4 ms·
They're probably only comparing open protocols. If one doesn't care if their protocol is proprietary then sure one might consider zwave. But it's hardly "surpri
by margalabargala 3mo ago
They're probably only comparing open protocols. If one doesn't care if their protocol is proprietary then sure one might consider zwave. But it's hardly "surprising" that it's left out.
- SEJeff 3mo agoWhat? The entire specification is in this git repo maintained by the home assistant team. Also, they’re on the zwave board now. It’s wholly open, but wasn’t maybe 4-5 years ago. https://github.com/zwave-js/specs https://github.com/zwave-js/specs
- margalabargala 3mo agoSource available is not the same as open. Source available does not mean non-proprietary. Just like HDMI, if you want to build a device that uses Zwave, you must pay for the privilege.
- SEJeff 2mo agoYou pay to have it tested and certified to use the trademark. This is why so much zwave kit from different vendors works perfectly where as zigbee it’s more of a crap shoot if different vendor’s gear works well together.
- margalabargala 2mo agoThat would be great if it were true, but my experience has been that Zwave devices have consistently flaked out while Zigbee have been more solid.
- brianaker 3mo agoThe funny part is that people think that Zigbee and Matter are open :) All three of them have their shortcomings. Matter requires an unsecured IPv6 network to operate; I have my doubts about it having any longterm future.
- preisschild 3mo ago> The funny part is that people think that Zigbee and Matter are open :) How is Matter (APL2) over OpenThread (BSD-3-Clause) not "open"? > Matter requires an unsecured IPv6 network to operate How is this network "unsecured" exactly? Thread IS encrypted and authenticated.