
Philips Hue Bridge v1 online services will be shut off after April 2020 - tosh
https://twitter.com/tweethue/status/1235844699253956609
======
4rt
my problem with being too critical of this is that hue is very open, very well
documented and nothing else is.

declaring that you'll never buy another philips product ever again because
they shut off _hosted services_ support for a relatively flawed v1 device --
when a v2 device is available for £25 -- is pretty petulant imo. it will still
work on your lan.

i've got 15 hue bulbs and a hue bridge but i don't use any of their cloud
services. i control them via zigbee light switches on a raspi running
homeassistant paired to the hue hub without any "hue cloud account" or any
reliance on internet access or anything of the sort.

i don't know of another mainstream brand who will even begin to allow that
without significant vendor lock-in.

~~~
donatj
Lifx has an entirely open and very well documented local UDP API, and a pretty
open and well documented REST API.

On top of that, no need for a bridge or base station. They can operate
entirely locally with no need for a mother ship if you don't need to control
them away from home.

I make pretty heavy use of the UDP API from my local server and help maintain
a Go library.

~~~
ViViDboarder
Those are WiFi though, no? Not exactly the same thing. Personally, I prefer a
hub/bridge and then a mesh network for Home Automation. I’ve got Hue, Z-Wave,
and WeMo. I much prefer the experience with the first two now.

~~~
bufferout
It's all just different flavours of radio waves.

~~~
ssalazar
Wifi, Bluetooth, cellular, bespoke solutions, etc. are all "just radio waves"
yet entail a vast spectrum of engineering and business requirements including
cost, power usage, implementation complexity, reliability, interoperability,
and range.

------
londons_explore
Imagine you are designing the web server for some hardware like this.

You might write it in Go, dockerized and hosted it in Kubernetes in Google
Cloud. You might use a hosted mongo db and 3rd party auth service.

Now in 30 years time, Google Cloud will probably no longer exist, your
database API will have changed beyond recognition, and your auth service has
closed down. IPv4 no longer exists and your hardware depends on it so you have
to build all kinds of compat layers. You won't be able to get hold of all the
packages for your server side code. The Go compiler probably won't even run on
an OS 30 years from now. Your staff have retired, and nobody new wants to
learn a programming language from 30 years ago.

Maintaining a server side API, even a really simple one, pretty much costs 1
fulltime person forever.

This hasn't always been the case. If you had written your code as a self-
contained DOS executable back in 1990, you could still run it bare metal on
some of today's hardware, or on any hardware without too much hassle in a VM.
Hardware from 30 years ago running in a cupboard probably has a 50/50 chance
of still being alive today, and if you had set up 2 backup machines at the
time, you'd probably have something working now even with nobody touching it
for 30 years, sans the occasional office move.

~~~
8fingerlouie
> IPv4 no longer exists

I hope you're right, but i'm not entirely convinced. IPv4 has proven to very
resilient.

A survey in Denmark of pretty much all ISPs reveals that most, if not all, of
the large ISPs have absolutely no plans for migrating to IPv6. Not as "not
right now", but as "no plans at all". Some of them have plans for migrating
business customers, but no plans for residential.

We'll end up with companies running IPv6 and the rest of us stuck on an IPv4
network with a 4to6 gateway.

[https://ipv6-adresse.dk/](https://ipv6-adresse.dk/)

~~~
p1mrx
What actually is a 4to6 gateway? For example, how would an IPv4 client connect
to a 128-bit address like 2606:4700:20::6819:6c0d?

~~~
drdaeman
I can imagine a weird contraption of a custom DNS server that tracks client
requests, returns unique private IPv4 addresses and simultaneously tells to
some NAT-PT engine that this source IPv4 address talking to that destination
IPv4 address needs to be translated to that IPv6 address.

I can imagine this to be extremely fragile and break whenever an IP address is
looked up using any different manner than plain DNS (e.g. by having IP in API
responses, or just using DoH). Yet, I can imagine someone's probably already
working on this abomination.

~~~
unilynx
Just return the same IP for everything and check the Host header or SNI name
to know where to forward requests to

It’ll work fine for web traffic.

------
davidy123
While there are reasons for concern, I don't really blame Philips (Signify)
for this. They released the v1 hub quite early in the smart home space. It
wasn't compatible with Apple Homekit features when they were released due to
hardware limitations for reasons they presumably couldn't have predicted
(unless they made it a more capable and expensive device in the hopes it would
support unknown requirements). They made all v1 owners an offer to get a new
hub "free" with a colour changing bulb, though it's not good value if you
don't want the colour changing bulb or find it on sale and don't care about
the hub. The old hub will continue to work, just not remotely. After eight
years, I think it's a responsible and fair response within the parameters of
consumer gear. The only way it could be better would be if the hub weren't
required at all, or it was more easily interoperable with other controllers,
but from the start that would have meant a more complicated experience.

I was an early adopter of Hue, even though it's kind of expensive I enjoy the
capability to change the colour and mood of room lighting. $400 worth of
lighting hardware for a house over 15 years is less than the comparable effect
of painting a single room. From the start it has good support for local-only
implementations with good open source libraries.

~~~
cududa
There protocols are well documented and there’s plenty of open source
configurations based on raspberry pi to run it.

------
diebeforei485
So, Philips Hue users need a new $60 bridge after 8 years?

That actually seems reasonable to me. 8 years is longer support than most
other devices.

~~~
jb775
If you bought a hammer 8 years ago and the hammer company had a way to
"deactivate" certain uses of the hammer so it only worked in a few situations,
would you say "8 years is long enough for a hammer, it's perfectly reasonable
they force you to buy a new hammer in order for it to work properly." ?

Philips has the resources to keep this up and running.

~~~
vosper
A Hue Bridge is not like a hammer. Your analogy is cute and appealing, but not
actually analogous (the biggest problem with analogies...)

> Philips has the resources to keep this up and running.

See how your analogy doesn't work? A manufacturer of a hammer doesn't have to
continually expend resources to keep your hammer operating, secure, and
compatible with other devices. Because it's just a hammer.

~~~
spectramax
That's not right. You've just based your assertion with a faulty assumption
that a bulb has to be smart - sure the analogy breaks down. _But_ , the parent
is making an analogy about a "dumb" bulb - both hammer and bulb are tools.
Hammer is used to hit nails and a bulb is used to illuminate dark spaces.

A manufacturer of "dumb" bulbs doesn't have to continually expend resources to
keep your bulb operating, secure, and compatible with other devices - simply
by the virtue that the bulb isn't a smart bulb.

To fail your analogy criteria, the bulb just have to be a "dumb" one or the
hammer can be a smart-hammer (you can concieve that for the sake of a thought
exercise).

~~~
vosper
What? I never said anything about bulbs. A Hue Bridge is not a bulb at all.
And “dumb” bulbs still exist, you can buy them, most people aren’t really
complaining when they don’t last forever, and frankly they’ve got nothing at
all to do with my comment or the one I was replying to.

------
sippeangelo
The world could seriously use some legislation for hardware devices tied to
online (dis)services.

Maybe if you can't guarantee that your service stays alive for the lifespan of
your hardware product, your product shouldn't have existed in the first place.

~~~
sokoloff
Or you’d find manufacturers finding ways to reduce the lifespan of the
hardware product...

------
walrus01
This is exactly the reason why the Twitter account "internet of shit" was
created. Yes I know it's vulgar.

[https://twitter.com/internetofshit?lang=en](https://twitter.com/internetofshit?lang=en)

But it's worth scrolling through the previous posts by that account to see a
myriad of similar "your expensive internet-dependent thing is now useless"
scenarios.

~~~
rohan1024
[REDACTED]

Agree with child comment.

~~~
ceejayoz
Ads in a product you pay for and ads in a Twitter account you _don 't_ pay for
are hardly comparable.

------
adgasf
AFAIK the bulbs are compatible with v1 and v2 hubs, so the bulbs do not need
to be replaced. The v1 hubs will continue to work across a local area network.
Philips offered a heavily discounted upgrade for v1 hub users to get a new v2
hub.

However, I still think they should support the v1 hubs for the lifespan of a
typical bulb (15 years), at minimum.

~~~
djsumdog
Yea, as long as it works locally and they don't pull the old app .. still it's
shitty they're trying to push people to buy new shit they don't need. It's
just creating waste to increase sales. The attempt to grow without
responsibility really needs to die. Consumerism with the goal of more
consumerism is a cancer.

~~~
kelnos
While it's tempting to blame this on Philips doing this to increase sales, I
think it's just as plausible that they just don't want to spend resources on
maintaining the infrastructure required for the v1 bridges anymore. The v1 was
_very_ early in the market, and doesn't even have the horsepower to support
HomeKit etc.

This is also a more likely explanation if you consider that Philips offered
_heavily_ discounted v2 bridges to v1 bridge owners. It's probable that it's
cheaper to Philips to sell v2 upgrades to customers at or below cost than it
is to maintain support for the v1 bridge.

Having said that, it sucks for v1 owners that they have a product that's going
to lose features unless they upgrade. I do have a few Hue bulbs (with a v2
bridge), but I have everything set up through openHAB, with remote access
going through a server I control. This way I don't have to rely on anyone but
my VPS provider to keep all of it functional. Unfortunately this route is out
of most people's technical know-how. And I certainly sympathize with people
who could do this, but would rather use an off-the-shelf product that just
works.

------
trollied
This forced obsolescence is beginning to get out of hand.

I completely understand that running the online portion of this costs money,
but that needs factoring in to the business model from the start. I imagine
that they didn't think about this when the product first launched in 2012.

I do wonder if a u-turn (similar to the one Sonos has just done) will follow
after bad media coverage.

~~~
sambe
Or maybe they factored in 8 years worth of service?

~~~
oarsinsync
They market their bulbs as having a 15 year life span.

~~~
thisisauserid
The bridge will still work from your private network and one can still control
the lights with the app.

All that's being disabled is the external control.

~~~
Sanzig
...which all the digital assistants like Google Home or Alexa use, so this
breaks voice commands for those. For most people, that's the main reason to
have smart lights.

~~~
fullstop
The V1 bridge does not require any outside access from an Echo device -- it
communicates directly with the bridge over the local network. With V2 it
requires a skill, a Hue account, and access from the internet to the bridge.

~~~
tzs
Are you sure it requires access from the internet to the bridge for V2? I
think it may only require that the bridge can access the internet.

I have a V2 with "Out of home control" set to disabled and it works fine with
my Echo Dot and with the Amazon Alexa apps on my phone and iPad.

My guess is that the bridge sends status information, including the bridge's
IP address, to the Hue site, and the Echo can retrieve that information in
order to find the IP address to send commands to.

~~~
fullstop
You're probably right. I was trying to say that the v2 bridge requires some
sort of cloud service to function with an echo when the v1 did not.

------
Youden
I don't get the reaction here.

The __online __service will be shut down but the bulbs will continue to be
locally controllable and Philips is releasing a dedicated app to interact with
the v1 bridge.

Is it really such a huge deal that you can't access your bulbs over the
internet? What's the use-case for this? Are you controlling your lights while
you're not home? Do you not have access to the network the bulbs are connected
to when you're at home?

I have Hue installed and this just seems like a non-issue to me.

~~~
maccard
Thid means you can't use Google assistant or Alexa anymore.

~~~
Youden
I concur with the other commenter. I think it's a flaw in Google
Assistant/Alexa if they're solely able to function using the online service.

The bridge provides a well-documented and stable local API which these
assistant devices would be able to use as long as they're on the same network.

------
kozak
I need to buy a new TV, and I'm desperately looking for a "dumb" one. I just
need a HDMI input and that's it.

~~~
krisoft
Isn't that what a computer screen is?

~~~
edent
Sure, but where can you find a 130cm monitor?

~~~
AndrewThrowaway
I think they are called "commercial displays". You can see them showing ads in
shops and etc.

~~~
benhurmarcel
They're much more expensive than a TV though.

------
admax88q
Stop buying smart home shit.

People warned of exactly this when they started.

~~~
nicolaslem
...and if you do, make sure to buy things that are offline first.

~~~
p_l
Like Philips Hue v1? :)

Well, "local net" first, it originally had no "cloud" support.

------
lm28469
Do people use these things online ?

I treat mine as regular bulbs that can be controlled via phone.

~~~
geerlingguy
Some people feel comfortable giving Alexa or Google Home access to their
household devices and climate control systems; these rely on internet access.

~~~
fullstop
That's not entirely true for the v1 bridge. The echo needs internet access, of
course, to understand the command but the actual control of a v1 bridge is
done on the local network.

This changed with the v2 bridge.

------
timc3
I have about 60 hue devices. Its useful enough to me that i would just buy the
bridge if I had to. In fact I WANT them to release a new bridge that supports
even more devices.

If you ask why - first is I am very sensitive to bad lighting as it seems to
be a cause of migraines, Hue has amazing quality. Second I like the
automations, not just turning on and off at the right time but also changing
colour temperature. Having motion sensors so walking around triggers lights
turning on is something that I got really used to.

------
deforciant
I got hue bulbs and a 3rd party zwave/zigbee USB stick, hue works really well
with it via Node-RED and Home Assistant :) I understand that for most users
hue bridge seemed like the easiest way to connect but hopefully they will find
that it's not that difficult to connect them via other means.

Comparing TP Link (wifi connected) bulb with Hue - the former reacts a lot
quicker than tp link after boot (if you are using the normal switch).

------
blitmap
For the most part, at least we don't have to worry about forgotten, rogue IoT
devices. The overriding mission has been to connect it to shitty online
services. Watch these companies go out of business or deprecate APIs.

This is very dramatic, but imagine something like this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyMNIFZTQkg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyMNIFZTQkg)

------
yellowapple
I'll have to check whether or not this'll affect my grandparents' lights.
Probably not the absolute end of the world (90% of their usage is "Alexa,
(back/front) porch (on/off)"), but I know they do like to control the porch
light with the app (it's on a schedule, too).

------
floatingatoll
The Hue internet stuff was never useful to me, so even my v2 hub is only used
on my local network or by HomeKit. I don’t blame them for EOLing it, but it’s
super nice of them to only take down the v1 APIs and not kill the entire
product.

------
Sanzig
Well - they've done a pretty good job of ensuring that if I get smart lights
again, I'm definitely not buying Philips.

This change breaks all the digital assistant integrations ("Hey Google, turn
on the lights"), which is pretty much the only reason to have smart lights in
the first place. If you can't use voice commands, you might as well just use
the wall switches. Who wants to pull out their phone and switch the lights on
and off with an app?

~~~
jibbit
Is there a viable alternative? The website and app are pretty terrible. I
assume it's because they have no real competition?

~~~
jpindar
There are many, many apps for Hue lights.

The one I use most is Hue Pro by Prismatic LLC. I like its highly customizable
widgets.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.benchevoor...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.benchevoor.huepro&hl=en_US)

------
bmo-at
This is abominable, there's literally no reason other than "It costs money to
maintain this, and we'd rather make money selling new stuff than support what
we already made". I have a v2 bridge, but back when I bought it about 3 1/2
years back, I payed a lot of money for it. It's not an expensive product to
manufacture, so I expected that money to go towards supporting it long term.
So much for that.

~~~
bengale
You paid a lot of money for the bridge? It comes with the starter packs? I
know a few people with these systems that have v2 bridges piled up at home as
it was cheaper to get the starter kits and a bonus bridge than it was to buy
the bulbs individually.

~~~
birdyrooster
I personally piled some v2 bridges in the trash for this same reason. It feels
vaguely like shucking external hard drives. The garbage piles up higher.

------
tschellenbach
When I moved my Philips Hue bridge got damaged. Turns out there is no way (and
I tried) to get your lightbulbs to reset and attach to a new bridge. Not very
happy with Philips Hue, wish there was a better option out there.

~~~
xyzzy_plugh
My original bridge recently bricked (hours of wireshark logs led me to believe
it boot loops every 17 seconds) and I was able to associate my bulbs with a
new bridge easily.

Steps are as follows:

Turn the bulb on for three seconds and then off for three seconds, repeat a
few times, then turn it on and it should blink. Turn it off, start the
pairing/search process and then turn the bulb back on.

It helps to use a lamp/light switch if you have them somewhere that requires
plugging/unplugging to turn off.

------
wh-uws
So here is my frustration with the hue service... The uptime is terrible.

Outages have happened weekly and there isn't even a place I can see
statuses...

There are many night where I want to cut my lights off with the app and I just
can't. No explanation just no connection from their application to their
service..

There have been so many times I've had to use the api manually to do this

Hopefully this new bridge addresses this issue.

~~~
zymhan
Shutting off the lights should be a local operation, you don't need to connect
to their server to do it.

