Hello,
I’m looking for some home automations however I need a devices/system which can work locally without Internet connection.
Want to keep everything on local server/hub.
Is it possible to do with SmartThings? (I’m ok on some programming/hardware work)
No. SmartThings is designed around the cloud service. The Hub is designed to “phone home” to the SmartThings service. I don’t know if this is a hardcoded or (more likely) a firmware thing, but SmartThings has not released/revealed anyway to change this.
Additionally all the SmartApp reside on the cloud service. SmartThings has not (nor do I believe they ever intend to) released the server software that supports the whole SmartApp process. You’d have to essentially re-create the whole system locally on your own server, than either hack the firmware or spoof the hub into communicating to a local server vs. SmartThings server. In short, it wouldn’t be worth it.
There are some others on here (@solardave1 for one) who’ve worked with the (I think) Vera system which is a local system. I don’t think it has all the options and power that SmartThings does, but I might be wrong on that.
I see… I wanted to use some built in switchers and power sockets.
Will try to find other platforms which can actually connect these sockets from SmartThings as they should be with standard ZigBee or Z-wave interface?
SmartThings does use ZigBee and Z-wave standards for much of there things. I have at least 20 Z-wave devices in my house used with SmartThings.
The Hub can connect to these things locally… but the Hub is just a communication pathway. It is rather “stupid.” The Hub doesn’t make decisions, it just repeats stuff. When a z-wave device send info to the Hub, the hub just repeats this info to the SmartThings cloud. When the cloud wants to turn a device on or off, it sends the command to the Hub, which just repeats it to the specified device.
All the decision making, all the brains of the system, sits in the SmartThings cloud server. If you don’t have an Internet Connect the cloud can’t tell the Hub what to do. The Hub is too “stupid” to know what to do by itself.
Thanks. I’m ok with “stupid” hub as long as I can read the information from it and give commands. And likely to run own software on the Hub to manage the logic and add some intellect into “stupid” hub.
Is there a way to so, with documentations?
There is no information to be read from the hub - it’s simply a repeater. The intelligence one can program into the SmartThings system is via their online IDE, based on Groovy.
The hub has limited hardware making the possibility of having local executions a low priority for them. You can set an app to query REST requests against a system you’ve enabled - or, alternatively, use an OAuth endpoint on their system for you to program queries against to trigger events.
I think this could be a great feature addition. The ability to have the hub sync with the cloud and copy the logic locally. That way, if the internet is down it would still work. It would also make actions a little more snappy, especially for users who don’t have incredibly fast internet.
Does anyone know if this is even an idea SmartThings has thought of implementing?
With a secondary controller such as a Aeon USB Stick attached to a local server running one of the programs out there for z-wave you can accomplish much of what you need with minimum hassle.
I am looking for this also. I just found out about smart things and LOVE the idea of it. Except for the cloud portion.
I just can’t accept the idea, that I will have to ask permission (authenticate with a web service) to control devices in my own home. My phone should be able to connect directly into my home network without me having to hand the keys to my kingdom over to another company. I don’t trust any company to have their devices being given commands by anyone other than me. Even if it is me giving them byproxy, it is still ultimately completely in their control and I just can’t agree to that. Its a nightmare of a security risk and they have insight into data that is simply none of their business.
Please give us the ability to control our devices DIRECTLY through our firewall and without any phone home built into the devices or controllers.
I was hoping that the so-called open nature of ST would mean that I could use a home server to send commands to the hub that would then be translated so that the device would respond appropriately. Also, that the hub could forward the information on to the server. It looks like all information from the devices go to some location (which cannot be controlled) in the cloud and that only that cloud connection can send the commands to the devices. Is that correct? Are there any workarounds to get local control? I am happy to flash a custom firmware on the hub if that is possible.
That seems less open than I want. It seems like ST would be prone to DoS attacks and even accidental delays simply by someone doing significant automation of a home. Is the ST infrastructure reliable and robust enough that the rules return without delay?
If ST doesn’t do this, can anyone recommend a solution that might work for me?
Thanks.
This is almost correct. You can send commands from local server to cloud to hub or local to cloud to cloud. It works in reverse too.
As of today, for anything to work, you hub must be connected to the internet.
I gathered that. Is it hackable, though?
In a word… No.
…
Everything is hackable given enough time and dedication. The question is - is it worth it? IMHO, no.
I crave having a local ST ‘cloud’ server… something I can run on a raspberry pi, or perhaps in the form of a direct ST-built microUSB dongle/connection/etc. Simply have the local server do all the real internet communication, and when things go down, it can run all the code as necessary. I can count the number of times my system has failed to lock my doors in the last week on two hands. Controlling my Hue bulbs has been a tad unreliable as well, which could be improved with a local interface.
Between ST cloud delays, and basic internet issues, I can’t understand why a local relay isn’t an option yet.
of course it is. anyone that says it isn’t is a liar and not educated on the subject