I’m looking for advice on what technical information should be requested from a manufacturer for a possible local-control preservation project.
A Korean IoT manufacturer is discontinuing cloud/app service for one of its smart plug products. I contacted them and proposed that the device could potentially be preserved as a “Legacy / Developer Edition” rather than becoming e-waste.
The company replied that they are internally reviewing whether they can share technical information for the developer community.
The manufacturer has not approved public disclosure yet, so I cannot share the company name, product name, private emails, or internal details at this stage.
I would like to ask:
What information would be needed to determine whether ESPHome support is feasible?
Would the following be enough for an initial evaluation?
MCU / Wi-Fi module name
whether it is ESP8266, ESP32, BK72xx, Realtek, etc.
UART pins
GPIO mapping
relay/button/LED pins
power monitoring chip, if present
flash size
original firmware backup or OTA image, if legally shareable
If the device uses BK72xx, is ESPHome with LibreTiny still a realistic path, or would OpenBeken be a better first target?
What should I avoid asking the manufacturer to share publicly for legal/security reasons?
The goal is to create a responsible preservation path for discontinued IoT hardware, not to pressure the company or publish private information prematurely.
If the manufacturer later approves disclosure, I will share model details, photos, and technical information.
That they are willing to at least consider making information available for a project like this is positive. Let’s hope they are able to release enough information on the hardware to allow us to continue to support it
Every real cooperation will deny such requests for ownership and rather do the direct opposite (enshittification) by pushing some update disabling local functions forcing customers to pay again. Ether for subscriptions (re-enable formerly free functions) or by buying new. It’s not just in their interest to pass the ownership to the buyer as it will probably result in fewer revenues
Yes, and the manufacturer can’t even do anything againat it - you can just take full ownership/control over the device you bought by flashing esphome. Unlike with other technologies, like secured matter devices (or Z-tech like the linked futurehome debacle), which don’t allow ownership but instead can be even “limited” by the owner (manufacture) remotely
I’m pretty sure he’s talking about a product that will become useless if/when the company stops supporting it officially, not a new product in development.
Well, is it? “Willing to at least consider”… is that really better then just to be honest into the customers face like “fvck you” or long story “we will not waste one more cent/second on our x year old product. Buy our new shiny product and fvck off”.
Aka “don’t be evil”
You really think the manufacture is needed for this?
Do you think any manufacture of the 700+ devices listed under this link did provide any information at all? Or did actually users sourced all these and made them available?
I don’t really understand what would be the outcome you are hoping to obtain..
It takes less time to take it apart and see what’s inside than writing your original post. On the other hand, if it was compatible with esphome/tasmota, you would likely find information by online search.
Don’t want to open it? Well, do you hope that manufacturer pushes ota update with esphome firmware before discontinuing it? I would be really surprised.
Bust one open with the risk that you may destroy it in the process. Post pics if you need help to understand what you’re looking at. MCU/wifi module is main thing. But make sure you’ve google imaged hard for “teardowns” before you do that as you may save yourself the trouble, and check thoroughly for existing projects.
Many (but certainly not all) smart plugs have notoriously short lifetimes too, which also plays into the value of the whole exercise.
