4 ms·

This forced obsolescence is beginning to get out of hand. I completely understand that running the online portion of this costs money, but that needs factoring

This forced obsolescence is beginning to get out of hand. I completely understand that running the online portion of this costs money, but that needs factoring in to the business model from the start. I imagine that they didn't think about this when the product first launched in 2012. I do wonder if a u-turn (similar to the one Sonos has just done) will follow after bad media coverage.

sambe 7y ago
Or maybe they factored in 8 years worth of service?
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  They market their bulbs as having a 15 year life span.
  - thisisauserid 7y ago
    The bridge will still work from your private network and one can still control the lights with the app. All that's being disabled is the external control.
    - Sanzig 7y ago
      ...which all the digital assistants like Google Home or Alexa use, so this breaks voice commands for those. For most people, that's the main reason to have smart lights.
      - fullstop 7y ago
        The V1 bridge does not require any outside access from an Echo device -- it communicates directly with the bridge over the local network. With V2 it requires a skill, a Hue account, and access from the internet to the bridge.
        tzs 7y ago
        Are you sure it requires access from the internet to the bridge for V2? I think it may only require that the bridge can access the internet. I have a V2 with "Out of home control" set to disabled and it works fine with my Echo Dot and with the Amazon Alexa apps on my phone and iPad. My guess is that the bridge sends status information, including the bridge's IP address, to the Hue site, and the Echo can retrieve that information in order to find the IP address to send commands to.
        fullstop 7y ago
        You're probably right. I was trying to say that the v2 bridge requires some sort of cloud service to function with an echo when the v1 did not.
      - hokumguru 7y ago
        FWIW if you use HomeKit with a hub then it’s Apple’s servers not Phillips’ that do the external traffic.
        Marsymars 7y ago
        That's specifically if you're using HomeKit remotely - if you're using HomeKit locally it works without internet connectivity, unlike Alexa/Google Home.
    - jpindar 7y ago
      All that's being disabled is external control through Phillips' servers. If you're willing to set up port forwarding (and DDNS if needed) there are apps that allow you to enter both internal and external addresses, so you can still have external control.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ihuman 7y ago
    The bulbs are compatible with the newer bridges. While misleading, that isn't false.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    Bulbs (the expensive part) will still function, just gotta upgrade the $25 bridge. And even without upgrading the bridge, bulbs will still work just fine with the older one, as long as you are trying to access them on your LAN instead of while you are outside of home. What Philips did here sounds very reasonable to me imo.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
McTossOut 7y ago
The difference is huge here. First off, the cloud features at best a novelty. My Hue system runs on an standalone wireless network. My phone connects determines local paths, and anyone authenticated can control lights. Second we're talking about a bit that customers paid Free - $20 for 4-8 years ago. It's not a centerpiece of the system, it's just a prerequisite, and apparently one they tried to keep so cheap it needs to be replaced which reflects well on their commitments to shareholders. SONOS spent millions on ad dollars, remotely disabled giant expensive hunks of plastic in the name of cultivating "brand loyalty", and each bit cost 6x-40x the Hue hub. SONOS didn't u-turn immediately either, the CEO communica just doubled-down, until PR talked him into steering the ship.

sambe 7y ago

Or maybe they factored in 8 years worth of service?

oarsinsync 7y ago
They market their bulbs as having a 15 year life span.
- thisisauserid 7y ago
  The bridge will still work from your private network and one can still control the lights with the app. All that's being disabled is the external control.
  - Sanzig 7y ago
    ...which all the digital assistants like Google Home or Alexa use, so this breaks voice commands for those. For most people, that's the main reason to have smart lights.
    - fullstop 7y ago
      The V1 bridge does not require any outside access from an Echo device -- it communicates directly with the bridge over the local network. With V2 it requires a skill, a Hue account, and access from the internet to the bridge.
      - tzs 7y ago
        Are you sure it requires access from the internet to the bridge for V2? I think it may only require that the bridge can access the internet. I have a V2 with "Out of home control" set to disabled and it works fine with my Echo Dot and with the Amazon Alexa apps on my phone and iPad. My guess is that the bridge sends status information, including the bridge's IP address, to the Hue site, and the Echo can retrieve that information in order to find the IP address to send commands to.
        fullstop 7y ago
        You're probably right. I was trying to say that the v2 bridge requires some sort of cloud service to function with an echo when the v1 did not.
    - hokumguru 7y ago
      FWIW if you use HomeKit with a hub then it’s Apple’s servers not Phillips’ that do the external traffic.
      - Marsymars 7y ago
        That's specifically if you're using HomeKit remotely - if you're using HomeKit locally it works without internet connectivity, unlike Alexa/Google Home.
  - jpindar 7y ago
    All that's being disabled is external control through Phillips' servers. If you're willing to set up port forwarding (and DDNS if needed) there are apps that allow you to enter both internal and external addresses, so you can still have external control.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ihuman 7y ago
  The bulbs are compatible with the newer bridges. While misleading, that isn't false.
- filoleg 7y ago
  Bulbs (the expensive part) will still function, just gotta upgrade the $25 bridge. And even without upgrading the bridge, bulbs will still work just fine with the older one, as long as you are trying to access them on your LAN instead of while you are outside of home. What Philips did here sounds very reasonable to me imo.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

McTossOut 7y ago

The difference is huge here. First off, the cloud features at best a novelty. My Hue system runs on an standalone wireless network. My phone connects determines local paths, and anyone authenticated can control lights. Second we're talking about a bit that customers paid Free - $20 for 4-8 years ago. It's not a centerpiece of the system, it's just a prerequisite, and apparently one they tried to keep so cheap it needs to be replaced which reflects well on their commitments to shareholders. SONOS spent millions on ad dollars, remotely disabled giant expensive hunks of plastic in the name of cultivating "brand loyalty", and each bit cost 6x-40x the Hue hub. SONOS didn't u-turn immediately either, the CEO communica just doubled-down, until PR talked him into steering the ship.