Channel on IFTTT

[rantta 2]

It would be nice to have Fibaro working via

Please login or register to see this link.

(If This Then That).

 

There is already channels for Honeywell, LIFX, Nest, Netatmo, Wemo and so on.

[pathduck 18]

100+ on this. Strange that there is not more wishes about this...

[julexmon 21]

+1

[loopez 7]

++1

[alecon 2]

+1

[emielstroeve 22]

-1

What's the use?

From a priority perspect this would be on my bottom list

Cheers

Emiel

[pathduck 18]

-1

What's the use?

From a priority perspect this would be on my bottom list

Cheers

Emiel

Well not to be blunt but most other popular services see the need for it.

 

Having a cloud based common interface for hundreds of services is really good. A top programmer would never ever be able to LUA his way to that kind of functionality. Since Fibaro are so slow with integration of plugins or not allowing third party plugins this is for me a huge priority being able to use services like:

Pushover,Dropbox, Google disk, Android, android wear, tasker, NFC, GPS tracking that works, Phillips hue that works, Nest, Harmony, internet of things devices, etc etc.

 

Most manufactorers will use IFTTT  and having one common place to automate is a huge deal!

[Juan Fco 0]

++1

[Enigma 9]

Fibaro said in 2012 they were going to add ifttt support..........  

Please login or register to see this image.

/emoticons/default_icon_rolleyes.gif" alt=":roll:" />

 

(ref: 

Please login or register to see this link.

[MalvinYNJ 4]

Enigma, article was written by Ant Skelton who spoke to the Fibaro’s sales director regarding the IFTTT update in the future. I doubt the words of sales director. They are not in charge of development thus his comment was just an assumption. I do not think Fibaro themselves has come out to speak about the support on ifttt.

[Enigma 9]

It still came from a Fibaro Director.. I'll assume Michal who I've had a lot of dealings with myself in the past, he has been the main spokesperson for Fibaro. Since there's no decent roadmap that everyone has been asking for for the past 3 years, this is what we have to go on!

 

I know they have had developer problems in the past, the original android app delay being a casualty of one.

 

My simple point sits alongside all the other 'features' and 'products' that Fibaro have mentioned that have not yet materialised. Surely IFTTT would have been very simple to implement and be very useful to help interface with other technologies. Whilst we all wait for suggested features and things to actually work well our HC2's are not getting any younger, getting further outdated and will be on their way to silicon heaven no doubt before some of these features appear......

[Alzi 6]

+1 IFTTT for Fibaro

[Dalle1985 16]

Cloud based home automation - yikes, talk about a Security nightmare! For me it is paramount that my entire home automation interface is nested securely behind my firewall and does not rely on external servers! I control everything from heating over lighting and door locks to my shower through my home automation system,mso if somehow someone got into my IFTTT or were able to inject bad signals into the stream, they could potentially make a huge mess of it.

I'm a much bigger advocate for someone doing the hard work for creating a proper multi protocol home automation server which integrates everything into one nice package. I have done so for my own components integrating all my different IOT stuff into one common interface, but without someone attaining Google/Apple like status with a dominating protocol, this is the only solution. There are some systems out there, but they are very nerdish and forget the end user and making it user friendly. IFTTT is somewhat user friendly, but still lack a proper interface for home automation use. And there is still the question of reliability, speed and security

[Enigma 9]

Cloud based home automation - yikes, talk about a Security nightmare! For me it is paramount that my entire home automation interface is nested securely behind my firewall and does not rely on external servers! I control everything from heating over lighting and door locks to my shower through my home automation system,mso if somehow someone got into my IFTTT or were able to inject bad signals into the stream, they could potentially make a huge mess of it.

I'm a much bigger advocate for someone doing the hard work for creating a proper multi protocol home automation server which integrates everything into one nice package. I have done so for my own components integrating all my different IOT stuff into one common interface, but without someone attaining Google/Apple like status with a dominating protocol, this is the only solution. There are some systems out there, but they are very nerdish and forget the end user and making it user friendly. IFTTT is somewhat user friendly, but still lack a proper interface for home automation use. And there is still the question of reliability, speed and security

 

I do get your point, its the same one I make to my IT customers, I'm no great fan of 'the cloud' and having systems on shared resources. Even email and website hosting has its issues with this. But I don't believe it shouldn't exist either, it still has its place!

 

There is middle-ground here also. Its called flexibility and choice! And everyone's requirements are different. If someone wishes to use IFTTT then that's their choice to consider the risks and what they actually set it to do or have access to. Your approach is more from the perspective of keeping things restrictive.

 

You do realise for all this time it is already possible with the Fibaro HC2 already and remote access using hosted servers. How secure do you think the fibaro solution is compared to IFTTT? The difference being Fibaro give FULL access to the HC2. Using IFTTT can be selective (by the user). Turning on a garden light with a facebook post (for a generic example) is not going to allow burglars access to your home!

Please login or register to see this image.

/emoticons/default_smile.png" alt=":)" srcset="https://forum.fibaro.com/uploads/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />

 

EDIT: Oh and the other point, It would be great if Fibaro integrated with much more products, maybe one day this will be the case with plugins and maybe integration with other interfaces/controllers. But that's been a very slow road.. and one that isn't keeping up with other technologies. So some of us are getting into a position of having to have more than one system.

[Dalle1985 16]

I would like to see anyone break into my HC2, even Fibaro... The difference is that I am able to control dataflow to the HC2 - that is not the case with an IFTTT channel. But I do agree that the way Fibaro is able to create a reverse VPN to my box is a bit concerning - which is why it is hidden behind a firewall and a blocked router which does not allow for internet connection. I have one port (not telling which one) open between my home automation network and my normal wifi network and a webserver which communicates using an encrypted protocol between the two sides. I don't use the fibaro interface unless I absolutely have to, so it really isn't a problem for me, but it is a general safety concern - and I have hacked my HC2 just to check how secure it is - and it really isn't that safe.

I do get your point about flexibility but it still lacks the interface and speed for proper home automation. When I flirted with IFTTT i often experienced very significant delays.

[Enigma 9]

I'm not saying IFTTT is the best thing since sliced bread or anything.. yes I've seen delays too. But its more a convenience to help integrate separate technologies that otherwise can't talk to each other, and in some cases delays would be acceptable. There would be no need for IFTTT to have direct access to the HC2 if all is done correctly.

 

There's two parts to this.. IF and THEN.

 

I'd be happy if we even had the IF to begin with.. very secure! Just an outbound connection initiated FROM the HC2 to IFTTT to help trigger configurable events. I'm sure I could fudge something now, with notifications or middleware but it cant be that hard to have a plugin that could help with this instead.

 

I'm sure the requirement for THEN could still be handled in a restrictive method. I can think of some ways, although not being a developer just a techie I wont start a debate on that and leave that to Fibaro.

Please login or register to see this image.

/emoticons/default_smile.png" alt=":)" srcset="https://forum.fibaro.com/uploads/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />

[pathduck 18]

Well by supporting it they could focus more on making it secure and let the IFTTT tie in towards other services, that and enabling third party plugins. They would have loads of time to focus on the their system not on developing features already available. The plugins and extras they have today is just another remote there is absolutley no automation present, Sonos, Samsung etc it is just remotes. I do not need that.

[Dalle1985 16]

Well by supporting it they could focus more on making it secure and let the IFTTT tie in towards other services, that and enabling third party plugins. They would have loads of time to focus on the their system not on developing features already available. The plugins and extras they have today is just another remote there is absolutley no automation present, Sonos, Samsung etc it is just remotes. I do not need that.

Not having tested the plugins, I don't know how easy they are to integrate (I'm deliberately kreping my box at v.3.something until I'm sure they've ironed the bugs out of V4) but it sounds like a very poor business decision if they decided to not include the possibility of interacting with the plugins. I have a few VDs which interact with several different components, and those are really what makes the hc versatile, as zwave alone is too restrictive.

Look, I agree completely that we need some sort of common protocol to handle the communication cross protocol, I just really can't see IFTTT doing it.

I'm actually quite surprised that no one has done the job of creating a server software which provides the ability to interface across protocols through the public APIs which many manufacturers are providing today.

[pathduck 18]

If i am not able to pick up on functions for devices in plugins under scenes. Then what they are is only this:

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

And that is no diffrent than this:

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

And the ones in HC2 suck compared to the official apps and physical remotes fot the devices themselves.

 

I thought the whole point with a sentral control system like HC2 was the ability to automate what before was manual. Yes i am aware that it is possible to program these functions in LUA, but i do not want to do that. I do not want to spend time programming everything. I want services like IFTTT and HC2 to do it for me. I do not understand why it is hard to make a secure connection between the two if the others make it work Fibaro should ba able to as well. Yes security is a threat but lets face it if someone really wanted to brake in to you house or hurt you in any way they will be ablo to do so even though your HC2 is behind a firewall and a secure channel. 

[Enigma 9]

I've noticed Fibaro themselves are attempting an IFTTT style  system I can see.. With this Magic Wizard.

 

Please login or register to see this image.

 

Which is a good idea (looks like a slight rip off of IFTTT) but that's not my concern . It can help simplify the process for those who are not familiar with LUA and I'm sure some might find the graphic blocks confusing.

 

It appears quite limited still at the moment, I don't know the long term plan but I couldn't see any integration with virtual devices. I also tried it for turning on a light for 5 mins when opening a door and failed, couldn't see how it was possible so I reverted to Graphic Blocks.

 

The big problem we have is Fibaro seem to take years to implement the simplest of things, we haven't got years.. our HC2's will be dead before half of promised features appear. 

 

Security shouldn't be part of this request, If someone feels its an issue then don't use it. We're talking systems that already exist and other parties of products most of us already own or use are already integrated with IFTTT, so its a proven system and since it would be optional to use/setup it shouldn't be of anyone's concern.

 

So I can only imagine the hold up based on the above. My guess being Fibaro decided rather than integrate with IFTTT, to do their own version instead but typically this will take a lot more time. would be nice if Fibaro told us what the plans are..?