Zigbee is good, but for lights or anything else you really want to always work, I'd recommend going with something that also works independently of HomeAssistant and Internet access even if you then need a proprietary hub to integrate with HomeAssistant. Lutron's Caseta system is what I went with.
I've found HomeAssistant with Zigbee to be extremely reliable, but the idea that a botched software upgrade or failed VM could make it so I can't turn my lights on and off feels like a bit too much. Caseta doesn't use an open protocol, but it does allow all your switches, remotes, lights, etc, to work totally independently of HomeAssistant or Internet/WiFi, and the hub allows integration with home automation or remote control. I've played around with Philips Hue and other smart bulbs, but it feels too much like a toy rather than something I'd replace all of my lights with, and ultimately I ended up with an all Caseta light setup for my home.
Lutron has a physical switch that you replace your lightswitch with -- it works via the Caseta smart stuff, or it just works as a normal light switch that's 100% bulletproof. Also they use a much lower and less busy frequency (433mhz) so you get great range, no interference, and very low battery consumption when using the remote products. I went from 1/20 button pushes not doing what I wanted on Philips to 0 failures ever when I bit the bullet and replaced everything with Lutron.
Well I just went into the first one, and you can't use it if you have e.g. low volt LEDs in your kitchen like I do.. and they all look to be in the 900mhz range. I'm sure there's some combination of Zigbee stuff that could match the Lutron setup -- they look more customizable so maybe that's a plus for people too. We were just tired of fighting to get our smart home to not be annoying so plug and play with Lutron was a big win, and you can layer in more control with HA that has no danger of breaking everything. If I were starting over, I might take a look at some of those, and I'm glad there's some competition in the space.
Zwave is a proprietary protocol. Its old and unnecessary complex. Zigbee devices are a lot cheaper. And in many cases better performing than zwave mesh networks. A few years ago you still had zwave devices you did not have zigbee variants for. But now? Cant think of one.
> Zwave is a proprietary protocol. Its old and unnecessary complex. Zigbee devices are a lot cheaper. And in many cases better performing than zwave mesh networks.
That’s not entirely correct. Zwave is more expensive because if you want to sell your zwave solution there’s a monopoly on zwave.
Nothing to do with complexity or age.
As for “better performing”, I don’t even know how to respond. Latency? Reliability? Power? Bandwidth?
Zwave in general is better then zigbee due to lower frequencies and staying out of WiFi/bt. However it is more expensive and less options.
I had a house full of a variety of switches I just moved out of - some Lutron, inovelli, and Leviton.
For zwave, the best actual physical control was with Leviton - they have a rocker switch for dimming and are therefore easier to use than most. They don’t support multi-press scenes or anything like that but I found that to be a bit of a gimmick anyway, and dedicated buttons are a better option.
Inovelli had the most features, but aren’t precisely colour matched to other brands - they are kind of whiter than the standard white colour so stand out if you put them in a bank with others or against certain face plates.
In my new house I have a few zooz switches for special cases alongside Lutron for everything else and Zooz work fine.
Inovelli and Zooz dimming controls are both done by holding down the on/off paddles which isn’t intuitive for visitors, and it’s hard to fine adjust without resorting to app control.
Of everything my favourite is Lutron Diva for hands down the best looking and easiest to use actual physical control but these use a proprietary (albeit easy to integrate) hub.
I honestly haven't tried those products, but what I don't see is the ability to have remotes control switches (or plug-in lamp modules) without needing to use a controller. Caseta allows this because there is a pairing process that just involves the remote and the switch. I'm not aware of any similar Z-Wave or Zigbee thing, but it would certainly be cool if those existed and honestly would make me reconsider Z-Wave/Zigbee if I was redoing my system.
I only recently (3 months ago) set up my new house with Lutron devices because their diva dimmers are truly the best of anything out there I’ve used - their slide dimmer control is easy to use and their lack of flicker and buzzing with leds is the best out there. Their battery powered remotes also last forever (10 years?) without needing battery changes and work very reliably.
I do have a couple of zwave dimmers for special cases (dimmer and fan in one switch), and they support zwave association. Without the hub being available, one switch can turn on another - you could have the light turn on a fan, for example, or associate a remote control to a light. Zigbee has a similar feature.
Worked for them in various capacities for 6 years. It’s still what’s mostly in my house and mostly what I recommend for lighting control on projects. I’ll admit I have been eying Casambi with some interest.
Q: > Why is "work[s] totally independently of Home Assistant" a desirable property?
A: > the idea that a botched software upgrade or failed VM could make it so I can't turn my lights on and off feels like a bit too much. Caseta doesn't use an open protocol, but it does allow all your switches, remotes, lights, etc, to work totally independently of HomeAssistant or Internet/WiFi
That's exactly what I do and in fact I've had very few problems with Home Assistant in this setup. I just don't like the idea of needing the VM to be functional 100% of the time for my lights to work. Maybe it's just a mental block or me being old fashioned or whatever, I just think things like lighting should be able to work the old fashioned way in additional to cool home automation stuff.
...I got the OG yellow/amber when it was kickstarted, and have added a 1tb NVME and a z-wave dongle (it came with zigbee).
The newer ones (green) have "ditched" internal networking other than wifi for compliance / regulatory reasons (eg: 1 hardware radio == complex, 2-3 hardware radios == exponentially more complex and requires differing international certifications).
...as that reddit thread alludes to: you're fairly better off chasing an old NUC-type-thing and just plugging in the extra dongles to that anyway (potentially zip-tying a hub, or maybe getting some 90º USB connectors so you're less worried about snapping things off if it gets bumped, dropped, or stepped on).
The software is pretty darned solid, I've dug into it a fair amount and haven't had much issues with it in the ~3-4 years I've had it.
As the CLI link describes, there's 2-3 layers of "reliability" going on: core => supervisor => host. Basically the supervisor will restart / rotate / backup the HA-core (aka: docker image), and you can occasionally update the "Host" (aka: OS). https://www.home-assistant.io/installation/linux/#install-ho... ...their HomeAssistantOS basically wraps all that up, and if you install it "that way", you effectively turn whatever hardware you're using into an "appliance"... really, just depends on what layer you want to handle your O.S. updates (ie: throw HA on as "just another service" on your homelab? ...or "let the little box manage itself").
The reason I added Z-Wave (eventually) was to get access to an exterior-rated, dimmable plug/extension cord (dimmable string lights) ... HomeKit ones were finicky, and I couldn't find any good ZigBee ones. The reason I added an NVMe inside (eventually) was I wanted to chase using it as kindof a plex-ish / backup / media server, but there's "gross" issues with HA's backup strategy by default (ie: it backs up the "whole HD", including `/Media/...`, which makes backup times exponential compared to "just the *.config.yaml", and effectively halves your usable disk space).
Since you'll have to buy some of those dongles anyway, start with that and do the "home assistant OS running on a rpi" route. Get a feel for it, and then jump in to a NUC which you can air-drop next to your family's cable modem.
I've got 80-90% of everything bridged over to Siri/HomeKit (all devices are treated "as good as apple home app", and only a few HA-specific "super-nerd stuff" that I've set up in the HA gui itself (ie: timed scripts for turning things on/off when we have a party in the back yard). You still have to pop in to HA when adding a new device, new device-type, or to update any of the three layers (integrations => home assistant => kernel/os/core), so like once every few months like any potentially vulnerable IoT device.
Overall, a solid 7-out-of-10 (because it's OSS) ... as OSS it's 9-out-of-10... just desperately needs some cohesion, GUI-love, simplification, etc, but the compatibility and power is all there!
I love my Lutron Caseta. Falls back to regular light switches if wifi is out, plus I didn’t have to change any light bulbs! Never had any problems with them. These “smart” devices should always fail back to dumb mode. If there’s ever a situation where the dumb version is better, they’re doing it wrong.
> If there’s ever a situation where the dumb version is better, they’re doing it wrong.
Not sure what this means, but personally I dramatically prefer traditional "dumb" wired light switches that flip up or down to interrupt a physical circuit vs. Caseta wireless doodads with their little blinking LEDs, microswitches, and inability for "three way" switches to properly respect the primary dimmer slider's physical position.
Our contractor put in Caseta and it made me very happy to replace them with ordinary light switches. It makes me sad how much marketing and sales effort is going into pushing people into a brittle and overcomplicated computerized system trying to "fix" something that isn't broken.
I have Athom mini relays with my physical switches. They work independent of Home Assistant, and leave the physical light switch in place.
It's on my bucket list to try and find a way to cram a full shim of an Australian Clipsal style light switch with a no neutral wifi and relay module so you can do this by just replacing the switch plates (as it is it's my way or going with capacitive touch).
My last apartment had fancy light fixtures with esoteric bulbs and old wiring. Caseta was the right choice there.
My new apartment has a kitchenette with proprietary LED lights, so I've migrated my Caseta system there. However, the living room and the bedroom don't have any built-in lighting at all - just some lightswitches hardwired to control certain outlets. I've circumvented the switches and replaced them with a Hue Wall Switch Module: a little transmitter that takes the analog circuit switch and converts it to a digital Zigbee event. This allows me to put lamps with Zigbee bulbs wherever I like and still control them with the built-in wall switch.
I know Zigbee bulbs can end up turning themselves on after a power outage, and I'm sure that can be annoying. However, there are some scenarios (like mine) where permitting the digital rough edges ultimately gives you a better solution than relying on whatever arbitrary decisions the electrician made.
With zigbee you can “bind” devices together, so that their interactions work without needing the hub to intervene. I bound my IKEA buttons to my IKEA lights with my homeassistant controller (with some difficulty) so that even when the controller is offline the buttons will still work.
I think it's called 'direct binding.' All of my lights are directly bound to my switches, so they work even without the server or Zigbee coordinator running. With some switches, you can even bind light scenes directly to the buttons. For example, you can bind the four buttons of a Philips Hue Tap Dial to different light scenes using Zigbee2MQTT.
Some switches don't allow direct binding, though. All of the Hue switches I tried support it, but some Tuya switches don't. On the other hand, all lights from different manufacturers which I tried were able to bind directly.
The first year I had to fiddle a lot with the tooling. The uptime of HA/zigbee2mqtt wasn't great. It was good to have this as a fall back.
Do you have to choose between direct binding -or- controlling them through HA, or can you still control them through HA even when they are directly bound? Because I directly paired a switch with a light before (in Philips Hue), but then wasn't able to control it through the app anymore. Since switching to HA and Zigbee2mqtt, I just used triggers with switches, but wasn't aware that direct binding is a possibility. Gonna have to look into that now :)
I configure bindings through Zigbee2MQTT. You can view the bindings in the switch configuration, where you can also update or remove them.
I use Zigbee2MQTT to handle low-level Zigbee tasks such as pairing, binding, creating groups, setting up scenes, and configuring devices. Most of these things are stored within the devices and work without the coordinator/ha-server.
The configurations you set up in Zigbee2MQTT are synced with HA and can be used there as well. I use the options provided by HA for higher-level tasks, such as automations, custom sensors, statistics, and more. Everything I configure there will not work when the server/coordinator goes down.
Thank you, I did not realize that was possible as I had not found zigbee/z-wave products that advertised such functionality, at least when I was building out my system...which admittedly was several years ago now. Sounds potentially still more painful than the Lutron pairing process, but very good to know it's possible.
Also be aware that there are a couple different kinds of "works without internet access".
One kind works without ever needing internet access (on the IOT device itself or on the app if it uses an app) except possibly when you want to install a firmware update and perhaps when first setting up the device.
The other kind requires you to log in to an account from the IOT vendor, but doesn't actually need internet access to then use the device. The thing to watch out for with these is that sometimes the login has a time limit so you occasionally have to re-login. Or sometimes you have to re-login if the vendor's app updates.
An example of the latter is some TP-Link smart plugs I have. I only use them from Apple Shortcuts, but it is still TP-Link's app controlling them underneath and occasionally the shortcut stops working until I open the TP-Link. When I do that I invariably find that I'm no longer logged in, and logging back in makes them work again.
For lights in particular another thing to consider when choosing them is what they do on power up. Some let you set the behavior and remember that on the IOT device, typically offering some subset of these options: light off; light full on; light however it was when power was last lost; light on to a specific brightness and color.
Some have one of those behaviors and you can't change it. Typically "light full on", because that means you can use it both as an ordinary bulb that you turn on and off from a regular light switch and as a fancy IOT light.
For lights that you only occasionally need to dim or change color on that can be great. But for lights that you often want to turn on and off remotely so you need to leave the switch on all the time it gets really annoying because every time you get a power outage or often even a significant power flicker they turn off and come back full on.
> I've found HomeAssistant with Zigbee to be extremely reliable, but the idea that a botched software upgrade or failed VM could make it so I can't turn my lights on and off feels like a bit too much.
That is really an implementation problem of your smarthome. Where we used to have unobtrusive javascript, enriching the web page as it got applied - you also can have unobtrusive smart switches: There are units which get built into the wall, yet allow for Zigbee connection: you both get to run the light in a smart and in a manual way. Many smart sockets also have buttons on them to allow a manual override.
I'm using zigbee relays placed behind my regular light switches. They work perfectly fine should the home assistant setup ever go down, with the added benefit that i can control them remotely too and react to them being turned on or off in other automations.
Well I had to download it obviously, but I don't think it required internet access after that, except maybe you enable the weather forecast and other add-ons.
I've found HomeAssistant with Zigbee to be extremely reliable, but the idea that a botched software upgrade or failed VM could make it so I can't turn my lights on and off feels like a bit too much. Caseta doesn't use an open protocol, but it does allow all your switches, remotes, lights, etc, to work totally independently of HomeAssistant or Internet/WiFi, and the hub allows integration with home automation or remote control. I've played around with Philips Hue and other smart bulbs, but it feels too much like a toy rather than something I'd replace all of my lights with, and ultimately I ended up with an all Caseta light setup for my home.