Android@Home - something to watch

[Silverskull]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/05/googles-platform-extends-its-reach-with-androidhome.ars

I'm not a developer, just thought I'd bring this to your attention.  I think a Google-backed home automation system has more potential for adoption than any of the existing platforms, so if LinuxMCE could take advantage of it... just something to keep an eye on.

[Marie.O]

Well, as soon as protocol specs are available, devices are available, and people with those devices want to have them supported, I am sure said people will go and write a driver.

[totallymaxed]

Yeah I agree...unless you attended Google IO you dont have any Docs or API info at all yet. Secondly apart from the pretty ridiculous light-bulb there are know other device about yet. But once those and other deficiencies are removed then Android@Home could deliver some very useful & exciting controlled devices for sure.

All the best

Andrew

[darrenmason]

Doesn't seem to be anything 'real' available yet so it is hard to make heads or tails of it and weather/how it will fit with linuxMCE.

There are API's ready for the USB accessory stuff which is interesting but it appears that the @Home stuff might still be a fair way off.

Andrew - I actually looked at it more the other way around, rather than interfacing to @Home devices I thought it would be more interesting coupling the control interfaces to the devices that we already have interfaces for. ie; an @Home plugin for linuxMCE that would allow linuxMCE device discovery and control and tie it to whatever control API's they develop.

But until there is more info released everything is speculation.

Still, something to watch.

regards
Darren

[totallymaxed]

Doesn't seem to be anything 'real' available yet so it is hard to make heads or tails of it and weather/how it will fit with linuxMCE.

There are API's ready for the USB accessory stuff which is interesting but it appears that the @Home stuff might still be a fair way off.

Andrew - I actually looked at it more the other way around, rather than interfacing to @Home devices I thought it would be more interesting coupling the control interfaces to the devices that we already have interfaces for. ie; an @Home plugin for linuxMCE that would allow linuxMCE device discovery and control and tie it to whatever control API's they develop.

But until there is more info released everything is speculation.

Still, something to watch.

regards
Darren

I think we both meant the same thing actually. I think it will make sense to build some Google@Home capability into LinuxMCE and device discovery and all that goes with that is clearly one of the key areas.

All the best

Andrew

[valent]

After watching google io video regarding android@home [1] first thing I thought is why google have to go and create yet another HA protocol, why didn't they use some existing one like z-wave, enocean or insteon?

But on a second look it is obvious why - all of them are proprietary closed protocols and probably protected IP with patents.

My knee jerk reaction to hearing that google has stepped into HA field was negative one because I thout that it would hurt LinuxMCE project but the more I think about Android@Home it looks better and better.

What are you thoughts regarding Android@Home and in general regarding HA protocols?

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD3Q4kJhD5w

[valent]

Great article regarding Android@Home: http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/11/editorial-android-home-is-the-best-worst-thing-that-could-happe/

[tschak909]

The entire article is fellatious;  extremely contradictory on its key points. (Yes, I did just say that the article is giving Google one big blow job.)

One example; It starts by saying one company can't dominate the industry, but then immediately plunges into talks of proprietary wireless protocols, and...domination of the entire software stack by a single company.

Typical Engadget slop.

People fail to realize that the entire domotics field is literally a hard nut to crack, especially when you are trying to provide not only a consistent architecture behind it, but also a fantastic user experience on top of it. Pluto failed on the last part (as technically amazing as it was for when it was designed), and we've been paying for it, ever since. Our biggest challenge has always been, that we do not have the resources to make our own hardware with proprietary wireless protocols, and smart discovery bits. We'd love to, but for now, we have to settle for the shitty hardware that exists.

The entire industry is still another 10 years away from truly being started, because nobody wishes to work together.

-Thom

[totallymaxed]

The entire article is fellatious;  extremely contradictory on its key points. (Yes, I did just say that the article is giving Google one big blow job.)

One example; It starts by saying one company can't dominate the industry, but then immediately plunges into talks of proprietary wireless protocols, and...domination of the entire software stack by a single company.

Typical Engadget slop.

People fail to realize that the entire domotics field is literally a hard nut to crack, especially when you are trying to provide not only a consistent architecture behind it, but also a fantastic user experience on top of it. Pluto failed on the last part (as technically amazing as it was for when it was designed), and we've been paying for it, ever since. Our biggest challenge has always been, that we do not have the resources to make our own hardware with proprietary wireless protocols, and smart discovery bits. We'd love to, but for now, we have to settle for the shitty hardware that exists.

The entire industry is still another 10 years away from truly being started, because nobody wishes to work together.

-Thom

Well...the important issue is not whether Engadget reported this well or not... the important issue is that Google's interest in this whole field will raise its profile in the publics consciousness and encourage more companies & individuals to invest there effort into it. This can only be beneficial overall in my opinion so we welcome Google's arrival irrespective of whether their technology or approach is write/wrong.

Just my 2c's worth ;-)

Andrew

[valent]

"Please Google, destroy Zigbee. Zigbee 1.0 was patented and not GPL compatible. Zigbee 2.0 picks up open 6lowpan and then patents the application layer again closing it.
Please give us an equivalent to the Smart Energy application layer free of patents."

excellent comment and great article from here:
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Business_Strategy/Will-Google-destroy-ZigBee-3681.html

But I still didn't see anything from Google but their marketing stunt at Google IO. AFAIK there is no spec released, no licence under which it will be under... if anybody has more info please point me in the right direction.

[valent]

It looks like protocol user for Android@Home is SNAP from Synapse Wireless. Has anybody heard of this protocol? Is there any chance of implementing SNAP support in lmce?

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4217102/Rumors-abound-with-regard-to-Google-s-Android-Home

[darrenmason]

Interesting.... but Google would have to buy it and open it up a bit more for it to provide a real alternative.

From the Synapse website "Synapse Wireless Inc. provides patented hardware and software technology that helps tie together devices for
remote monitoring and control."

So in terms of an application layer free of patents - not at the moment. But perhaps google will but the company, open source the stack and donate the patents to one of the open consortium's.

We're still in for a bit of waiting it seems.

regards
Darren

[valent]

The plot thickens
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4217521/Google-s-Android-Home---The-plot-thickens-?Ecosystem=programmable-logic

[golgoj4]

The plot thickens
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4217521/Google-s-Android-Home---The-plot-thickens-?Ecosystem=programmable-logic

if that was you, excellent work

so, reading into the technology implementation itself, it seems its based around python. the question is how open the protocol is. I couldnt find anything on the site though.

nice heads up
-golgoj4