I understand. I experienced the same confusion 7 years ago.
For me really doesn’t matter that there are two ways of extending HA. The most important thing (to me, but I believe to anybody) is to name these methods clearly and distinctively.
Calling docker containers add-ons, while there are “other addons” in form of custom integrations available at the same time was the biggest problem to me.
This is why I’m glad this discussion has been introduced.
Custom integrations are not addons.
Custom (or unofficial) addons are addons and both custom (or unofficial) and official addons are docker containers. addons of all kinds are docker containers.
Addons do not really extend HA.
Addons are virtual servers or VMs (al though with a low virtualization degree).
You need an integration for HA to connect to the virtual servers, just like if it was a cloud server or a Philips or Aqara Hub (which are also servers).
I assume you are answering my recent post, aren’t you?
Custom integrations are not addons.
It’s true in the HA nomenclature.
In the common sense (hence for newcomers), it remains untrue. Everything that adds a feature might be called an add-on.
No it is not - and that is the basis entire argument full stop.
newbies may MISNAME them as addons but they aren’t. That is ok people learn. Changing the name doest mean they don’t need to learn it’s just a new name
That said I haven’t read a single point in this entire thread where renaming ANYTHING clears up any confusion at all. In fact it only makes things worse and just renames things for renaming point… Therefore I don’t see any point in doing it in the first place. Keep it as it is. We’re going in circles now.
What was that other one… Backward… I compat. ugh
Its breaking changes it will always be breaking changes stop renaming things just to sound cute.
There are no newcomers in this thread anymore… So yes. it may look like renaming for sake of renaming.
I described my impression/confusion at time I joined HA. And yes, naming is not distinct/descriptive as it deserves to be.
BTW recently my colegue (experienced DBA, even older and experienced more than me) started with HA - and has the same objections to the naming. - So I’m not alone.
If is it worth to change or not - is another question. I don’t think this activity is to make them cute. If so, then it’s really not worthy. But I believe it’s t make naming more distinct and understable.
In general, avoiding changes just because of “complicated”, then agreeing on leaving dept untouched is worst option long term.
Imho Maxym it only serves to confuse more. Hundreds and thousands of docs would now refer to something that ‘doesn’t exist’ (it would in a new name) and the number of basic
Where’s my addon or.
Why can’t I run (whatever the new name for addons is) as it’s own docker container?
It would not change ANYTHING.
We (the collectve user COMMUNITY) would ONLY get MORE question volume against the same knowledge. (same questions with addition of questions about new names and why new names and how names map)
No. That’s not doing anyone ANY Good.
Want to do good- get us passkey auth
(and had I been Frenks dev manager the idea would not have survived first thought - deny: complicates user use cases.)
Then don’t argue with me. I just oferred my experience as a newcomer and some naming proposals. I’m not a decission maker. You don’t need to convince me. Argue with the OP.
I don’t think many, or any, are implying, suggesting, or thinking that integrations and addons are the same thing, or that they should be combined into the same term.
Words matter, and words are also different between languages and cultures.
Existing lexicon also matters, as well as existing documentations and media.
The benefit of changing either of these terms, has to outweigh the loss of existing docs and media (and the effort to update them), the confusion of both old and new users, and actually improve the ideas that those terms infer to the average person.
Whether that can happen, who knows. Ideally there would be hard data that backs up any reason for or against, but that seems like a difficult ask.
I think we all want the best thing for home automation in general, and Home Assistant specifically.
FWIW, not long ago I explained HA concepts (specifically integrations and add-ons) to a technically savvy friend, but not at all experienced with running systems like HA. I had sent him a box full of parts to run his own HA instance.
These are not difficult concepts – most are familiar that there are (web) services “out there” that software can access (integrate) with. Adding them locally is a bit more confusing if you don’t really know about Docker. Explaining add-ons to my friend did require explaining what Docker is.
I asked my friend yesterday about the term “apps” and he was confused and said “apps” are something you interact with directly. He didn’t really think what you call it is that important. The important part is understanding the parts that make up HA.
I think we originally discussed that add-ons were similar to cloud services – but, eh, local cloud services… That’s confusing. 
Where this becomes tricky (and I’m going to assume you do know the difference) is where you have an add-on and integration by the same name, where they work together. In other words, there’s an add-on that’s standalone software, that’s then integrated (connected) to HA via the integration. My point is merely that there is an important distinction to be kept, and this cannot be changed, as it’s core to HA’s system architecture.
Well, the post above loped it all inside the term “capabilities”, both integrations and addons and that was what I tried to clear up.
I am also on the side here that do not want a change of the name unless the change can really make it clearer for a newcomer what it means.
The thing with the forum is it only represents a percentage of people that use HA. There is many other users on FB, discord, reddit etc. Whatever the familiar platform is for them.
I believe I first fired up my HA instance in early 2020, I would only search google for answers that would bring me to the forum at times. I joined as an active member in early 2023.
Further from this post potential new userbase far outweighs current users.
There is many people in the world that do want what HA can provide. If we can make it more accessible and intuitive, this will help break down the barriers of the overwhelming learning curve.
I remember a time when even clicking through the settings menu was unintuitive. Thinking to myself why in the hell is that setting there.
With that said the current settings menu does explain what these things are quite adequately.
Addition of Tooltips could be a solution, with definitions of what each component is, when hovering the link. Tooltips could be turned ON or OFF via the profile page and set as default ON for new installs.
If “capabilities” is too broad in not making it clear that add-ons are really separate entities, how about “partners”?
“Home Assistant can partner with, for example, ESPHome and Cloudflared, and it can help you set them up. Or you can set them up and add the capability to communicate with them.”
Partner sounds to me, like if it is first or third party, or in other words official or unofficial.
ESPHome is Home Assistant, so that is official and not partner, because that is themself.
Cloudflare is an official integration and not an addon, so that would not be a partner either.
The addons (and integrations) that are not core ones will usually be done by an independent user, so they are not official ones, but also not really partners. Like if cloudflare was an unofficial one, then it would not be done by cloudflare, but by some maybe by JamieJam
Well… from my point as an average user (not developer or programmer) it’s really not important at all, to be honest, as it’s also not for most such “average” users, i’d say.
For me it really doesn’t matter if my “addon” is standalone program or running inside HA, if i installed it from HACS or from HA store… as long it’s there for improving my HA installation. I “ADD” something “ON” my existing HA and it works as HA improvement, so for me it’s “addon” no matter where i installed it from or where it’s located nor how it works… This is only important for potential developers, or people who will change this original “addon” - they must know where it is and how it works.
(yes, i know the difference now, but i didn’t at the beginning).
i guess it’s like… when an average user installs a program in windows PC he doesn’t know (and doesn’t care) if that program was developed/runs in java, visual basic, C++ or whatever… as long as he double-clicks on it and it runs it’s end of story for him.
What I’m pointing out is that one cannot use the same name for two things that are fundamentally different.
Not at all the same. The PC analogy would be the difference between a driver for your new fancy mouse vs. some application like MS Word or your browser.
And what I AM pointing out that it’s totally the same for someone who isn’t in IT or programming. As said a few times already: don’t think from programmers view, think from “peasant” view: with eyes of someone who doesn’t have much of a clue…
Doesn’t really matter: when you, say, buy a mouse you stick it into usb, wait a while and work. What installs behind is less important than weather in alaska (for non-alaskan, of course…)
All this topic has made me realise is some people’s unwillingness to even try and understand something and based on that, no renaming of any kind will make a difference to those people.
I was the one that first suggested “add-on apps” on the GitHub issue, before it was suggested here, which I’m still in favour of, but otherwise, if that’s not going to help, then I’d rather stick with what we have. It’s not worth the effort then and I definitely don’t want to end up in a worse situation (which will be the case of no distinction is made).
The only reason this is a problem, is because there are implications for the user tied to the technical implementation. So either take away the implications, or make people understand the implications of what they need to install.
The word app is so generic that it will not help people understand what it means to them that the technologies behind it differ. So it is not a solution to the problems people face. The confusion will stay the same.
As some one spending each and every day on the forum helping people understand HA, I dare say it will make it harder to explain when people get confused.
Can you install the Music Assistant or Frigate app the same way you install the Companion app? I’ve checked the app store but I cannot find it. The you tube video sais I need an add on but there is no such thing in HA. Why can’t I use the Frigate app if I use Container install?
