upstatemike
Senior Member
When comparing different home automation protocols these days one of the things you see more and more is that product x, y, or z is better because there is "no hub required". In thinking about why this is a good thing I started comparing the different protocol options to try define just what this really means.
My baseline for comparison is the older protocols like Insteon and UPB. These devices maintain information in each and every device that defines its relationship to other devices. Once configured, an Insteon or UPB device needs no hub or controller to tell it that when switch A is turned on then switch B should also turn on at a specific ramp rate to a defined dim level. There might be a hub monitoring the activity and providing extra actions but the basic automation "scene" will activate whether the controller is on line or not.
This is in contrast to Lutron, Z-Wave, and Zigbee where the devices know what network they belong to but cannot do anything beyond local load control without a hub/controller/repeater to set the actual scene. If the controller is off line then the scene does not happen. This is where concenrs about local control vs. Internet control become a major concern.
The wildcard in the mix seems to be WiFi automation which makes the claim: "no hub required" while being completely unable to operate without a central controller, usually in the form of a phone app. In many ways this is worse than something like a Hue Bridge or Lutron Main Repeater because those technologies are at least built out as dedicated infrastructure while a Wi-Fi phone app could be taken off premise leaving no control options at all.
So the question is: "Are any of the newer protocols really able to operate without a central hub or controller and still perform moderate automation functions like set a scene, create a virtual 3-way or other group action or respond to a motion sensor? Or will future automation require an app, hub, or controller to be running for even the most basic functionality? Could you sell your house with a lighting system that won't work without a hub or Internet connected app running, or would you have to rip it all out? Are the older protocols more reliable and resilient because they can continue to operate with most of their core features even if no controller is present?
My baseline for comparison is the older protocols like Insteon and UPB. These devices maintain information in each and every device that defines its relationship to other devices. Once configured, an Insteon or UPB device needs no hub or controller to tell it that when switch A is turned on then switch B should also turn on at a specific ramp rate to a defined dim level. There might be a hub monitoring the activity and providing extra actions but the basic automation "scene" will activate whether the controller is on line or not.
This is in contrast to Lutron, Z-Wave, and Zigbee where the devices know what network they belong to but cannot do anything beyond local load control without a hub/controller/repeater to set the actual scene. If the controller is off line then the scene does not happen. This is where concenrs about local control vs. Internet control become a major concern.
The wildcard in the mix seems to be WiFi automation which makes the claim: "no hub required" while being completely unable to operate without a central controller, usually in the form of a phone app. In many ways this is worse than something like a Hue Bridge or Lutron Main Repeater because those technologies are at least built out as dedicated infrastructure while a Wi-Fi phone app could be taken off premise leaving no control options at all.
So the question is: "Are any of the newer protocols really able to operate without a central hub or controller and still perform moderate automation functions like set a scene, create a virtual 3-way or other group action or respond to a motion sensor? Or will future automation require an app, hub, or controller to be running for even the most basic functionality? Could you sell your house with a lighting system that won't work without a hub or Internet connected app running, or would you have to rip it all out? Are the older protocols more reliable and resilient because they can continue to operate with most of their core features even if no controller is present?