Reasons for companies to only offer cloud-based smarthome connections?

Hey everyone,

for years now, the whole smarthome/homeautomation topic was only a topic for my free time outside work, but I’m currently trying to get a better understanding if that field would also potentially be interesting for me as something to work in for a living. A lot of (especially big) companies mainly focus their efforts on cloud-only solutions, and as for me the local-only/first philosophy of HA is a big thing, I’m trying to get a better understanding of the motivations of bigger companies. A few things I can come up with myself, and I’m currently trying to get some conversations going with some of those bigger companies to understand their reasoning “first hand”, but in the meantime I’d be curious what you think (or know) about why “cloud only” is currently the way to go for a lot of companies.

What I came up with so far:

  • Less effort and risk: when you want/need to offer a cloud-based solution anyway (because company strategy), then putting additonal effort (and an increased risk for things breaking and creating support cases) into an on-top local approach will cost you money, and potentially reputation if things don’t work out.

  • Small target group: compared to the millions and millions of people who have a smartphone and a washing machine and just want things to work, the core group of “privacy first” people is a very small one. Every Euro/Dollar spent there is therefore a less attractive investment. (Also: the group of “local ONLY” people is even smaller. How many HA users, me included, in the end “give up” and do install that integration that is built around the cloud api of the vendor, and how many are left who don’t?)

  • User lock-in: anything that needs an account and gets people used to your own app creates a certain lock-in effect. The strength of HA (allowing people to freely choose devices and integrations and vendors) is actually a disadvantage for a company from that perspective

  • Cross-selling: the app that tells your endusers that their dishwasher is done can easily advertise the “perfect” dishwasher soap from your business partner => additional revenue

  • Up-selling: when you know that a household bought a washing machine and a dishwasher from your brand, you can use the contact to that enduser to advertise the perfectly fitting clothes dryer. And in the (very) long run, the moment you know that the device is broken beyond repair, you can offer a discount for a replacement device, as you are the one who knows first that it’s broken, even before the owner knows :wink:

  • User/usage data: understanding your client is super important, but anyone who buys an IKEA lightbulb in cash and then at home connects it to a zigbee stick and HA stays invisible to you. As a company you need to understand your customers to make decisions around where you want to go with your smarthome efforts.

  • Easier development and iteration: with a cloud/app approach, the moment you implemented a cool new feature you can easily role it out to everyone, as long as they are connected to an appstore. Reaching users who use a local interface (and therefore convincing them that you built a really cool thing and that you are a top brand) is way harder and in a lot of cases simply impossible.

Those are the first and obvious ones that came to mind for me, what else can you think of? I’d be curious :slight_smile:

Cheers!

1 Like

It’s kind of a combination of parts of things already mentioned, but Planned Obsolescence might deserve a spot on the list… a company that locks in users and tracks what devices people own is well situated to figure out the rate at which they can “sunset” older devices and still have the majority of those users purchase their new devices as replacements. New devices that are minimal “upgrades” of previously developed devices are easier and cheaper to produce than the R&D for completely new devices to solve previously unsolved problems.

Also, even if unofficial firmware exists to keep a device working, most users are either unable or unwilling to find it and upload it… and some companies push updates knowing that they will brick devices completely.

I get your point, let’s for a moment assume that would be a factor: even devices that provide a local interface do their firmware updates via an internet connection. Your planned bricking of a device would therefore be independent from how the device can be interfaced with by the user.
Also: bricking a fully working device ALWAYS creates bad press, I cannot imagine that this plays a big role outside of edgecase considerations to be honest.

Subscription revenue.

If you sell a product that works completely locally, you lose control to modify the product in the future. If you require cloud, then you have the power to modify the software and its behavior at any time. Most importantly, you can add a paywall or increase the cost at any time. Missing your quarterly revenue target? Raise the monthly subscription $1.

It’s that simple.

Adobe showed the business world the path, and many companies are eagerly embracing it.

1 Like

Do you have an example of a company within the home automation scope where controlling/monitoring it via an app requires a subscription? I get your adobe example for standalone software, but i cant think of a smarthome company in the scope of my original post

Chamberlain MyQ?

Ah, good one, thanks. They do check those boxes indeed, although I have to admit that especially stuff like video availability and face detection does create costs for storage and processing power. From what I found at least the bare functionality of opening/closing a gate and to view the live image of the camera is still free.