[supergeek133]

That's what I don't get, why they didn't just start with pure math/data when reaching out to the developer.

The only thing I can think of is someone outside of the "knowledge chain" caught wind of it and just fired of the legal threat.

For instance, if I told some people inside my company how much traffic HA uses in terms of how many users are on it they'd probably freak out like this too.

But their reason (cost and traffic) is the biggest reason we don't like it either.

[rekoil]

> But their reason (cost and traffic) is the biggest reason we don't like it either.

So stop building cloud-only device interaction then... Home Assistant users will take a LAN API over a cloud API any day.

A LAN API should satisfy everyone really, no unnecessarily large bills for the manufacturer, and Home Assistant users can get better/faster integrations with shorter update intervals.

[randomfrogs]

But if it's a LAN API, how exactly will the manufacturer harvest your usage information to sell to third parties? How will they get that sweet, sweet, post-sale monetization?

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

> So stop building cloud-only device interaction then... Home Assistant users will take a LAN API over a cloud API any day.

Normal users don't want a LAN API though. They want an app that works. They want an app that works, and keeps working, even if their WiFi access point has client isolation, or their phone decides that it doesn't like the WiFi and switches to a cellular connection. They might even expect the app to work while they're not at home, and they certainly won't set up working NAT for it.

That means that the vendor has to implement a cloud API for the majority of users. At that point, it's probably cheaper to only have their app use that cloud API, even if the devices are on the same network and could see each other, simply due to the complexity of switching and maintaining the extra logic.

So the LAN API would be a completely separate feature that would have to be developed separately, and without extra effort, it would likely quickly go stale or break because there are no official use cases exercising it. That means a lot of spending for a small subset of users.

As much as I'd want a local API and would likely avoid most cloud-only devices that I can't somehow convert, I understand why vendors do it.

[plagiarist]

I still cannot believe HA users will accept a cloud API at all. I thought HA was about centralizing control of devices on one's own hardware. If you're using a cloud API the control is neither centralized nor on your hardware.

[supergeek133]

Understood, and I've advocated for this at my company, but I like to talk about things I have sphere of influence over.