Why I'm proposing we rename add-ons to "apps" (and why it matters for newcomers)

Configuration
1

Hey everyone :wave:

I recently opened Architecture Discussion #1287 proposing that we rename add-ons to applications, or actually just “apps”, and I wanted to share a video walking through my reasoning.

The core issue I’m trying to solve:

When newcomers open Home Assistant for the first time, they see two sections that sound very similar: “Add-ons” and “Integrations.” Both names imply something you add to extend HA, but they serve fundamentally different purposes:

  • Add-ons are standalone applications running alongside HA (managed by Supervisor)
  • Integrations are connections to external devices/services (managed within HA Core)

For those of us who’ve been in the ecosystem for a while, this distinction is second nature. But I keep seeing new users attempt to install add-ons when they need integrations (or vice versa), then spend time debugging what was really just unclear labeling.

Why “apps”?

The proposal is to use terminology that people already understand from their phones, computers, and everyday tech usage. Apps are things that run. Integrations are things that connect. This creates an immediately understandable mental model without requiring newcomers to learn Home Assistant-specific vocabulary.

What actually changes:

This is purely a UI and documentation change. Zero functional modifications. Your existing add-ons continue working exactly as they do today. No migration, no breaking changes, no reconfiguration needed.

The video:

I filmed this on a plane (so excuse the casual production), but it walks through:

  • Real examples of user confusion
  • Why “add-on” doesn’t effectively communicate what these things are
  • The alternatives that were suggested
  • Why this matters as the platform scales

Watch here:

Why I’m posting this here:

The GitHub discussion has been really valuable, but I know many community members don’t actively follow the architecture repo. Since this change would affect how we all talk about and teach Home Assistant, I wanted to make sure the broader community has a chance to weigh in.

I’m genuinely curious what you all think. Does “apps” feel more intuitive? Do you prefer keeping “add-ons”? Are there better alternatives I haven’t considered?

Looking forward to the discussion!

11 Likes
2

“App” has become an user term for almost any form of the software art.

The risk is replacing a distinct term with one that is generic and functionally overloaded.

'I installed the Home Assistant app, then the Shelly app, then tried the Android app."

HAOS? Integration? Add-on? Client?

Apps all the way down…

9 Likes
3

that is a good point, but in reality they really are all apps (applications).

I know it doesn’t quite roll off the tongue in the same way as simple ‘apps’, but maybe ‘managed apps’ is more accurate and less confusing?

‘official managed apps’ and ‘community managed apps’ to be even more explicit

1 Like
4

What are you going to call the Android/iOS app ? Or how are you going to make the distinction between the real Android/iOS apps and the HA add-ons ?

5 Likes
5

There are 530,272 known users of HA.

320,661 of them are known to have add-ons, so presumably the’ve figured it out.

Who are these hypothetical “newcomers” who won’t understand?

2 Likes
6

There is tons of information online referring to them as addons. These constant changes make every bit of online information outdated in no time, leading to just as much confusion as a name. Tons of contributors need to change their documentation.

Many addons are not really apps but services. Samba, Matter server, Open Thread Border Router, appdeamon, aircast barely fit the app designation.

And if you look at alarmo, which is an integration, could also easily referred to as an app. I’m just saying, whatever word is chosen, very likely people still won’t understand what an addon is.

And how would one explain that without HAOS, only container install, you can’t have apps? The confusion would be the greater.

8 Likes
7

You got me red handed… :man_facepalming:

Just so you know: I don’t have monetisation enabled at all. I’m in a different line of work to be honest.

edit: Nevermind, you’ve edited your post already.

2 Likes
8

The ones who won’t spend 5 minutes reading docs, even if you make them tick a box that they read the docs as part of the installation process.

Source: the numerous references to “HACS addons” in this very forum

5 Likes
9

I saw it was you (too late) and edited it away, hoping you did not see it :slight_smile:

2 Likes
10

To me, the existing name is the most intuitive one, just like having the default dashboard be for everyone that uses Home Assistant and not requiring anything special for it to work. But then, I’ve been around computers for the last thirty years as a hobby, so that’s how I think.

4 Likes
11

I agree a better term is needed. “add-on” is a non-standard word in a technical sense, and it’s incredibly broad in a generic English sense. At least “app” somewhat attaches the notion of something running on top of the operating system.

1 Like
12

I’m really tired of unnecessary name changes in Home Assistant.
Add-on is a perfectly fine word for me.

I do a lot of VBA development and you can develop Add-ons to Excel (and probably Word) which is code that gets loaded when the application starts up.
So it’s an add-on.

Just like the add-ons we have in Home Assistant as I see it.

Has any of the previous name changes actually made anything better?
Honestly?
When service calls got renamed to action that sits inside the actions part of an automation, did that immediately mean we got less questions about what an action/service call was?
I don’t know…

7 Likes
13

To be fair, you’re pointing out the exact problem. As add-ons aren’t code that get loaded at start up to extend functionality (like in the Excel example). They are actually really running next to it.

It in general it has been quite good to be honest, especially the rename of services, which is why I feel more confident to fix a few more, like this one.

3 Likes
14

Add-ons run in containers next to the container we call Home Assistant, don’t they? That’s how I understand things at least.

1 Like
15

In that case I’d say I’m neutral then.
I will not support it since I know it will become problematic for years with documentations (not just official), videos and forum posts that will say add-on.

16

chicken or egg?

can’t change or progress things, because that will obsolete everything prior

can’t leave things alone, because everything else changes and things break, are no longer applicable/efficient, better methods are discovered, etc

2 Likes
17

I don’t agree with this. For non-developers (all of my family) apps on their phones are just that. They have NO CLUE what an add-on is. Everything is an app.

But, those people do NOT install HA or mess with it at all. They deal with what I install.

The app is HA. Everything else is ‘integrated’ in some way. Those people don’t care.

We (developers) know HA is the server we run. On that server, we also have add-ons and integrations. The app is what we add to our families phones so they can enjoy our craziness (or hate it).

But, often, there are people coming in here that are not developers. The app instead of add-on thing will confuse them immensely.

I can’t imagine how tough it will be for the people on the forums to explain the difference between an HA ‘app’ on the server compared to THE HA app on devices to non developers.

6 Likes
18

I’ve always thought of this more like this: homeassistant being an integrationplatform with

  • Connectors These are software components that bring data/control into the core Home Assistant system. Currently known as integrations

  • Side-cars These are self-contained applications (often running in Docker containers) that provide a service that Home Assistant uses (like zwave/matter server or a message broker). Currently known as add ons.

I would not change the naming now

2 Likes
19

You do realise that even if you do help 10,000 people by changing the name, another 10,000 will be totally confused by their AI using the old name. :grin:

4 Likes
20

I’m not AI and I still use the old names sometimes.
It’s not that long ago I was thinking of Lovelace, and what’s that? Three years ago it changed?

Should I be honored being grouped with the AI’s?