SmartHome releases new INSTEON white paper
- Thread starter electron
- Start date
Excellent document. While a little biased, SmartLabs is doing excellent consumer education not only about their own technology, but also about all other technologies available.
Competitors (UPB, Z-Wave, Zigbee) should be worried that the most comprehensive information that the consumers are getting about their own products come from SmartLabs. These papers certainly influence our purchasing decisions. And we influence a lot of people (customers, friends, etc). They should re-think the business models.
On the other hand, SmartLabs just need to stop bluffing about the dual band and start releasing some value added RF devices (at least some Insteon compatible palmpads-like device). A phase coupler is just a given in any technology - does not add value at all.
Competitors (UPB, Z-Wave, Zigbee) should be worried that the most comprehensive information that the consumers are getting about their own products come from SmartLabs. These papers certainly influence our purchasing decisions. And we influence a lot of people (customers, friends, etc). They should re-think the business models.
On the other hand, SmartLabs just need to stop bluffing about the dual band and start releasing some value added RF devices (at least some Insteon compatible palmpads-like device). A phase coupler is just a given in any technology - does not add value at all.
I nearly died laughing when I read them having a dig at Z-Wave for not having a way to unenroll a lost or broken device without having to do a factory reset and re-enrolling from scratch. (Appendix II - Z-Wave usability study)
Insteon has exactly the same problem! This is especially painful if you have a device slaved to a keypadlincV2 button and a complex setup on the keypadlincV2. If you lose one of its slaves, you either have to put up with the timeouts, or factory reset it and start from scratch. Yes, you can fix this with as-yet unreleased software and a computer interface (powerlincV2).
I suppose, to be fair to the writer, the scale of the problem isn't the same. Resetting a single keypadlincV2 and repairing all its links and scenes is different to the problem that they were talking about -resetting the master controller.. And I if you allow a computer interface into the comparison matrix, I'd bet you can fix a dead/missing device easily on Z-Wave.
I also was amused that they "didn't have" UPStart. It probably wouldn't have done them much good without a UPB PIM though. But I guess that was the point that they were trying to highlight.. some devices don't do anything out of the box unless you had a PIM and UPStart.
The comparison seems to very carefully avoid talking about computer interfaces and software. That's probably because Insteon is way behind on this. The comparison mostly talks about modules and switches. This was especially amusing given the few opening paragraphs about the massive numbers of computers in US homes. I suppose it did give them a plausible reason for playing dumb about not having UPStart in the UPB "noise case study".
-Peter
Insteon has exactly the same problem! This is especially painful if you have a device slaved to a keypadlincV2 button and a complex setup on the keypadlincV2. If you lose one of its slaves, you either have to put up with the timeouts, or factory reset it and start from scratch. Yes, you can fix this with as-yet unreleased software and a computer interface (powerlincV2).
I suppose, to be fair to the writer, the scale of the problem isn't the same. Resetting a single keypadlincV2 and repairing all its links and scenes is different to the problem that they were talking about -resetting the master controller.. And I if you allow a computer interface into the comparison matrix, I'd bet you can fix a dead/missing device easily on Z-Wave.
I also was amused that they "didn't have" UPStart. It probably wouldn't have done them much good without a UPB PIM though. But I guess that was the point that they were trying to highlight.. some devices don't do anything out of the box unless you had a PIM and UPStart.
The comparison seems to very carefully avoid talking about computer interfaces and software. That's probably because Insteon is way behind on this. The comparison mostly talks about modules and switches. This was especially amusing given the few opening paragraphs about the massive numbers of computers in US homes. I suppose it did give them a plausible reason for playing dumb about not having UPStart in the UPB "noise case study".
-Peter
rocco
Active Member
OK, I just finished perusing the white paper. I found it HIGHLY biased.
While it does have a lot of information, that information is suspect. I found many inaccuracies in the ZigBee section (all in Insteon's favor), and it seems all other protocols were similarly shortchanged.
An appendix was devoted to evaluating UPB's susceptibility to noise, but no similar evaluation was done for Insteon.
And there is no comparison of the security of the different protocols. The paper constantly derides ZWave's Master-Remote, which is an important ingredient to it's security, but not once does it acknowledge this. I'm sure it's because Insteon has no security.
Five pages (APPENDIX II — Z-Wave Usability Evaluation) is devoted simply to slamming ZWave. Here is an excerpt:
I filed it into the recycle bin. . .
While it does have a lot of information, that information is suspect. I found many inaccuracies in the ZigBee section (all in Insteon's favor), and it seems all other protocols were similarly shortchanged.
An appendix was devoted to evaluating UPB's susceptibility to noise, but no similar evaluation was done for Insteon.
And there is no comparison of the security of the different protocols. The paper constantly derides ZWave's Master-Remote, which is an important ingredient to it's security, but not once does it acknowledge this. I'm sure it's because Insteon has no security.
Five pages (APPENDIX II — Z-Wave Usability Evaluation) is devoted simply to slamming ZWave. Here is an excerpt:
Where does this fit as a comparison to Insteon? All five pages of that appendix is spent nit-picking any minor flaw in every ZWave product.
I filed it into the recycle bin. . .
upstatemike
Senior Member
I am one of the most paranoid people I know (I always line my hats with aluminum foil to block out the government's evil mind control rays) and even I don't see any great need for high security in a lighting protocol. Even if somebody decided they wanted to hijack my living room lamp (unlikely) I'm pretty sure the thrill would wear off quickly for the hijacker so it probably would not pose an ongoing threat.rocco said:
Similar threads
- Article