8 ms·

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

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 to use Zigbee, which violates the GPL standard. [2] At least the article speaks out "an open-source approach", let's see if things will get better. [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/ieee802154.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/ieee802154... [2]: https://archive.freaklabs.org/index.php/blog/zigbee/zigbee-linux-and-the-gpl.html https://archive.freaklabs.org/index.php/blog/zigbee/zigbee-l...

exikyut 7y ago
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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(network_protocol)).
- baybal2 7y ago
  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 were no disarray with association peers throwing random capricious demands. Most USB implementers were random Taiwanese OEMs who never formally joined the USB-IF, but nevertheless Intel was smart enough to close eyes on that.
  - blackguardx 7y ago
    Margins on most consumer electronics are extremely small. $1 per device may seem symbolic, but it starts looking like real money at scale.
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      I own many USB gadgets that I bought for less than $10. Paying 10% of the retail price for the privilege of using a specific port/protocol seems out of the question. Even for low-end computers (~$300) $1 for a license is a lot of money.
  - TheKarateKid 7y ago
    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.
    - mistersquid 7y ago
      > USB also had the advantage of Intel pushing it, resulting in almost every PC with an Intel CPU (large majority) having USB ports. In the mid to late 1990s, USB was scarce. It didn't take off until after Apple replaced its ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) port with USB in the first iMacs. Once that happened, manufacturers flooded the market with consumer products (e.g. CDRW drives) and PC makers followed suit. Up to that point PC makers had standardized on the serial port. I don't have contemporaneous links at the moment but the second paragraph of a relatively recent (2015) article summarizes: > But Apple shocked the computing world when it swept its old connectors away with the original 1998 iMac. The bulbous computer adopted a then-struggling standard developed by Intel called USB (Universal Serial Bus). In a hint of what was to become the company’s ability to make or break certain technologies, USB would go on to live up to its “universal” descriptor and become the most prevalent connectivity standard in the world. The solid-and-hollow stacked rectangles of its “A” connector now appear in everything from alarm clocks to airplanes. [0] [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/3044088/apple-and-usb-a-history-of-adoption-acceptance-acquiescence https://www.fastcompany.com/3044088/apple-and-usb-a-history-...
      - JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
        That neglects to mention that Microsoft Windows 95 OSR2 launched a few months before (97) and that entire release was centered around better USB support for a broader range of components. (e.g. CDRW Drives) I don't think its fair to say PC "Followed suit" in using USB.
        mistersquid 7y ago
        > I don't think its fair to say PC "Followed suit" in using USB. I didn't say that. I said, specifically, "PC makers followed suit". Microsoft may have supported USB in their OS, but PC manufacturers lagged.
  - xoa 7y ago
    >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.
    - baybal2 7y ago
      1394TA was open as far as I remember
      - ksec 7y ago
        HEVC, VVC, H.264 are also Open Standards, does not mean it is patents free or Royalty free. While VP8, VP9 arguably isn't as much of of Open Standards, it is not patents free ( Neither is AV1 ) but Royalty Free.
Symmetry 7y ago
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.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Yeah! They want you to use the high cost devices manufactured in China.
  - ASalazarMX 7y ago
    Or mostly the same cheap devices manufactured in China but sold through your friendly middlemen.
  - syshum 7y ago
    No, American Marketing Companies (Apple, Amazon, Google, Etc) want to use the Cheap China Manufacturers, they just dont want consumers to be able to buy them direct
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  Key exchange for IoT devices is a tricky problem. IoT devices don't support public key infrastructure, e.g. something like GnuPG or the SSL certificates used by web browsers. It's a very practical solution to have a shared secret between the device and a central server, and, at registration time, have the central server make a key for both the hub and the device. Without some kind of key exchange, people could set off your alarm, turn on your lights, open your door...
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The solution is to have a pairing mode that allows the device to be paired with a control device (e.g. your phone) via wireless while you're in the same room as it. That would only have to be done once when it's installed and require pressing a physical button on the device while being in wireless range so that nobody can hack it remotely.
stiray 7y ago
There is just one open standard. User having root access to the IOT device and scripting there whatever it wants. Any 3rd party dependence is a way of collecting and selling data (google and fitbit acquisition) and should be prohibited. Vote with your wallet, dont buy devices that prohibit you root access and make 3rd party servers access mandatory. Simple as that.
JEOII 7y ago
To understand some of the reasoning of what is open and isn't you can look at the different versions of their IPR, testing and use policies. There used to be 'profiles' but they were merged into one version: 3.0 IPR version 4 allowed anyone to use the specs and develop product 'based' on Zigbee and didn't protect anyone from IP enforcement from the many patent holders. This caused a lot of issues around 'interoperability' and end user adoption. "It says Zigbee but it doesn't work with other 'Zigbee' devices." IPR version 5 moved to improve interoperability and enable members to increase development by increasing protections. It granted RANDZ between all members. It improved interoperability by only allowing the use of the name and logo if the device was certified by an approved test house. This did increase deployments and reduced interop issues. Now there is IPR version 6, which allows for the growth of other protocols, providing the IP protection developers, manufacturers and retails want and could enable further industry consolidation - which is good for the end consumer. The average Joe and Jane just want stuff that works without having to be a technical expert. Any open source move is probably about getting more developers exposed and involved to help grow the base both creators - and consumers.
m463 7y ago
I'm sort of reminded of the book "Schiit Happened" from the Schiit guys (they make cool headphone amps). They documented how they started their business. One thing they mentioned is that apart from RCA jacks, all the surround sound standards are tied up and closed.
- _1tan 7y ago
  Anyone else knowing any industries where "standards are tied up and closed"?

exikyut 7y ago

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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(network_protocol)).

baybal2 7y ago
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 were no disarray with association peers throwing random capricious demands. Most USB implementers were random Taiwanese OEMs who never formally joined the USB-IF, but nevertheless Intel was smart enough to close eyes on that.
- blackguardx 7y ago
  Margins on most consumer electronics are extremely small. $1 per device may seem symbolic, but it starts looking like real money at scale.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    I own many USB gadgets that I bought for less than $10. Paying 10% of the retail price for the privilege of using a specific port/protocol seems out of the question. Even for low-end computers (~$300) $1 for a license is a lot of money.
- TheKarateKid 7y ago
  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.
  - mistersquid 7y ago
    > USB also had the advantage of Intel pushing it, resulting in almost every PC with an Intel CPU (large majority) having USB ports. In the mid to late 1990s, USB was scarce. It didn't take off until after Apple replaced its ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) port with USB in the first iMacs. Once that happened, manufacturers flooded the market with consumer products (e.g. CDRW drives) and PC makers followed suit. Up to that point PC makers had standardized on the serial port. I don't have contemporaneous links at the moment but the second paragraph of a relatively recent (2015) article summarizes: > But Apple shocked the computing world when it swept its old connectors away with the original 1998 iMac. The bulbous computer adopted a then-struggling standard developed by Intel called USB (Universal Serial Bus). In a hint of what was to become the company’s ability to make or break certain technologies, USB would go on to live up to its “universal” descriptor and become the most prevalent connectivity standard in the world. The solid-and-hollow stacked rectangles of its “A” connector now appear in everything from alarm clocks to airplanes. [0] [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/3044088/apple-and-usb-a-history-of-adoption-acceptance-acquiescence https://www.fastcompany.com/3044088/apple-and-usb-a-history-...
    - JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
      That neglects to mention that Microsoft Windows 95 OSR2 launched a few months before (97) and that entire release was centered around better USB support for a broader range of components. (e.g. CDRW Drives) I don't think its fair to say PC "Followed suit" in using USB.
      - mistersquid 7y ago
        > I don't think its fair to say PC "Followed suit" in using USB. I didn't say that. I said, specifically, "PC makers followed suit". Microsoft may have supported USB in their OS, but PC manufacturers lagged.
- xoa 7y ago
  >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.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    1394TA was open as far as I remember
    - ksec 7y ago
      HEVC, VVC, H.264 are also Open Standards, does not mean it is patents free or Royalty free. While VP8, VP9 arguably isn't as much of of Open Standards, it is not patents free ( Neither is AV1 ) but Royalty Free.

Symmetry 7y ago

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.

Spivak 7y ago
Yeah! They want you to use the high cost devices manufactured in China.
- ASalazarMX 7y ago
  Or mostly the same cheap devices manufactured in China but sold through your friendly middlemen.
- syshum 7y ago
  No, American Marketing Companies (Apple, Amazon, Google, Etc) want to use the Cheap China Manufacturers, they just dont want consumers to be able to buy them direct
PaulHoule 7y ago
Key exchange for IoT devices is a tricky problem. IoT devices don't support public key infrastructure, e.g. something like GnuPG or the SSL certificates used by web browsers. It's a very practical solution to have a shared secret between the device and a central server, and, at registration time, have the central server make a key for both the hub and the device. Without some kind of key exchange, people could set off your alarm, turn on your lights, open your door...
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The solution is to have a pairing mode that allows the device to be paired with a control device (e.g. your phone) via wireless while you're in the same room as it. That would only have to be done once when it's installed and require pressing a physical button on the device while being in wireless range so that nobody can hack it remotely.

stiray 7y ago

There is just one open standard. User having root access to the IOT device and scripting there whatever it wants. Any 3rd party dependence is a way of collecting and selling data (google and fitbit acquisition) and should be prohibited. Vote with your wallet, dont buy devices that prohibit you root access and make 3rd party servers access mandatory. Simple as that.

JEOII 7y ago

To understand some of the reasoning of what is open and isn't you can look at the different versions of their IPR, testing and use policies. There used to be 'profiles' but they were merged into one version: 3.0 IPR version 4 allowed anyone to use the specs and develop product 'based' on Zigbee and didn't protect anyone from IP enforcement from the many patent holders. This caused a lot of issues around 'interoperability' and end user adoption. "It says Zigbee but it doesn't work with other 'Zigbee' devices." IPR version 5 moved to improve interoperability and enable members to increase development by increasing protections. It granted RANDZ between all members. It improved interoperability by only allowing the use of the name and logo if the device was certified by an approved test house. This did increase deployments and reduced interop issues. Now there is IPR version 6, which allows for the growth of other protocols, providing the IP protection developers, manufacturers and retails want and could enable further industry consolidation - which is good for the end consumer. The average Joe and Jane just want stuff that works without having to be a technical expert. Any open source move is probably about getting more developers exposed and involved to help grow the base both creators - and consumers.

m463 7y ago

I'm sort of reminded of the book "Schiit Happened" from the Schiit guys (they make cool headphone amps). They documented how they started their business. One thing they mentioned is that apart from RCA jacks, all the surround sound standards are tied up and closed.

_1tan 7y ago
Anyone else knowing any industries where "standards are tied up and closed"?