Insteon vs Homekit for new home

[ahwman]

1 hour ago, lilyoyo1 said:

This debate has raged on for years with many posts about it so I won't go into as deeply as I used to do. 

You'll find divided answers in your responses. Those who hate insteon due to having problems with it in the past or questioning the long term viability of the company. Some do not like insteon being sole source and want options.

For those who like insteon, we see things for what they are. They may be the only company but even if they go out of business their product would still work. You'll still be able to get product for a while and you could always switch to something else later if that were to happen. That's what one would do if their chosen zwave MFG. went out of business so to me there's no difference. From the outside looking in, more zwave companies have shut down over the years while insteon keeps on living. Besides that, I want 1 provider for my devices. The most tacky thing in the world is to have a lovely home but come inside, the homeowner skimped on the details and have mismatched stuff all around.

By using the Isy w/zwave, you have the best of both worlds so take advantage of it. I prefer insteon for lighting due to its ability to set direct links in devices. That way should my isy fail, my system would still work. With zwave not so much. The devices would work themselves locally but anything linked would no longer work. I also like the fact that when buying a switch from insteon, you don't have to research what it can do. All switches have the same features regardless of whether it's. A dimmer or a relay (obviously you can dim a relay and shouldn't use a dimmer or a non-dimmable source). With zwave you must research to ensure something will work the way you intend. This forum is filled with posters biting the device they felt would die what the wanted only to find out it works as a device but can't control another because it's not a scene controller or doesn't support a certain command class. 

Unlike zwave, all devices are controllers and show status regardless of how controlled (as long as the isy does the configuration). The main thing for me is the popcorn effect. Due to how zwave works, devices turn on/off 1 at a time. This is a non starter for me as it's simply unappealing. With insteon, devices in a scene turn off together. Have relays...1 harmonious click. Zwave...click , click, click all through the house. Dimmers are quiet but if you have devices in the same room it looks tacky watching them turn off 1 at a time. Insteon switches are also much more configurable. It's much easier to make dynamic setups than it is with zwave

Sensors are another story. This is where zwave shines and insteon fails. I'll use zwave over insteon any day for those. My house is full of zwave receptacles to build out the network with a couple of occupancy sensors in select locations such as the laundry rooms and some bathrooms. Once again, due to the nature of zwave, you'll want to research before buying as all devices are not made equally. 

Many great points made here. That said, going with Zwave sensors makes great sense, any reason why you would choose Zwave receptacles over Insteon?

[lilyoyo1]

Just now, ahwman said:

Many great points made here. That said, going with Zwave sensors makes great sense, any reason why you would choose Zwave receptacles over Insteon?

I have both. I use zwave receptacles to build my network so that I have strong communication. Insteon is used in all the other outlets. I don't like plugin devices since they are ugly and can easily be removed. This is especially important with zwave since it uses routed messages. If someone were to unplug a device or move it somewhere else, it can mess up communication

[ahwman]

1 minute ago, lilyoyo1 said:

I have both. I use zwave receptacles to build my network so that I have strong communication. Insteon is used in all the other outlets. I don't like plugin devices since they are ugly and can easily be removed. This is especially important with zwave since it uses routed messages. If someone were to unplug a device or move it somewhere else, it can mess up communication

That makes sense. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts as it’s very helpful!  Have a great day...

[jec6613]

2 hours ago, larryllix said:

None of my WiFi bulbs or RGBW strips or thermostats allow static IP addresses and are all DHCP dependent.

Fair enough - many of mine do/did (I don't have as many as I used to), though the option is often hidden.  If you otherwise like your router, an RPI Zero can easily handle DHCP duties and just shut off the DHCP server on your router.

[larryllix]

8 hours ago, jec6613 said:

Fair enough - many of mine do/did (I don't have as many as I used to), though the option is often hidden.  If you otherwise like your router, an RPI Zero can easily handle DHCP duties and just shut off the DHCP server on your router.

Thanks.

I had always heard a RPi would never make a good router or server as the Ethernet I/O was done via a internal USB port and that presented some hardware speed problems. Perhaps newer models have resolved that???

[jec6613]

Just now, larryllix said:

Thanks.

I had always heard a RPi would never make a good router or server as the Ethernet I/O was done via a internal USB port and that presented some hardware speed problems. Perhaps newer models have resolved that???

A DHCP server isn't exactly high end stuff here.  You need a TCP/IP stack, a few MB of extra storage space, and maybe 50-100 MB of extra RAM, and you have a fully fledged Linux DHCP server.  If you want to get fancy, Windows Server IoT can even run it on a RPI.  The RAM load DHCP itself for an entire university I used to run then for was under 1 GB for a Windows server, with all of the student devices using them, too, and network traffic was negligible.  Devices exchange a few dozen packets at most, at half of their lease time, so if your DHCP lease is set to 8 hours, you'll see about 200 packets per device per day.

99.99% of all traffic in and out of my DHCP server is stuff other than DHCP - management, patches, updating the DNS server (the DHCP server updates the DNS server on the fly), etc.  But they're virtual servers, so the resources aren't going to waste.

I wouldn't use an RPI for, say, a file server, at least if I wanted it performant, but a DHCP server will barely register as usage on a 10 Mbps Ethernet link for a home network.