Re: Mini-ITX PC's a the future of HA (was Re: X-10 Mister House Motion sensor problems)

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xLmdnSXLu_bUhxPZnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> HomeSeer *could* have looked at the Elks and Omnis of the
>> world and created a panel that handled not only security, but
>> lots of routine automation tasks as well.  After all, if panels are
>> better suited to security because they are more reliable, then
>> wouldn't that same sort of reliability be good for home
>> automation too?  HS, then, would seem to be taking an
>> unreliable course. But we both know that's not the case.
>
> Agreed.  They are a software developer -- not a hardware
> manufacturer.  They realize, as I'm sure you also do, that
> there is a market for PC-centric, software based automation
> systems, another market for hardware-only systems
> and yet another for hybrid, PC + dedicated panel HA solutions.

The question is: which of those three will prevail - or, will they pretty
much remain the same.  My contention is that the arrival of a small form
factor PC made by an experienced chip maker like VIA has really upset the
balance that's existed for quite some time.

> HomeSeer was born a software program that interfaced with
> the Napco Gemini P9600 security system.  Rich said at the time
> that his goal was to develop an app that would add features to a
> panel-based alarm system.  He chose the P9600 because it had a
> reasonably easy to manage (if poorly documented) serial interface > which
allowed 2-way communication and control.

The key here was to "add features."  At that time the power of the PC was
still hard to assess.  But the potential for interoperability was there in
the 2-way interfaces.  IIRC, about the only HA game in town back then was
X-10.

> This isn't a guess on my part.  We discussed the issues at length
> at the time because I provided HS with hardware and tech
> support on the Napco system.  HS has followed their initial
> business plan all along, developing in-house and 3rd party plug-
> ins for a number of different panels and ancillary systems --
> lighting, HVAC, irrigation, etc.  They have offered fully loaded
> HA servers in the past.  I'm sure they'll contimue to test the
> waters with various PC platforms but I doubt they'll come out
> with a hardware panel any time soon.

Neither do I.  In fact, I don't think anyone other than those already making
them are going to come out with a new hardware panel for combined HA and
security.  That path's becoming a dead end because PC's are becoming
cheaper, more reliable and more powerful every day.  Most alarm panels, for
all their smarts, are pretty damn dumb.  Ask any police department what
their false alarm rate is and that will tell you.  Most jurisdictions have
had to institute heavy fines for multiple false alarms.

False alarms: stupid users or stupid panels?   IMHO, an alarm panel than
can't distinguish between a real intrusion and an owner accident is stupid.
Adding a PC to the mix could easily provide the intelligence for the system
to 'realize' that the owner went outside to take out the garbage without
disarming the system.  Most alarm setups can't really distinguish between an
exit and an entry, just that a sensor had been tripped.

The "next big thing" in alarms and HA has to be the house that's smart
enough NOT to call the police until it's sure that there's a problem.
Conversely, it has to be equally as smart in summoning the police or fire
department when there's *any* chance of harm to life or property.   That
kind of horsepower will never come from a proprietary panel just because
they are so many technological revolutions behind the PC.

> > What's really happening is that the years of proprietary
> > panel protocols, inability to access networks, inability
> > to interface with home automation and AV gear and
> > lots of other issues have put the mark of death on
> > panels...
>
> As a genre?  If that is what you mean, I disagree.  Some panels will
> certainly fall by the wayside.  Some already have.  Others will contimue
to
> evolve and prosper.

I'm afraid that's not what's been happening to every other US industry.
Mergers and acquisitions.  When was the last new security panel introduced
that brought a new player into the market?  Been a while, hasn't it?  Might
be well nigh unto forever before we see that happen again.  Even existing
proprietary panels are becoming a kludged nightmare of bolt-on accessories
that come standard on a PC.  Not only standard, but tested daily by
thousands, maybe millions of users.

Most security and HA panels are now "wannabe" PC's with their add-on modems,
Ethernet, video, etc. modules.  At some "tipping point" it no longer becomes
viable to go the "build your own CPU alarm board" route if your competitors,
using a PC based-foundation, can give away free all the goodies that you
have to charge your client extra for?  Worse, still, for the panel-centric
world is that Via's only going to make mini PC's smaller and cheaper in the
future because of the great wave of R&D at work throughout the entire PC
world.

> > Vendor's panels (let's take Omni because I own their
> > gear) have been steadily "growing" in size and
> > complexity and add-on modules to account for these
> > shortcomings.  I claim it's an unsustainable task in the
> > long run because competitors can enter the market
> > using a mini PC as their foundation HW and have both
> > a cheaper and superior product as a result...
>
> If the system isn't mission critical, that is true.  However, if the
> job includes physical security (access control), electronic
> security (burglar alarm) and/or life safety (fire alarm, medical
> alert, etc.), there will continue to be a growing need for dedicated
> hardware panels which will function for many hours during power
> outages, won't hang because the latest upgrade to Acrobat uses
> up 99.997% of the CPU time (argghhh!), etc.

There's where what Dean was saying comes into play.  If you configure them
correctly, even Windows PC's can be remarkably reliable.  I've seen them
used in 911 call centers and other mission critical applications.  As long
as the end users are not allowed to load programs or access critical system
components, things are pretty much OK.  Never underestimate the ingenuity of
the end user.  I remember a while back some soldiers had managed to load a
game onto their tank's computer system.

> > A more powerful CPU gives you lots of options a
> > panel can't.  Lots.
>
> That is true.  HS offers a hybrid solution which allows one to take >
advantage of the PC's flexibility and power as well as a solid
> panel's reliability and load handling.  IMO that's the best of both
> worlds.  I like HS but from what I've learned so far, CQC might
> be a better choice for my own next project.  Whichever I choose,
>  it'll have to work with the ELK-M1G  panel.  If Dean would give
> me the courtesy of a reply the choice would be easier. (hint)

This is the internet.  It runs at least partly on PCs.  What makes you think
your letter got through?  Now, if you had used a panel-based transport
mechanism . . . <just a joke>

>> No one building a custom board can possibly compete with the
>> horsepower and flexibility of the modern PC, particularly as
>> embodied in Via's mini-ITX. That means Elk's competition can
>> produce a PC-based alarm and HA system for  the cost of
>> designing some interface peripherals and some software.  The
>> expensive custom board design and manufacture drops out of
>> the equation.
>
> True, but not many PC's can connect, monitor and control over
> 200 inputs and outputs, run for a couple of days without 110VAC
> after a storm, and pass muster with the local building inspector as
> a fire alarm control panel.

In terms of processing horsepower, handling 200 inputs for a 1GHz machine is
child's play.  The panels that once ran the show will be relegated to smart
I/O boards connecting to a PC's Ethernet or serial ports.  My Via draws 12W
from the 110VAC line.  I haven't tried to run it from a 60AH scooter AGM
battery, but I'll bet it will run for a while.  Inspectors may, indeed, be
sticking points.  I'm sure that historically they've supported legacy
devices over innovation so they tend to act as "brakes" on progress.  The
same is true for all the alarm installers across the nation who are
comfortable with the current panel-centric world.  But the tech that knows
PCs is fungible across some pretty wide technologies and that gives him an
advantage.  The smart techs are going to be the ones to help the transition
from panel to PC-based security and home automation.

> Your points are well taken but they don't make PC'based systems
> a complete *replacement* for panel based systems.  There is and
> IMO will continue to be a strong market for both.

A strong market means new competitors entering the field, at least in my
mind.  We aren't seeing that in the alarm and HA panel world, at least I'm
not.  We're seeing new protocols, and in a sense those could be conceived of
as "panels" in their own right, but as far as a new Elk, or HAI entering the
fray, I don't recall seeing any recently.  I got the clear sense that almost
the opposite was happening with ADI not introducing anything new for several
years and Elk and HAI mostly making interfaces to other systems as add-ons.

> At present, panel based systems own the major portion of the
> market.

I agree.

> How much of that they will give up to PC-based systems over
> the coming years is anybody's guess.  My bet is the two will
> merge somewhat as panel makers start to incorporate PC-like
> architecture. Only time will tell, eh?

I think that's a reasonable assessment of the future.  There isn't going to
be any "panel Passover" where all the first-generation HA/Security "combo
panels" are all made to disappear and only the PC's anointed with lamb's
blood survive.  But it's going to become harder and harder to justify custom
designs as Via (and others) start shrinking full powered PC's more and more,
until they are wall wart sized.

> > ... Just as security panels grew PC-like parts, I predict
> > HomeSeer *will* be producing other, specialized
> > hardwire like sensor interfaces that would remove a lot
> > of the incentive to buy an Elk or Omni...
>
> Some developers might, but I don't think Rich has the
> wherewithall or the inclination to do it.  We haven't discussed
> this in some time so I can't say for certain.

I'm still "routing for Ethernet" (is that pun?) as the solution of choice
for HA.  It's fast, it's dirt cheap now, at least for hubs and NICs and
chips on PCs, and it's well understood, documented and debugged.  All HA
equipment can really be seen as microcomputers on a large network.  A really
smart switch should be able to tell who touched it (or spoke to it - or
looked at it and blinked twice - or thought the word "ON" while standing
near it).  That's my interest in discussion here:  Where is the future of
HA?  How do we deal with the unruly assembly of appliances and devices that
constitute the average high-tech household?

> > For security, as Bob B. pointed out, hardwired panels
> > still have some advantages.  They don't depend on MS
> > for underlying OS, for one thing.  PCs have become
> > incredibly robust over the last 20 years because they
> > have been constantly refined.  Yet because they have
> > been running MS software, they've taken the rap for
> > being unreliable and needing burping and booting every
> > day.
>
> Interesting aside -- While working with Edwards a few years ago
> on the development of their then-next (does that make sense?)
> series of fire alarm control panels, I saw the inclusion of some
> very PC-like functionality in the panel.  I'm not able to disclose
> exactly what but the innards reminded me of an older style
> computer I've worked with years ago.

Just more proof that the two technologies are on a collision course.  With
the advent of the truly workable small footprint PC like Via's, I think
we'll soon see another leap forward towards the PC based products.

> > ... they made "panel v. PC" decision a long time
> > ago and it's only with the arrival of the highly
> > reliable, fanless and very small ITX that they
> > could finally realize that choice in a HW product.
>
> Yep and yep again.

I think it's important to keep a watch out for those "next big things" in
whatever field you're in.  That's where fortunes are made and lost and
people find themselves either in high demand or out on the street.

> > Year after year, more and more "modules" are being
> > added to these proprietary panels and they get more
> > complex (and thus inherently less reliable) and more
> > expensive as a result.  They are trying to communicate
> > like PCs and be as "smart" as PC's but they can't get
> > there from where they are and never will.  PC's are
> > developing too quickly to ever be "caught up with" by
> > a custom panel...
>
> Perhaps, but I view it differently.  IMO PC-based systems still
> need to catch up to panels in may ways.

What ways do you think are the primary reasons panels will continue to sell?
I can see a "it's worked well so far" factor, a large base of installers and
repairmen, an admittedly lower power consumption and the advantage of being
familiar to installers and being sanctioned by UL.  But I also believe those
aren't strong enough factors to overcome price and when Intel and AMD join
the small footprint PC world, those prices will plummet again.  I just don't
know if the advantages of a panel are going to outweigh those of a PC.

After all, a panel is really nothing but a specialized computer, monitoring
inputs, making decisions based on rules, taking actions.  Hmmm - might be
fun to see what some comp sci students can do creating a software emulation
of an HAI or Elk panel.

> > The "whole house" PC is coming, and it's going to drive
> > panels into the museums.  People want event logs - panels
> > stink at that....
>
> The Napco P9600 does logs quite well.

Can it keep an image or video clip of everyone who's come on my property,
along with the time, date, weather, etc?  Traditional panels do traditional
things nicely, but the world's moving on at an accelerated rate.  People are
demanding more from their home systems - whether audio, video, security or
cleaning - than ever before.  There's going to be a continuous pressure on
panels to offer what PCs do.  I believe it's that subtle pressure that's
going to force the switch.

There's also another subtle force at work.  If you make a mistake in
software design, you ship a revision.  Make a mistake in hardware design, on
something like an alarm panel, and your field upgrade costs eat you alive.
I'll admit that very same force causes people to tend to rely on what's
worked reliably for them for years.

> > People want networking and web-enabling and USB
> > and audio and video and lots of other things that are
> > all there on a PC but quite a bit more expensive in the
> > "panel centric" world.
>
> ELK already does all ove the above except video and that's coming as well.

All add-on modules.  People are buying them because they've already invested
in Elk and they have sunk $ to protect.  The question is whether Joe
Newbuyer wants to buy all those stinking modules just to do what a PC can do
out of the box, especially if there's a substantial price differential.   I
think the answer will eventually be "no."

> >> OTOH, a panel is a hugely simpler product, and
> >> simpler (as a rule) means less likely to break.
> >
> > I think that's an outdated assumption for two reasons.
> >  Every time I look, Omni's adding something to its
> > boards, as are the others.  They *have* to in order to
> > keep up with the expanding universe of home automation...
>
> Most panel based systems offer *optional* add-ons to interface with new
> hardware.  That makes for a more complex shelf at the vendor but doesn't
> necessarily comlicate the individual installations.  For example, ELK
> currently supports a fair number of lighting protocols but a given
> installation only uses one or two (perhaps X10 + Z-Wave).  One particular
> site isn't going to be loaded down with apparati for X10, Z-Wave, USB,
> CentraLite AND whatever else.

Dealing with even two protocols is a lot, and if one that you've chosen goes
bellyup, that's three you'll likely have to support.  :-)

> > PC MTBF varies so radically between MS and
> > Unix that it becomes readily apparent that a lot
> > of the "unreliability" of PC's lies at the feet of
> > Windows, not the hardware...
>
> No argument here.  :^)
>
> > For that reason at least some believe that HomeSeer
> > made the wrong choice in going with Windows, and
> > not Unix.  I tend to agree...
>
> HS made a market decision (plus, IIRC Rich is an MSD).
> There are many fold more potential customers with PC's
> running MS than Unix.  Regardless how flawed it may be, MS
> owns the vast majority of the market and any developer
> who wants to sell a SW product to DIYers has to give
> significant weight to that fact.  That is what Rich did and
> he was right -- not because MS is not problematic but because
> marketing a Unix-only SW product to a limited
> audience is financially problematic.

I agree that was the right move then, but I'm not so sure it's the wave of
the future.  Back when Rich started, the assumption, I think, was that
people would still use their PCs for other things.  When the HA server
becomes an appliance, people don't really care about the underlying OS as
long as it's fast and reliable.  It's the perfect window for some
entrepreneur to come up with a turn-key Unix HA system in combination with a
Via mini-ITX platform.

> > MS has not demonstrated that it can create a reliable
> > operating system suitable for "appliances" let alone
> > critical black-box functions...
>
> True indeed.  What they have demonstrated is the ability to own
> the marketplace.  Their tactics have been questionable at best but
> they do own it.  If you want to make a good living selling a SW
> based product you have to make some hard decisions about that.

Agreed.  They're a functional monopoly and as such can't be avoided.  But
we've seen similar monopolies collapse when the next big thing comes and
they're not ready for it.  Where are all the mighty railroads?

--
Bobby G.