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.
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.
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.