The gratuitous negativity of this article is entirely uncalled for.
I would much rather that a device integrate with IFTTT and thus gain connectivity with the hundreds of services which IFTTT supports than for it to attempt to hand-roll integrations with a much smaller subset of services.
In case anyone disputes my claim of gratuitous negativity:
> Some smart home features finally come to OnHub, but using a non-Google ecosystem.
> Its only real differentiators were the funky design, easy setup, and the promise of future updates.
> Now with the IFTTT update, the OnHub finally supports some smart home features—but it's using someone else's ecosystem.
> IFTTT is now the gateway for controlling other things in your house via the OnHub rather than using some kind of Google communication standard like we expected.
> This is all still happening over Wi-Fi, too, so the OnHub is still not using any of the smart-home antennas it shipped with.
It's negativity, but I'm not convinced on the "gratuitous". They clearly mention the (IMHO reasonable) expectations compared to which this is negative.
I would much rather that a device integrate with IFTTT and thus gain connectivity with the hundreds of services which IFTTT supports than for it to attempt to hand-roll integrations with a much smaller subset of services.
In case anyone disputes my claim of gratuitous negativity:
> Some smart home features finally come to OnHub, but using a non-Google ecosystem.
> Its only real differentiators were the funky design, easy setup, and the promise of future updates.
> Now with the IFTTT update, the OnHub finally supports some smart home features—but it's using someone else's ecosystem.
> IFTTT is now the gateway for controlling other things in your house via the OnHub rather than using some kind of Google communication standard like we expected.
> This is all still happening over Wi-Fi, too, so the OnHub is still not using any of the smart-home antennas it shipped with.