I like to use the ports to add extra networking/transmitting capabilities. Like an RF transmitter to control cheap outlets and universal ceiling fan receivers.
tgauchat
(ActionTiles.com co-founder Terry @ActionTiles; GitHub: @cosmicpuppy)
24
Not likely to happen, realistically.
They canāt just build the RF onto a USB Stickā¦ it also needs all the protocol support, device add/remove functionality, etc., etc., to be added to the Firmware and Platform (Cloud, App, ā¦). All the extra stuff wouldnāt be worth it for the small number of customer who would buy the USB stick.
I think Zipato sold (sells?) a modular Hub, but that was (is?) an ambitious decision. While it may benefit their customers, it hasnāt helped them reach the level of market success as SmartThings.
Itās quite simple to build RF into a tiny package. Adding support is also a minimal amount of work, as all the signal sniffing/transmitting routines are open source and readily available. I have various devices that are already doing these things, one of which is running on a self contained Attiny85 which is plenty small enough.
I donāt quite think you understand everything thatās involved. Of course itās a simple process to load some open source on a USB radio module, but there is a whole lot of other development work that is neither simple, nor quick to implement.
There are multiple abstraction layers between whatever hardware may be, the protocols used, the hub, and the ST cloud for which device handlers would have to be written and tested.
Even if that were all easy for SmartThings to do as you say, what is the business case for such an investment? How does SmartThings stand to profit from making such an add-on? They do not make any of the low-cost devices you want to use. The only cost recovery would be in the USB stick itself, which likely a niche market so the cost to the consumer would probably be higher than that of the hub.
You are making this much more difficult than it really is. You have a device that reads/sends a command. It doesnāt matter what the content of those messages is, only that they are simple commands of less than 32bits. A device handler can save that command, along with the frequency it is sent on. That is all. A few very simple strings of data then represent that device. When that action is invoked the 2 strings are sent to the USB device, the command itself and the frequency to send on.
Further, Iām not asking anyone at ST to do any of the work. Only to allow serial access to the USB port. A single device handler would be required for all devices that could function this way. I could have it written in an hour.
tgauchat
(ActionTiles.com co-founder Terry @ActionTiles; GitHub: @cosmicpuppy)
28
Just got to love the naivete of SmartThings Customers who think (a) That this is an open platform, (b) That tacking on a new feature like this is āeasyā despite tons of red tape as well as real costs and risks, and (.c) That SmartThings would bother offering this even if it were trivial to implement. There are hundreds of definitely easy feature requests ahead of this in the pile - and most have been requested for years.
Seems like the last few days they are coming out of the woodwork. Hey Terry slap that Floor Plan Map into ActionTiles. Itās simple. Just take some of your spare time.
I must be living under a rock. I just didnāt realize how simple every single thing was to build.
Not at all, you are grossly over-simplifying. SmartThings is NOT an open-hardware platform and has never been. You do not get direct access to ANY hardware. Probably the closest you get is access to some of the Z-Wave and Zigbee command libraries, but even those are abstracted. What you are asking is not part of their systems model and will probably never be.
You also failed to address the business implications. What is the profit model for such a device? One could argue that SmartThings already had a similar device which was discontinued and not replaced. That was the ThingShield, a Zigbee device that could attach to an Arduino and do pretty much exactly what you are asking. It was dropped because one of the core ICās was discontinued. Samsung said at that time the product wouldnāt be replaced; a decision likely attributed to a low sales volume relative to R&D costs to design a replacement.
Then thereās a whole legal mess around manufacturing a device designed to send serial commands to devices by 3rd party manufacturers. Do they use open standards, publish an open API, or is ST supposed to reverse engineer proprietary protocols? All of that opens the doors to licensing costs for similar devices that Samsung already manufactures.
Bottom line, itās probably never going to happen.
Exactly. Iām trying to offer a reasonable explanation but apparenty just not getting through. Nothing is easy nor quick when it comes to consumer technology. Lots of red tape, regulatory approvals, patent licensing, etc.
But to be fair, there are some things people have asked for that are truly not a big deal yet get shelved forever due to ālow demand.ā I really think there is some low hanging fruit out there but weāre told āitās complicatedā and/or thereās ālow interest.ā For some of the things requested I find that very hard to believe.
Personally it feels more and more to me like you need to be in a special beta group to get what you want. Iāve heard more than once that āour beta group did not feel that was needed or wasnāt important.ā
No doubt this is the case but even thatās no guarantee. A perfect recent example was the feedback from the Scenes beta group. There was significant negative feedback on the removal of the Family tab. ST staff acknowledged the feedback, but chose not to act on it. Iām sure that they have their reasons. All we can do is provide feedback and hope they listen.
LOLOLOL If someone broke into your house and you have the recordings hidden away in your house, I doubt very much the burglar would ever find those recordings.