ITEAD Customer Care Center

Last week I lost control over my house, for 12 hours, because something went wrong with iTead systems.

Sonoff devices device works flawlessly per se, and I'm very happy to have 13 of them around my house.

But...

I'm beginning to think there's a glitch in their marketing model. I haven't thought for a moment that they want to spy on us, like some else implied in this forum, but every serious usage require redundancy and backup.

We cannot rely on the whole "cloud" model to be always working: too many things can go wrong on the user side, on itead side and, eventually, on the side of the many third party service providers involved (ISPs and Cloud providers above all).

Every digital and/or networking system might stop working every now and then. While we can surely afford not to remotely switch on a light, what about water heating, house heating, door opening, surveillance systems?

I did my best to build redundancy in my installations, but there are two factors that are not easily overcame.

First, some sonoff device might be (and in my case are) difficult to be physically reached: inside walls or up near the ceiling, the onboard switch is almost useless in these cases.

Second, Dual sonoff aren't capable of manually switching the connected devices on/off: if the system isn't working (i.e. they are offline), the only possible solution is to uninstall them, which is not acceptable at all.

iTead (and coolkit) seem to be trying to sell their solution to third parties (other manufacturers who are supposed to relay onto their whole solution, cloud included) which is cool. If I had to, I would guess that's why they are so "cloud-centered": to offer a easy and rapid solution, all included. It's cool. 

But other than toyish usages, without redundancy their solution is unimplementable: I hope they realize this soon (if they haven't already).

The solution that comes to mind is very simple, and a few have already suggested it here: a dual control system. The cloud is great for remote control, but when the app is on the same local network the sonoff devices are, everything should switch to local. Simply put: automatic switching to LAN control.

If I'm home, I should be able to control my devices even if my Internet connection is down.

If they could do this with an open protocol, that would be top. But after all, not everyone of us wants to build his/her own system: I'm cool with their app, they can keep their protocol reserved as much as they want. To me, the only thing that matters is that I don't ever lose control over my house again.

Other than the above, thank you iTead, I'm very happy with your products!

What do you think?

I noticed a update was available for the app today to allow support for the RF bridges so I updated to it.

A user on another forum suggested placing an access block on the sonoff so it couldn't access the internet.

I did this and tested local control. The app displays "controlled by lan" and the device does switch so maybe this update fixed the inability of my sonoffs support for this feature.

However here is the kicker the app still needs internet even though the sonoff does not.

What kind of control is that? My phone doesn't have a data plan so if the internet is down local control fails.

He probado el control Lan.

Algunos de mis dispositivos funcionan.

Pero otros como el CH4 PRO todavía no funcionan.

Espero que en las actualizaciones futuras todos trabajen con la red local.

Todavía hay mucho que pulir, pero es un primer paso.

Today one of my devices refused to function, variously giving me the message that it is offline and then working and then a message "control by lan" came up.
 Has anyone else experienced this message? Any clues?
I've been experimenting with these devices and I do think they are a good bang for the buck but I am leaning towards trying to re-flashing them to work with Blynk to get away from the itead.
https://github.com/tzapu/SonoffBoilerplate
Not mine, I'm just looking at it and wondering.

 

I've already explained the "controlled by Lan" message.

Since users have been asking for this or simular for over a year and itead has yet to get it right I'd recommend flashing your device as I've done for modules that I absolutely needed local control.

If your in no hurry for local control then hold off on flashing.

There are several firmwares for these posted on the net, one may suit your requirements.

It is incomprehensible to me that it cannot function in local-only mode from the start.  I bought three of these little boards to experiment with and the first one I tried seems to be operating nicely.  But there is no way I will rely on it for anything if it requires Internet connectivity.  Period. If there is more sensible firmware available I would like to try it, but the Github link cited above is not functional.  Failing this, they will remain on the shelf.  Pity, because I really like them otherwise.

Thanks.  I found the tasmota github repo after leaving this forum and did that research, finding many interesting tangents and products.  I was just a little disappointed that it was necessary.  I don't have a specific, urgent application.  I picked up the devices on a lark because they were cheap and I was pleased to see how conveniently I was able to make them operate.  But I was more than a little miffed to see the cloud dependency.  As to privacy, someone noted that it was unlikely that anyone in China would want to spy on me in order to know when I turn on the porch light, and I agree.  But this misses the point.  Privacy ought to be a default, and it is complacency that has led us down the road to where Google and Facebook know what many of us are thinking.  Social conventions and mindsets have fallen behind the technology and the implications are profound.

Anyway, since I can't plug and play this thing, it will go back on the shelf until such time as flashing firmware has a ROI that I deem worthy.

Thanks again for the prompt reply and pointers.

 

very good idea

 

In the last five days it has been offline most time, damn junk