Choose style:

Author Topic: Local control without cloud access  (Read 11380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline compulov

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 24/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Local control without cloud access
« on: November 26, 2014, 09:40:43 am »
It's my understanding that when you use the app to toggle a ZWAVE switch (or do any action, for that matter), that is always relayed through the Securifi cloud servers. When I'm at home, I'm usually on the same Wifi network as my Almond+, so I was wondering if the app could be designed to not rely on the cloud server at all and talk directly to the Almond+ itself. I've just found it somewhat annoying to have the cloud as a point of failure preventing me from turning on a lamp in the same room I'm standing.

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2014, 10:03:08 am »
Not at the moment no, but it's something we're aware of that there are requests for, but it would require some major work on our side, so don't expect it any time soon. Sorry about the cloud being glitchy though, it's not how it should be.

Offline mr23

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Thanks: 1
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2014, 04:29:04 pm »
2nd.

Make the 'local' apps on tablets etc go through the almond+, and have it queue up changes to the cloud, and once the cloud responds remove them from the waiting list.  Only off-site ios/android app devices should have to go through the cloud. If my internet goes down (oh, never, with comcast, sigh) I want to be able to control my devices...

Offline Weasy

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 03/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2014, 04:58:23 pm »
+1 what mr23 said.

Offline ache

  • Peanut
  • **
  • Posts: 17
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 29/04/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2014, 09:35:03 pm »
+1 from me too.

Offline c52k

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 01/12/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2014, 12:26:49 pm »
I truly do hope requirements for basic in home operation will not require cloud access. I just ordered my Almond+ and have just about every home automation software/hardware in a closet somewhere. Revolv has been by go to option for the last 18 months but I've recently been extremely disappointed by the direction they went as a business and feel they left their entire early adopter customer base completely high and dry with a very expensive paper weight. So I was leery to drop another couple hundred bucks on a product that "required" cloud access for day to day functionality.

Offline rpr69

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 08/09/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2014, 01:05:10 pm »
Can you not use the browser app on your phone/tablet, which connects directly to the Almond+? I've done it and it works fine.

Offline fillibar

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 2060
  • Thanks: 4
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2014, 02:22:40 pm »
The android app, at present, goes through the cloud.
Almond 3 mesh handling the home.

Offline mrv777

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2014, 11:52:53 am »
You could make a web clip to your router page on your phone and control it through there.
Unfortunately, that was not the functionality that I wanted, but maybe it will work for you.  I am not a fan of the cloud at all between it being a failure point and the security issues with having one.
Between this issue and the issue that there is still no automation, I'm sad to say I went ahead and ordered a Vera.  With Christmas and all the lights, the automation part is a big help.  I'm going to keep the Almond+ for the router functions.  I do believe in securifi, but the delays are taking too long.  Vera also supports a lot more zwave devices already since they've been around for so long.

Offline rpr69

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 08/09/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2014, 12:52:10 pm »
The android app, at present, goes through the cloud.

That's not what I said. I said access the local Almond+ browser UI (using a web browser on your phone) to control/view your devices, nothing to do with the Android app.

Offline fillibar

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 2060
  • Thanks: 4
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2014, 04:06:28 pm »
Sorry about that. Missed the browser piece of that.
Almond 3 mesh handling the home.

Offline Cuthain

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 02/12/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2014, 09:35:55 pm »
Guys, I realize it's frustrating but you have to think of it from a practical, network based angle. For the app to work when you are not at home, it has to send through the cloud. For the app to send locally instead of through the cloud, it has to know when to do this. It can't just send locally whenever it's on wifi. It has to know it's on the wifi network that the almond+ you want to send a signal to is also on. That's not easy. It has to have some way of identifying the almond+, securely and definitively so as to prevent any dangerous security holes. Then it would have to identify that it's on the same network as that almond+, also securely and definitely and also for those same reasons. And, this process would have to happen in full every time you connected to a wifi network. It would also have to check to make sure the almond+ was still connected to the same network every time you issued a command. Every. Single. Time.

I realize for many, the almond+ is their wifi router and therefore if their phone is on that wifi, it is also networked with their almond+. But that isn't the case for everybody and even when it is, there still has to be verification to prevent spoofing attacks. It's a large undertaking with massive potential for bug generation at a time when the team is still implementing core functionality.

Offline fillibar

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 2060
  • Thanks: 4
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2014, 10:35:45 pm »
The fact that they are busy is a reason for this to not necessarily arrive in the next release... but it does not stop this from being a valid request. If Securifi will never add this capability, or put development resources to it, they could say so. Flat out, that answer would upset some sure, but it would also be clear. Would I get rid of my Almond+? No. But I definitely would be interested in having the ability not to go through the Cloud. What are my own reasons?
1) Why send the data over the cloud when I am home? I DO NOT have cell service at home. As posts in another thread mentioned, I rely on a pico cell. So either way my cellphone is connecting through the network to get to a cloud site, to get back to itself.
2) The cloud connection has failed multiple times. I do not know of one time that it was Securifi's fault. A couple times it has been the cloud servers (I think they use Amazon). At least once has been my home internet connection.
3) "Simplicity". My phone and many other options I have are set up to keep things internal when at home. Not that I am worried about cloud activity (I have things that send out specifically) but I like the option.
4) Not a concern for me now... but who knows in the future... Bandwidth. With so many ISPs looking at implementing data usage caps (my own, Time Warner, tried before) I think it is only a matter of time until they start trying again. Any way to minimize it, if I desire, would be a plus. Why go off the network if it does not need to?

Now I understand it is tough. Validation of the network connection would prove difficult but the device is already validated for the network. You could even set it up to only allow certain MAC addresses to use the app locally (I would LOVE that because I could let my wife's phone control switches without using my account). Does this make people unhappy that have a more complicated setup? Sure. But there has to be some limitations. Securifi cannot do everything for everyone, be everything. If they come out with a limited thing and say "look, we did it, but there are some caveats you need to be aware of and you can only use it by doing it THIS way..." then I think that is good enough in my book especially to start with.

So far my experience with my Almond+ and Securifi has been positive. I believe they have a good product available. The software needs work but I assumed I was getting into that. I am the type of person that does not mind dealing with betas and bugs (heck, I used to be on and run a software QA team). Is it for everyone in this state? No way. Would I recommend it for friends or family. Not yet. If they come through? It looks promising and I am willing to work with it and them. Things work with the forums and my dealings with Securifi personnel have been good. If they come back and say "nope"... Fine. That is their choice and direction as a company. Like I said before, I am OK any which way. I think they do need to come up with a little better communication to satisfy some of the people that have been making requests, at least showing what some of their priorities are, but I am not that person. The surprise keeps me checking the forums and being active.

Probably too long of a response... and too rambling. Sorry Cuthain... split my head early and I guess it shows... but I hope my overall opinion came across.
Almond 3 mesh handling the home.

Offline mmalluck

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2014, 10:43:41 pm »
For the app to work when you are not at home, it has to send through the cloud.

No. No, it doesn't. There's no reason why a http interface could not be hosted on the Almond + and made available over the internet (with the proper security in place to prevent random internet-tough-guys from blinking your lights on and off). It would just mean entering your Home IP address (or your DNS name if you set up that service) into the app settings to make that work.
If a full up webpage was generated, then you only need to navigate to your home IP address, login, and mess with your home automation stuff to your hearts content from anywhere on the internet. No app needed.

In my opinion cloud hosting is where products like 'Wink' have gone wrong. It's another point of failure, of unknown state to the end-user, that they have no control or capability to fix. It adds lag to any sent command and can go offline at any moment, screwing up timed events. I have a Wink and I hate it for these reasons. Please Almond + team, don't put all your eggs into the 'cloud' basket. The 'cloud' doesn't make much sense for this application. There's no reason to route every command through the remote cloud server and back out to the home user when he's on the same network as the almond + 90% of the time he's trying to issue commands. Also, do you really want to be continuously upgrading your severs as the customer base grows, constantly requiring more bandwidth to keep everyone happy, for no recurring revenue return? How are you going to plug that to management? If you can't defend it to management, then the cloud service it doomed to atrophy until it's as unusable as the Wink.

On the other hand, someone who's got it right is Honeywell and their Vista Automation Controller. I recently picked one up for interfacing with my existing home security system. It provides z-wave home automation, controlled from a locally hosted webpage, and sends security email notifications via STMP.  No cloud servers needed (but you can buy Honeywell's cloud monitoring service if you really want). Perfectly independent. Fast response time to commands sent via the web interface. I can access the my home website from any where on the net. No app needed. This is the way I want Almond + to go.

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Local control without cloud access
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2014, 12:29:19 am »
Well, we're not going to say that we'll never do it, but it's not going to happen any time soon. We're still aware that people would like this feature, but it'd require a lot of work on our side.
What's easy to forget is that we'd need a local server running on the Almond+ that would have to sync with the cloud, say for example if you're at work and your wife is at home, you'd both have to be able to see if the other person is making any changes.
You can already set up an account for her though, simply follow these instructions - http://wiki.securifi.com/index.php?title=Almond_Cloud_-_Invite_More
She'd have full access though, as we've yet to implement any user restrictions.

Your points are valid, but this would take a good few months at least for us to implement and it's something we have discussed, but due to the complexity of it, it's not something we're going to start poking around with for now. If it was easy, we'd be doing it sooner, but it's not. We're also aware of the concern a lot of you are having based on what happened to Revolv, as their product will end up being pretty useless by the time they turn off their servers. We do still have the local web UI, but I also understand for many, this is simply not good enough. Just to be clear, this is where the automation will take place initially, although the plan is to add it to the mobile apps in the future as well, but I don't have any kind of ETA for that.

We, well, at least I, do read 90% of everything posted in the forums. I admittedly miss things, but this isn't my full-time job. That said, I think our product will live or die depending on us listening to our customers. We can of course not do everything that everyone wants, we simply don't have the manpower to do that, BUT we are paying attention and we do discuss a lot of the things being brought up here.

The fact that they are busy is a reason for this to not necessarily arrive in the next release... but it does not stop this from being a valid request. If Securifi will never add this capability, or put development resources to it, they could say so. Flat out, that answer would upset some sure, but it would also be clear. Would I get rid of my Almond+? No. But I definitely would be interested in having the ability not to go through the Cloud. What are my own reasons?
1) Why send the data over the cloud when I am home? I DO NOT have cell service at home. As posts in another thread mentioned, I rely on a pico cell. So either way my cellphone is connecting through the network to get to a cloud site, to get back to itself.
2) The cloud connection has failed multiple times. I do not know of one time that it was Securifi's fault. A couple times it has been the cloud servers (I think they use Amazon). At least once has been my home internet connection.
3) "Simplicity". My phone and many other options I have are set up to keep things internal when at home. Not that I am worried about cloud activity (I have things that send out specifically) but I like the option.
4) Not a concern for me now... but who knows in the future... Bandwidth. With so many ISPs looking at implementing data usage caps (my own, Time Warner, tried before) I think it is only a matter of time until they start trying again. Any way to minimize it, if I desire, would be a plus. Why go off the network if it does not need to?

Now I understand it is tough. Validation of the network connection would prove difficult but the device is already validated for the network. You could even set it up to only allow certain MAC addresses to use the app locally (I would LOVE that because I could let my wife's phone control switches without using my account). Does this make people unhappy that have a more complicated setup? Sure. But there has to be some limitations. Securifi cannot do everything for everyone, be everything. If they come out with a limited thing and say "look, we did it, but there are some caveats you need to be aware of and you can only use it by doing it THIS way..." then I think that is good enough in my book especially to start with.

So far my experience with my Almond+ and Securifi has been positive. I believe they have a good product available. The software needs work but I assumed I was getting into that. I am the type of person that does not mind dealing with betas and bugs (heck, I used to be on and run a software QA team). Is it for everyone in this state? No way. Would I recommend it for friends or family. Not yet. If they come through? It looks promising and I am willing to work with it and them. Things work with the forums and my dealings with Securifi personnel have been good. If they come back and say "nope"... Fine. That is their choice and direction as a company. Like I said before, I am OK any which way. I think they do need to come up with a little better communication to satisfy some of the people that have been making requests, at least showing what some of their priorities are, but I am not that person. The surprise keeps me checking the forums and being active.

Probably too long of a response... and too rambling. Sorry Cuthain... split my head early and I guess it shows... but I hope my overall opinion came across.

 

Page created in 0.138 seconds with 20 queries.

bottleneck