[hashkb]

> but the more complicated models are run in the cloud

This is a massive problem with home automation tools today. I need to rely on Comcast to stay alive to be able to turn lights on and off in my house? To me, it's an absolute dealbreaker. I've spent more time than I feel like I should have had to in order to control devices I own without any data leaving my LAN. Am I the only one who feels like it's a totally absurd situation?

[marlonmisra]

Our first prototype ran locally end-to-end. To make that work we used a Jetson TX2 ($600 computer), but the performance was abysmal. In a few years, it might be possible to do what we're doing locally and at a reasonable price.

[hashkb]

I just think it's unfortunate that every player in the space has to ship their own hardware (and, obviously, force the user into a walled garden so that competitor's products are inconvenient to use.)

Give me (a power user) something I can run in a docker container locally, or on any of my local Macs or PCs.

Or, assume as a constraint that smart homes need to be able to run themselves. I would appreciate if everyone in the space made an effort at detente while the technology matured to a point where a massive privacy and security hole wasn't required in order to have the thing work at all.

[astone]

I was looking for this. Cloud dependencies are a dealbreaker for me when it comes to home automation. I guess the alternative is to have hardware capable of doing the cloud work on your internal network.

[hashkb]

I have a refurbished HP tower ("only" 2 GHz and 16GB ram) running Home Assistant, an MQTT bridge for my SmartThings hub (so I can use it as a dumb z-wave radio), Plex, and whatever else I feel like using it for.

It cost $300 I think. That's about the same price as the Google WiFi 3-pack. /shrug

[_rpd]

I think it's okay as long as it fails to a usable state when the internet connection is interrupted.

To me, the bigger worry is having cloud connected video cameras (or microphones) in my home at all. Obviously many people are happy to trade privacy for convenience, but this this is a red line for me. There are too many ways for it to get deeply dystopic really quickly.

[hashkb]

> as long as it fails to a usable state when the internet connection is interrupted

It depends on your definition of "usable".

For instance, if I want to tie 3 bulbs together (e.g. treat them as a single bulb for on/off/brightness/color) in SmartThings, that has to go to the cloud. That was when I stopped trying to make things work in SmartThings.

Comparing ST (which costs $$) to HA (which is free) is a no-brainer; HA will run Python scripts (or shell out) on hardware I own, on my LAN.

We, the users, should refuse to pay for anything that doesn't actually let us control our homes. The case for FOSS is stronger here than it's ever been.