8 ms·
Look at it from the vendor’s perspective. Most people still want to be able to access and control their home from outside their home network, which generally m
by pimlottc 2y ago
Look at it from the vendor’s perspective. Most people still want to be able to access and control their home from outside their home network, which generally means going through a hosted server, so why go to the extra trouble of implementing a separate method for local LAN only when you could just use the same central server? It’s almost always the case that the local LAN can access the internet, so there’s not much incentive to make it more efficient.
Yes, ideally the local user should just hit the local hub directly, but it’s double the development effort for negligible benefit.
- ethbr1 2y ago> It’s almost always the case that the local LAN can access the internet Said vendors and I have a disagreement about what constitutes acceptable failure modes...
- alias_neo 2y agoI agree there isn't much incentive, and this is where standardised local protocols like ZigBee, Z-Wave etc come in; I can buy the hardware I want and run it how I want and those who want simplicity can buy a local hub, which can cover the cost of the hosted servers I have no interest in. Failing that, I'd settle for manufacturers adding an option in their app of wherever suitable, that will let me change the server URL and leave me to it, I'll reverse engineer then protocol, or if they're feeling generous they can open source or provide an API doc. Unfortunately, my experience reverse engineering lots of devices over the years is that they're often sharing more than they should, and subsidising the devices they sell you with your data. There is also an overwhelming number of hardware manufacturers who just have piss poor software with atrocious security who should probably be embarrassed to release their code. We already know what it's like in home WiFi router world.