evohome Wi-Fi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SteveP
    Automated Home Guru
    • Dec 2012
    • 190

    #16
    Originally posted by Rameses View Post
    Davidaj

    Good feedback and yes we are aware. The development of the app is an area where 'extras' can easily be added and there is a roadmap. The issue of having a central controller has been debated and researched a lot. evohome has to span many generations and types of users. Some who are not as leading edge as others, or simply don't want a connected solution (you would be surprised how many). Some like having both. Some like having the security, that in the event of no wireless, left phone upstairs, etc there is still that degree of control within reach. As everyone is different, user cases are different. We are optimising where we can.

    We are constantly evaluating and finding ways to ensure users get a solution that suits them, all of which may or may not come in the future.
    I agree with the comment about continuing to update the app such as android. As a software developer, when I originally purchased the first evohome monochrome unit I was aware of the USB socket and expected that as with most software driven products the software would be upgradeable. I now have the colour controller and have contributed to the discussions and suggestions for improvement expecting that these would feed in to a software update either via the USB socket or via the gateway. So I have been extremely disappointed to see that is not so. However, I have found over the past 6 months that I predominantly now use the android app. The controller sits with the gateway in the kitchen and are mainly used by other family members who want to tweak a temperature and the controller front screen is excellent for that. The rest of the functions such as optimisation etc are so well buried that it can take a degree in investigative techniques to locate some options. Here is where I feel that those of us who won’t benefit from controller upgrades (short of throwing the controller away and purchasing a new one) would be very happy with the smartphone apps being aggressively enhanced to provide a much better interface into the data in the controller and one that will continue to be upgraded.

    Comment

    • paulockenden
      Automated Home Legend
      • Apr 2015
      • 1719

      #17
      How long do you get with the new controller before it starts beeping that it wants to go back to its home?

      With the V2 controller it seems silly that the batteries will last for a quite a while, but the device becomes unusable long before that because the beeping drives you nuts!

      Minor complaint, of course, but hopefully something that has been addressed.

      Comment

      • davidaj
        Automated Home Jr Member
        • Jan 2015
        • 37

        #18
        Mavis - my suggestion was really that you buy a separate iOS or Android device purely dedicated to evohome, then imagine that on your shelf with the app permanently open instead of the evohome controller. Oh, and if you don't fancy staring at the temperature all day, you can use it for something else, like controlling your intelligent lighting, sound system etc. The evohome controller becomes a means to communicate on the special frequency to the other evohome components, and if someone less technically proficient wants to use it, then they can use the original controller.

        I'd have thought the tech-averse customer base will not be reading this forum, and not even be aware a new version has been released. Those reading this will want the latest and greatest feature set I imagine, and are equally the ones providing suggestions and feedback on the system to drive future improvements. Something in return for their efforts would be appreciated, as opposed to "please pay £249 for new features that you suggested". The most practical route for that is the app without needing to upgrade hardware.

        Comment

        • G4RHL
          Automated Home Legend
          • Jan 2015
          • 1580

          #19
          I tend to agree - the app is the part to develop. My Evohome controller rarely if ever come off its bracket in my utility room. I use my iPhone or iPad for any changes I want to make or to check temperatures. An app on my IOS device controls much of my lighting and security arrangements, another app my sound system (Musaic). I can see why Honeywell have gone this route as it makes sense, why have two devices when one can do it. I guess though having a separate controller has benefits if the wifi system breaks down.

          Comment

          • roydonaldson
            Automated Home Guru
            • Jan 2013
            • 205

            #20
            I use the controller all the time. It sits on top of the kitchen and we use it whenever we are in there to change the rooms etc. Nice and easy, it's always on, I don't need to go find my phone, undo the security lock on it, start the app. I can just touch the controller and use it.

            I also use the app when I'm upstairs and have a tablet to hand, or if I'm out the house. I really like having the controller and think the combination of having both controller and app is perfect.

            Comment

            • paulockenden
              Automated Home Legend
              • Apr 2015
              • 1719

              #21
              It's the Evohome Controller that provides the data that's uploaded to the US servers, and which in turn is downloaded by the app.

              Even if it was a box without a screen the controller would still be needed. And given that, surely it's better that it does have a screen?

              I'd actually like to like to see a web interface. And not one that mirrored the current controller interface, or the apps - one that went right back to square one and used modern UX techniques. Things like the scheduler interface could be SOOOOO much better given the extra space available on a decent sized screen. Although from a cost/benefit perspective, I suspect most people fiddle with the schedule in the first week and then hardly ever touch it again.

              Comment

              • paulockenden
                Automated Home Legend
                • Apr 2015
                • 1719

                #22
                Does the V3 controller have a capacitive touch screen, or is it still resistive like with the V2?
                Last edited by paulockenden; 4 June 2015, 09:14 PM. Reason: Typo

                Comment

                • erik
                  Automated Home Guru
                  • Feb 2015
                  • 244

                  #23
                  sounds like good improvements to the system.

                  Comment

                  • davidaj
                    Automated Home Jr Member
                    • Jan 2015
                    • 37

                    #24
                    Originally posted by paulockenden View Post
                    Even if it was a box without a screen the controller would still be needed. And given that, surely it's better that it does have a screen?
                    My point is just that if you want the new features, for the price of the new controller you can get an iOS/Android device, so if the app was improved to support the new features I'd rather do this and keep the aging existing controller just for the comms and as a backup.

                    Comment

                    • davidaj
                      Automated Home Jr Member
                      • Jan 2015
                      • 37

                      #25
                      Originally posted by roydonaldson View Post
                      I use the controller all the time. It sits on top of the kitchen and we use it whenever we are in there to change the rooms etc. Nice and easy, it's always on, I don't need to go find my phone, undo the security lock on it, start the app. I can just touch the controller and use it.

                      I also use the app when I'm upstairs and have a tablet to hand, or if I'm out the house. I really like having the controller and think the combination of having both controller and app is perfect.
                      I agree that finding your phone, unlocking etc is a pain, but that is not what I'm suggesting. You have a separate, dedicated device, always unlocked, app always open. The more "automated" your home becomes, the more this becomes a benefit vs lots of dedicated devices.

                      If you want the new features are you going to spend £249 on the new controller, or buy a cheaper iOS/Android device instead, if the app supported the new features?

                      This announcement for new customers is great, for existing customers it is very disappointing that efforts have been spent on new hardware rather than what could have been achieved by focusing on the app development.

                      Comment

                      • paulockenden
                        Automated Home Legend
                        • Apr 2015
                        • 1719

                        #26
                        If the new features are cosmetic, then yes. But remember that the app simply displays data pulled off the existing controller. It would be hard to add new 'control' functionality via an app update.

                        Comment

                        • davidaj
                          Automated Home Jr Member
                          • Jan 2015
                          • 37

                          #27
                          From a hardware perspective, to all the other evohome components which actually turn things on and off, all the controller is doing to communicate with them is send data on a special frequency, the rest is software, so all you need is a device that can communicate on that frequency. The internet gateway must be able to do that since it talks to the controller, so the internet gateway plus the app would be capable of fully controlling the system.

                          Not trying to reverse engineer the system, but the intelligence is in the software, which the app (or gateway) can implement. To avoid the argument about "what if the internet is down", the app should be capable of connecting to the local wi-fi network if at home. The internet based control should be solely for purposes of controlling the system remotely.

                          Apple's HomeKit with a suitable bridge to broadcast on the special frequency will allow this, and I believe Honeywell are a partner with Apple on this, or is that just the Honeywell US division?

                          Comment

                          • paulockenden
                            Automated Home Legend
                            • Apr 2015
                            • 1719

                            #28
                            The app doesn't talk to the controller (there's no 868MHz radio in your phone). The app talks to a server in the US. It's two steps away from the controller.

                            P.

                            Comment

                            • davidaj
                              Automated Home Jr Member
                              • Jan 2015
                              • 37

                              #29
                              Originally posted by paulockenden View Post
                              The app doesn't talk to the controller (there's no 868MHz radio in your phone). The app talks to a server in the US. It's two steps away from the controller.

                              P.
                              I know and I never said it did.

                              An enhanced app and enhanced software in the internet gateway (which does use 868MHz) is all you really need, with optional ability for the app to connect to local wi-fi and bypass the internet when at home. The gateway would implement the software for the algorithms etc instead of the controller, then the gateway talks directly to the valves, relays etc. Many other products are implemented with this paradigm, e.g. Philips Hue (app->wi-fi/internet->ZigBee bridge->lights), Sonos (app->wi-fi->Mesh Network bridge->audio). Evohome would be app->wi-fi/internet->gateway->relay/valve.

                              The advantage of the original controller is it does not rely on a good wi-fi signal, which is funny, since the new controller does!

                              Comment

                              • paulockenden
                                Automated Home Legend
                                • Apr 2015
                                • 1719

                                #30
                                Thing is (and I'm not being negative, just trying to work through the possibilities) the app needs to be able to work away from home as well. It won't always have a direct connection to the gateway (or controller if it's a V3 system).

                                Although I suppose it could work like the Sky+ app, and have additional functionality when 'home'.

                                Anyway, the API is available.... are you any good at building apps?

                                P.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X