies on a central managing device, which could prevent the development of a robust ecosystem with many vendors.
- cbsmith 11y ago
  No, that's not what I'm saying. There will always be bad actors. Often you design a system to handle them in ways that minimize support costs. Consider the case of 802.11 or USB or ZigBee. In general, most of the value of providing a device that works with any of those is a function of how well it works with any other device. The support costs are also a function of how well the device interoperates with other devices. That pretty much kills the value of making a device that only works with a manufacturers own devices, and provides strong incentives to work with as many as possible as well as possible.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gherkin0 11y ago
It's a total dick move on Philips's part to "update" incompatibility into existing products that people already own and have spend money and effort to integrate. These people bought product with the expectation of compatibility, now they're out their investment because of Philips's selfish business decision. Even they have elevated support costs, Philips's made their bed by offering compatibility in the first place for many years. If they want to remove it, they really should introduce a new model ("Introducing Hue 2.0: Now with less bulb compatibility!") and leave the existing customers unaffected.
- jpatokal 11y ago
  I'm sure page 67 of the Philips Hue T&C states in 3-point font that Philips Hue is only compatible with itself and they reserve the right to pull the plug on third-party product compatibility at any time.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    On the face of it, why do they do more than that? Just use the warranty to recommend certain bulbs and let the hobbyists run riot knowing the company doesn't back them up for this stuff. But at least it still can work.
- jzwinck 11y ago
  > It's a total dick move on Philips's part to "update" incompatibility into existing products that people already own Last year, Shimano (the bikes-and-fishing people) released a firmware update for their electronic shifting system which prevents 2012 (10-speed) parts from working with 2014 (11-speed) gear mechanisms. Literally, if you upgraded your bike from 10 speeds to 11, it worked when the hardware was released, but not after you installed the (irreversible) firmware update. This is with everything coming from a single brand! You can read a little about that here: http://fitwerx.com/converting-shimano-ultegra-6770-di2-to-11-speed/ http://fitwerx.com/converting-shimano-ultegra-6770-di2-to-11...
  - qq66 11y ago
lazyjones 11y ago
> What is far more likely to be the case is that the support costs around problems caused by random third party components messing with the Zigbee network were exceeding the value of providing that support I'm amazed at the level of belief in Philips' honest motives after such a move. They just saw a large market of 3rd party bulbs emerging and saw potential profits for themselves, that's the most likely explanation with the available information. If anyone has financial details to back up claims of "need" for such a move by Philips, please provide them. Philips has been investigated and fined for antitrust violations repeatedly. They don't really deserve benefits of doubt regarding predatory/unfair business practices without need at this point.
- cbsmith 11y ago
  Let's just say first hand experience with 3rd party bulbs has convinced me that there are non-trivial problems there.

by cbsmith 11y ago

crystalmeph 11y ago

That's basically saying that you can't expect anyone to profitably provide support for a device that anchors an "open" system. There will always be bad actors who screw up the network for everyone else (especially when you're talking about a wireless network), and "civilian" (meaning non-tech-savvy) customers will usually call the network hub manufacturer for support, because that is where they will see the problem, regardless of where the problem actually originates. Put another way, if your analysis is correct, it presents a fundamental weakness in any standardized architecture that relies on a central managing device, which could prevent the development of a robust ecosystem with many vendors.

cbsmith 11y ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. There will always be bad actors. Often you design a system to handle them in ways that minimize support costs. Consider the case of 802.11 or USB or ZigBee. In general, most of the value of providing a device that works with any of those is a function of how well it works with any other device. The support costs are also a function of how well the device interoperates with other devices. That pretty much kills the value of making a device that only works with a manufacturers own devices, and provides strong incentives to work with as many as possible as well as possible.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

gherkin0 11y ago

It's a total dick move on Philips's part to "update" incompatibility into existing products that people already own and have spend money and effort to integrate. These people bought product with the expectation of compatibility, now they're out their investment because of Philips's selfish business decision. Even they have elevated support costs, Philips's made their bed by offering compatibility in the first place for many years. If they want to remove it, they really should introduce a new model ("Introducing Hue 2.0: Now with less bulb compatibility!") and leave the existing customers unaffected.

jpatokal 11y ago
I'm sure page 67 of the Philips Hue T&C states in 3-point font that Philips Hue is only compatible with itself and they reserve the right to pull the plug on third-party product compatibility at any time.
- rhizome 11y ago
  On the face of it, why do they do more than that? Just use the warranty to recommend certain bulbs and let the hobbyists run riot knowing the company doesn't back them up for this stuff. But at least it still can work.
jzwinck 11y ago
> It's a total dick move on Philips's part to "update" incompatibility into existing products that people already own Last year, Shimano (the bikes-and-fishing people) released a firmware update for their electronic shifting system which prevents 2012 (10-speed) parts from working with 2014 (11-speed) gear mechanisms. Literally, if you upgraded your bike from 10 speeds to 11, it worked when the hardware was released, but not after you installed the (irreversible) firmware update. This is with everything coming from a single brand! You can read a little about that here: http://fitwerx.com/converting-shimano-ultegra-6770-di2-to-11-speed/ http://fitwerx.com/converting-shimano-ultegra-6770-di2-to-11...
- qq66 11y ago

lazyjones 11y ago

> What is far more likely to be the case is that the support costs around problems caused by random third party components messing with the Zigbee network were exceeding the value of providing that support I'm amazed at the level of belief in Philips' honest motives after such a move. They just saw a large market of 3rd party bulbs emerging and saw potential profits for themselves, that's the most likely explanation with the available information. If anyone has financial details to back up claims of "need" for such a move by Philips, please provide them. Philips has been investigated and fined for antitrust violations repeatedly. They don't really deserve benefits of doubt regarding predatory/unfair business practices without need at this point.

cbsmith 11y ago
Let's just say first hand experience with 3rd party bulbs has convinced me that there are non-trivial problems there.