Originally posted by Rameses
View Post
evohome Wi-Fi
Collapse
X
-
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
Originally posted by paulockenden View PostEven 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?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by roydonaldson View PostI 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.
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
-
-
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
-
-
Originally posted by paulockenden View PostThe 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.
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
-
-
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
-
Comment