I just want to buy home automation gadgets that don’t need a bloody cloud account to work.
That’s the point of this standard, at least in theory. Same with the older but still common ZigBee standard.
Zwave and zigbee have never needed a cloud.
They might be older tech, but they’re pretty rock solid.
Still on zwave which works great. Don’t see the point of this standard which runs over an inferior type of networking and is brought to us by the companies that created the interoperability problem in the first place.
Zwave stuff are way overpriced, even comparing to the wifi or zigbee quivalent.
As an examble I get good quality (aka not an unknown chineese brand) Zigbee smart object for 2 to 5 times lower price than what a Zwave equivalent.
Same goes for wifi one, which are roughly the same price as the Zigbee stuff.The only good aspect of Zwave was the security protocol that was more robust than the Zigbee equivalent (albeit Zigbee 3.0 closed the gap) and more standardized endpoints. Matter objective is to get those two to surpass their ZWave equivalent.
Unfortunately my gateway (which is compatible with both Zigbee 3.0 and ZWave btw) is still waiting for its Matter/Thread upgrade, so I can’t try it yet, but compairing my Zwave objects with my Zigbee ones, I see no point of buying the former over the later.
I would argue you get what you pay for in terms of interoperability and reliability, but I can imagine people willing to trade some of that for a lower price.
Interoperability comes from standardization, which Zigbee sorely lacked. But actors like Tuya or Leroy Merlin built their own standard over Zigbee, which means anything that has “works with Tuya” will work with any Tuya coordinator of any brand (same for Leroy Merlin ecosystem). And even those who don’t usually mostly works.
With that you’d get ZWave reliability, most, if not all, of its security features, with Zigbee lower price. And they still works great with third party coordinator.
But it is true that Z-Wave uses lower frequency than Zigbee (868MHz vs 2.3GHz). It means lower frequency interferences, and better reliability over high distances.
Another issue is that zwave isn’t available in all countries (or it is but uses incompatible frequencies) so it’s less useful outside the big markets.
I live in a country with 10 million people and it works here. But yes there are probably some that don’t have the frequencies.
Don’t see the point of this standard which runs over an inferior type of networking
Inferior how? Matter is not comparable to Z-Wave. Z-Wave is a mesh network, Matter is just a standard which would allow Alexa, Siri, Google, etc. to control the same devices. To allow Z-Wave like functionality, Matter is able to work on top of Thread, which is in fact superior to Z-Wave.
is brought to us by the companies that created the interoperability problem in the first place
Of course. You don’t want to be the company known for refusing to participate in an open standard, even if you secretly don’t want it to succeed. Anyways, there’s no reason for companies to not want an open standard for controlling smart devices, since it literally helps everyone support more devices for basically no effort once you add support for Matter.
Inferior range, potential for interference, power consumption, meshing, and security. Name one area where it’s better.
And I still expect one or more of these companies to break the standard to create their own walled garden.
Matter over Thread is similar to Z-Wave at the user level and supports a lot more device types. The below is from Silicon Labs
• Application layer: Matter is an IP-based application layer protocol that can uses lower layers from other technologies such as Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or Thread. Z-Wave is complete protocol covering physical layer to application layer Its a non-IP MESH protocol that uses sub-GHz ISM bands.
• Device types: Matter supports a broader range of device types than Z-Wave, including cameras, speakers, TVs, and more. Z-Wave focuses on low bandwidth devices that require low power and reliable communication, such as security systems, sensors, switches, and locks.
• Security: Matter provides end-to-end encryption, device certification, and cloud integration, which can enhance the security and privacy of smart home devices. Z-Wave also offers encryption and device authentication, but it does not have a built-in cloud service.
• Compatibility: Matter is compatible with popular voice assistants and other IP-based devices, which can make it easier to integrate with existing smart home ecosystems. Z-Wave requires a Z-Wave specific gateway or hub, but has a large number of compatible devices that work together.
The problem with matter is that EVERY update to a device must be certified and that costs money.
So brands are sticking with the proprietary hub model so they can iterate faster
Also you need to pay (18k/year iirc) in addition to that as well. Next to the fact that matter itself is quite convoluted from an implementation standpoint.
It’s really not made with things like startups or niche products in mind. It’s really a standard by and for the big companies
Matter sucks ass
Matter has been pretty good to me lately. Had to solve an Apple Home Hub issue, but it’s pretty rock solid now. My only complaint is switches could have less latency (I want near instant), but at least they are working consistently. I’m using Matter over Thread, not Matter over WiFi.
Finally theres a standart for Smart home devices, even tho I doubt anyone else will use the standart
It’s been around for a while and it’s already pretty popular. So I’m nlt sure what you’re talking about.
