I just don't see the mass market appeal of home automation.
which is why these guys are going to be making money doing it, and youre doing whatever it is you do, which isnt understanding the mass market appeal of home automation.
Quote:
I have a large home so I might be interested in some automation but it is somewhat of a hassle to install all new appliances and lighting for a marginal convenience upgrade.
Do you need A7-class processing power to turn some lights on and off? I got one of those programmable light switches that's barely more processing power than a $29 Casio digital watch with multiple alarms. Even something like Raspberry Pi is overkill for an automation controller.
well thats a strange conclusion to make, considering the premium high-end home automation systems need dedicated servers to run on.
Isn't diabetes a global epidemic? Seems to me that we need to get off our fat arses and have a less convenient life.
what a strange conclusion to make -- that if one uses home automation, one cannot also exercise or doing anything physical in other aspects of one's life.
I'm not convinced. To take your example - turning off my alarm, unlocking my door, turning on my hall lights and setting my thermostat take me next to no time; I'm not interested in automating them.
then clearly home automation isnt for you. why you believe that means it isnt of interest for anybody, is a mystery.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Do you need A7-class processing power to turn some lights on and off? I got one of those programmable light switches that's barely more processing power than a $29 Casio digital watch with multiple alarms. Even something like Raspberry Pi is overkill for an automation controller.</span>
well thats a strange conclusion to make, considering the premium high-end home automation systems need dedicated servers to run on.
As I posted earlier, a $199 iPod Touch would do the Job quite nicely -- actually overkill, because it wouldn't need a display or battery.
That's why I think an AppleTV with at least an A7 would be preferable -- it could also run console-class games.
Here's a very good article exploring the possibilities:
The reason I think the AE is a better hub is that it has security - because it is already a router and firewall. Security is really the only job it would need to do. It would simply have a plist of the approved Apple IDs and match them up with the permissions to access the various devices. The iOS device will then communicate directly with the appliance. No middle man required in the control part. This is obvious to me because there is no way for the router/hub to know all of the capabilities of the appliance, how could it possibly be the one issuing commands?
What I could see is an iOS app that organizes the collection of factory control softwares on the device so that your home automation is all in one screen.
if iOS home "automation" were limited to arranging app icons on a screen it would be idiotic and ridiculed to no end.
also, it wont be in the router. it makes more sense to abstract the control functionality to a dedicated control device, than to bundle it w/ the router, which will be a non-starter for legions of customers who arent interested in replacing their perfectly functional routers. the router route packets. the control controls devices. each more or less ignorant of the other's implementation details.
well thats a strange conclusion to make, considering the premium high-end home automation systems need dedicated servers to run on.
I do not conflate "typical hardware" with "required hardware." Yes, I typically run xterm on a Quad-core Core i7 machine with 16GB of RAM, but xterm only requires an ancient single-core Pentium and 256MB of RAM to run well. How much processing power does an actual programmable light switch require?
if iOS home "automation" were limited to arranging app icons on a screen it would be idiotic and ridiculed to no end.
No, I think it will be considerably more than that. For one, I imagine that any Homekit app will be required to accept scripting so that the Apple Homekit environment will be able to build scenes and scenarios that can span across several factory appliances for a desired end result such as open the door, turn off the alarm, turn on the lights and set the climate controls all in one script.
Quote:
also, it wont be in the router. it makes more sense to abstract the control functionality to a dedicated control device, than to bundle it w/ the router, which will be a non-starter for legions of customers who arent interested in replacing their perfectly functional routers. the router route packets. the control controls devices. each more or less ignorant of the other's implementation details.
Customers will have to replace something, either their router or their AppleTV. It is six of one half dozen the other. The way I see it, an iPhone needs to talk directly with the appliances using the factory supplied app which is integrated into a Homekit environment on the iOS device, and a router running some protocol similar to Back to My Mac which provides the security and the ability to traverse the private home network which is behind a firewall. It is not any more complicated than that. No dedicated home server needed.
Every Homekit appliance will have its own mini-server embedded. The appliance itself will keep track of what it is programmed to do. Turn on at sunset, turn off at sunrise. It stores that logic in its own memory and continues to execute the commands until told to stop by an iOS device running the factory control app.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/180988/apple-heads-for-home-why-homekit-may-not-bring-an-ilight-or-ilock-but-a-new-apple-tv#post_2557425 layout=inline]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">if iOS home "automation" were limited to arranging app icons on a screen it would be idiotic and ridiculed to no end.</span>
[/CONTENTEMBED]
also, it wont be in the router. it makes more sense to abstract the control functionality to a dedicated control device, than to bundle it w/ the router, which will be a non-starter for legions of customers who arent interested in replacing their perfectly functional routers. the router route packets. the control controls devices. each more or less ignorant of the other's implementation details.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Customers will have to replace something, either their router or their AppleTV. It is six of one half dozen the other. The way I see it, an iPhone needs to talk directly with the appliances using the factory supplied app which is integrated into a Homekit environment on the iOS device, and a router running some protocol similar to Back to My Mac which provides the security and the ability to traverse the private home network which is behind a firewall. It is not any more complicated than that. No home server needed.</span>
FIRST
"Customers will have to replace something, either their router or their AppleTV."
The above statement is not true!
The AppleTV 3rd generation has an A5X APU and is supported to run iOS 8 (as are the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 -- which have A5 APUs).
The AE does not have the necessary hardware to run iOS (not even enough flash storage to contain iOS)
If Apple opens the AppleTV to HomeKit:
users with 3rd generation AppleTVs will; likely be supported!
users with no AppleTV or Earlier AppleTV would need to buy a 3rd Generation or newer AppleTV ($99 or less) to use HomeKit
in either case, no change of router would be necessary.
SECOND
I don't think you understand how HomeKit is designed to work.
Basically, a computer running iOS or OS X runs a server-like process continuously, monitoring and waiting for work. It monitors and detect changes in:
the home
the rooms in the home
the accessory devices status
schedules
triggered actions based on ...
newly added/removed/offline accessorydevices
newly added/removed groups (zones) of accessory devise
much more
When an event is detected the HomeKit Computer might take a predetermined action -- or it might send a notification to a remote (or local) user's iPhone suggesting that an action is needed and letting the user accept or override ...
The user at the iPhone is truly a client to a HomeKit server.
Certainly you could write a HomeKit app for an iDevice that is nothing more than a glorified remote control -- display accessory device status and initiate actions ... but what's the advantage of that.
AFAIK, Phillips Hue allows you to schedule and control their devices through their web site but that's a minor improvement.
HomeKit running on a local computer as a server app can do that and much more without ever needing to expose private info to the Internet.
I don't know of any routers made by Apple or anyone else that are cabable of running HomeKit.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Every Homekit appliance will have its own mini-server embedded. The appliance itself will keep track of what it is programmed to do. Turn on at sunset, turn off at sunrise. It stores that logic in its own memory and continues to execute the commands until told to stop by an iOS device running the factory control app.</span>
This is totally 180 out!
Why add the cost/inconvenience/incompatibility by adding a server to each device?
Some of these devices are small, inexpensive and you want to add a raspberryPie to each one of these?
How would you set the time on each of these?
How would you coordinate: turning off all the downstairs lights, activating the security alarms, motion detecters, cams, etc.?
How would you know if the desired actions actually took place?
With HomeKit, you do something like: "Siri, it's bedtime"
Siri asks the HomeKit Server to perform the "Bedtime" action (including multiple rooms, devices, actions, etc.) and then reports:
Siri: "All the bedtime actions are complete:
or
Siri: "Uh, oh I had problems completing some of the bedtime actions -- would you like to review them?:
If you are an Apple iOS Developer, you really should watch the WWDC HomeKit session video!
If you are an Apple iOS Developer, you really should watch the WWDC HomeKit session video!
Please tell me where it mentions a home server. All the functionality is in the iOS device. The status of the appliance is in the appliance. You query the appliance and it spits out its status from its embedded software. You ask it to do something it executes it with its embedded software and reports success or failure. That is a server for all intents and purposes. There is no dedicated universal home server hardware required for this interaction to take place. It is no different than the embedded server inside the Airport Extreme or configuring a wireless modem. Each device can take requests form the iOS app and send responses back to it. Request/response. That is a server built right into the appliance.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/180988/apple-heads-for-home-why-homekit-may-not-bring-an-ilight-or-ilock-but-a-new-apple-tv/40#post_2557899 layout=inline]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">If you are an Apple iOS Developer, you really should watch the WWDC HomeKit session video!</span>
[/CONTENTEMBED]
Please tell me where it mentions a home server. All the functionality is in the iOS gdevice. The status of the appliance is in the appliance. You query the appliance and it spits out its status from its embedded software. You ask it to do something it executes it with its embedded software and reports success or failure. That is a server for all intents and purposes. There is no dedicated universal home server hardware required for this interaction to take place. It is no different than the embedded server inside the Airport Extreme or configuring a wireless modem. Each device can take requests form the iOS app and send responses back to it. Request/response. That is a server built right into the appliance.
No, that' says remote control!
You have 24 lights, 4 security cams, 3 motion detectors ... In the upstairs bedrooms and hall ways ...
You want to spend your time, remote controlling each one of these ...
Why not hire a maid and text her to do that for you (and hope she does it)?
Better -- spend $99 and get it done?
Apple doesn't like to expose complexity, so they don't describe a client-server relationship.
But they spilled their hand when they said that the HomeKit app must be running in the foreground of the iDevice -- and that no HomeKit Accessory device info leaves the home.
This post appears to give no reason for putting Siri and homekit in the Apple TV itself instead of just touch-based iOS devices.
I was thinking that as well. While I am sure a new AppleTV will have a homekit control app(s), the same thing will be available on iOS devices and probably OS X as well. I doubt there will be a single hub device. That just doesn't make any sense.
You have 24 lights, 4 security cams, 3 motion detectors ... In the upstairs bedrooms and hall ways ...
You want to spend your time, remote controlling each one of these ...
Why not hire a maid and text her to do that for you (and hope she does it)?
Better -- spend $99 and get it done?
Apple doesn't like to expose complexity, so they don't describe a client-server relationship.
But they spilled their hand when they said that the HomeKit app must be running in the foreground of the iDevice -- and that no HomeKit Accessory device info leaves the home.
Perhaps there is a miscommunication. I thought you said in more than one instance that a home sever would be required.
The way you affect multiple devices with a single command is by building group scripted actions.
The HomeKit app must be running in the foreground but it has access to all of the third party apps which reside inside the Homekit environment.
My mention of mini-servers running in each appliance is in reference to how almost every remote control device is managed. I would assume that the vast majority of the Homekit appliances will be running a version of embedded Linux. Without a server request/response protocol nothing would work. It is the simplest of servers but it is a server. Even the lowly light switch will have a cpu, wifi and an operating system, along with a basic web server to communicate with the iOS device.
The fact remains that network protocol is a major aspect of the system. A home network is isolated form the Internet in terms of outside requests reaching the inside devices. It needs a special secure method for that to happen which is the secret ingredient in HomeKit, but it will need a corresponding partner on the inside which is where the router comes into play. Sure it could be a Mac or an AppleTV but to me the AE seems like the likely candidate since it already has 90% of the requirements with ethernet ports, firewall and port forwarding capabilities, etc.
You have 24 lights, 4 security cams, 3 motion detectors ... In the upstairs bedrooms and hall ways ...
You want to spend your time, remote controlling each one of these ...
Why not hire a maid and text her to do that for you (and hope she does it)?
Better -- spend $99 and get it done?
Apple doesn't like to expose complexity, so they don't describe a client-server relationship.
But they spilled their hand when they said that the HomeKit app must be running in the foreground of the iDevice -- and that no HomeKit Accessory device info leaves the home.
Perhaps there is a miscommunication. I thought you said in more than one instance that a home sever would be required.
The way you affect multiple devices with a single command is by building group scripted actions.
The HomeKit app must be running in the foreground but it has access to all of the third party apps which reside inside the Homekit environment.
My mention of mini-servers running in each appliance is in reference to how almost every remote control device is managed. I would assume that the vast majority of the Homekit appliances will be running a version of embedded Linux. Without a server request/response protocol nothing would work. It is the simplest of servers but it is a server. Even the lowly light switch will have a cpu, wifi and an operating system, along with a basic web server to communicate with the iOS device.
The fact remains that network protocol is a major aspect of the system. A home network is isolated form the Internet in terms of outside requests reaching the inside devices. It needs a special secure method for that to happen which is the secret ingredient in HomeKit, but it will need a corresponding partner on the inside which is where the router comes into play. Sure it could be a Mac or an AppleTV but to me the AE seems like the likely candidate since it already has 90% of the requirements with ethernet ports, firewall and port forwarding capabilities, etc.
We're talking past each other ... From prior posts, I know you understand client-server relationships ...
Some additional thoughts on using a Router vs an AppleTV to interface HomeKit accessories.[devices].
While it may be true that many of these accessories can be considered to be self-contained servers, they are limited to performing functions specific to that particular device -- a Phillips Hue Bridge can control Hue light bulbs, but cannot control a garage door, a thermostat or even non-Hue light bulbs. On its own, each of these accessories is pretty much doing its own thing.
HomeKit attempts to improve this situation by creating a database of all the accessories in a home to provide a central monitoring and control point. This database is set up by an app that acts as a HomeKit Accessory Browser. The app listens for new accessories, and when detected, uniquely names them (including the room they are in) and adds them to the database (along with the commands to control the specific devices). As additional accessories are added, removed or (relocated to another room) the setup process is repeated.
From the WWDC Keynote, HomeKit was presented as an [B][I]universal remote control[/I][/B] for all your accessories. You can control accessories individually and as groups (e.g. downstairs lights or door locks). Siri voice commands can be used to control HomeKit accessories.
So, what is known so far, is that [B][I]HomeKit requires an iOS 8 device[/I][/B] -- which means an iPad 2 or newer, iPad Mini, iPhone 4S or newer. It is unclear whether an iPod Touch will be supported. While the 3rd generation AppleTV has the hardware needed to run iOS 8, it is unclear whether Apple will support it for iOS 8 and HomeKit.
Restating this: Any qualified iDevice can act as a HomeKit [B][I]universal remote control[/I][/B]
Now, this is a biggie: It is unclear whether the HomeKit [B][I]universal remote control[/I][/B] only [B][I][COLOR=blue]works within the home[/COLOR][/I][/B] -- or if it can be used off site as well.
AFAICT, it only works within the home!
This could change in the future, but onsite-only severely limits the utility of the whole concept, IMO.
So, the proposition of using a Router vs using an AppleTV to interface HomeKit accessories is moot.
I really hope that Apple opens up the current AppleTV (or a new one) to be used as a HomeKit server (in addition to its other uses) ... seems like a no brainer.
In researching the above, I reviewed the WWDC Keynote, the developer docs and an hour-long HomeKit developer video.
Somewhere half way through the video we lost our internet connection (happens, maybe once or twice a month) ...
Hmm ... If had been offsite, trying use iPhone to remotely control the HomeKit accessories at my home, I would have been SOL!
If I'd had an AppleTV running as the HomeKit Server within my home -- everything would have operated as scheduled -- door locks, windows, security, lights, thermostat ...
Indigo is a Mac only home automation app/server that already does much of what people have been discussing in this thread. Not everything, but it gets the job done. I use it with a Mac Mini and a bunch of Insteon devices to do a number of fairly simple things with lighting mostly. I recently added two Insteon water leak detectors that can send me email and text messages through Messages when something is leaking in the kitchen or the laundry closet. There are a ton of other functions people use Indigo for including sprinkler automation, home security, energy monitoring, thermostat control etc., etc. Remote access is through their own iOS app called Indigo Touch.
Indigo also works with Z-Wave and old legacy X-10 as well as Insteon. The Indigo developers plan to support Homekit any way they can. Seems like it might be a good collaboration.
Comments
I just don't see the mass market appeal of home automation.
which is why these guys are going to be making money doing it, and youre doing whatever it is you do, which isnt understanding the mass market appeal of home automation.
installing smart lighting is stone simple.
Do you need A7-class processing power to turn some lights on and off? I got one of those programmable light switches that's barely more processing power than a $29 Casio digital watch with multiple alarms. Even something like Raspberry Pi is overkill for an automation controller.
well thats a strange conclusion to make, considering the premium high-end home automation systems need dedicated servers to run on.
Isn't diabetes a global epidemic? Seems to me that we need to get off our fat arses and have a less convenient life.
what a strange conclusion to make -- that if one uses home automation, one cannot also exercise or doing anything physical in other aspects of one's life.
I'm not convinced. To take your example - turning off my alarm, unlocking my door, turning on my hall lights and setting my thermostat take me next to no time; I'm not interested in automating them.
then clearly home automation isnt for you. why you believe that means it isnt of interest for anybody, is a mystery.
the marketplace will decide this.
As I posted earlier, a $199 iPod Touch would do the Job quite nicely -- actually overkill, because it wouldn't need a display or battery.
That's why I think an AppleTV with at least an A7 would be preferable -- it could also run console-class games.
Here's a very good article exploring the possibilities:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2292645-apples-new-strategic-centerpiece
The reason I think the AE is a better hub is that it has security - because it is already a router and firewall. Security is really the only job it would need to do. It would simply have a plist of the approved Apple IDs and match them up with the permissions to access the various devices. The iOS device will then communicate directly with the appliance. No middle man required in the control part. This is obvious to me because there is no way for the router/hub to know all of the capabilities of the appliance, how could it possibly be the one issuing commands?
What I could see is an iOS app that organizes the collection of factory control softwares on the device so that your home automation is all in one screen.
if iOS home "automation" were limited to arranging app icons on a screen it would be idiotic and ridiculed to no end.
also, it wont be in the router. it makes more sense to abstract the control functionality to a dedicated control device, than to bundle it w/ the router, which will be a non-starter for legions of customers who arent interested in replacing their perfectly functional routers. the router route packets. the control controls devices. each more or less ignorant of the other's implementation details.
I do not conflate "typical hardware" with "required hardware." Yes, I typically run xterm on a Quad-core Core i7 machine with 16GB of RAM, but xterm only requires an ancient single-core Pentium and 256MB of RAM to run well. How much processing power does an actual programmable light switch require?
No, I think it will be considerably more than that. For one, I imagine that any Homekit app will be required to accept scripting so that the Apple Homekit environment will be able to build scenes and scenarios that can span across several factory appliances for a desired end result such as open the door, turn off the alarm, turn on the lights and set the climate controls all in one script.
Quote:
Customers will have to replace something, either their router or their AppleTV. It is six of one half dozen the other. The way I see it, an iPhone needs to talk directly with the appliances using the factory supplied app which is integrated into a Homekit environment on the iOS device, and a router running some protocol similar to Back to My Mac which provides the security and the ability to traverse the private home network which is behind a firewall. It is not any more complicated than that. No dedicated home server needed.
Every Homekit appliance will have its own mini-server embedded. The appliance itself will keep track of what it is programmed to do. Turn on at sunset, turn off at sunrise. It stores that logic in its own memory and continues to execute the commands until told to stop by an iOS device running the factory control app.
FIRST
"Customers will have to replace something, either their router or their AppleTV."
The above statement is not true!
The AppleTV 3rd generation has an A5X APU and is supported to run iOS 8 (as are the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 -- which have A5 APUs).
The AE does not have the necessary hardware to run iOS (not even enough flash storage to contain iOS)
If Apple opens the AppleTV to HomeKit:
SECOND
I don't think you understand how HomeKit is designed to work.
Basically, a computer running iOS or OS X runs a server-like process continuously, monitoring and waiting for work. It monitors and detect changes in:
When an event is detected the HomeKit Computer might take a predetermined action -- or it might send a notification to a remote (or local) user's iPhone suggesting that an action is needed and letting the user accept or override ...
The user at the iPhone is truly a client to a HomeKit server.
Certainly you could write a HomeKit app for an iDevice that is nothing more than a glorified remote control -- display accessory device status and initiate actions ... but what's the advantage of that.
AFAIK, Phillips Hue allows you to schedule and control their devices through their web site but that's a minor improvement.
HomeKit running on a local computer as a server app can do that and much more without ever needing to expose private info to the Internet.
I don't know of any routers made by Apple or anyone else that are cabable of running HomeKit.
This is totally 180 out!
Why add the cost/inconvenience/incompatibility by adding a server to each device?
Some of these devices are small, inexpensive and you want to add a raspberryPie to each one of these?
How would you set the time on each of these?
How would you coordinate: turning off all the downstairs lights, activating the security alarms, motion detecters, cams, etc.?
How would you know if the desired actions actually took place?
With HomeKit, you do something like: "Siri, it's bedtime"
Siri asks the HomeKit Server to perform the "Bedtime" action (including multiple rooms, devices, actions, etc.) and then reports:
Siri: "All the bedtime actions are complete:
or
Siri: "Uh, oh I had problems completing some of the bedtime actions -- would you like to review them?:
If you are an Apple iOS Developer, you really should watch the WWDC HomeKit session video!
HomeKit is not what you think it is.
Please tell me where it mentions a home server. All the functionality is in the iOS device. The status of the appliance is in the appliance. You query the appliance and it spits out its status from its embedded software. You ask it to do something it executes it with its embedded software and reports success or failure. That is a server for all intents and purposes. There is no dedicated universal home server hardware required for this interaction to take place. It is no different than the embedded server inside the Airport Extreme or configuring a wireless modem. Each device can take requests form the iOS app and send responses back to it. Request/response. That is a server built right into the appliance.
No, that' says remote control!
You have 24 lights, 4 security cams, 3 motion detectors ... In the upstairs bedrooms and hall ways ...
You want to spend your time, remote controlling each one of these ...
Why not hire a maid and text her to do that for you (and hope she does it)?
Better -- spend $99 and get it done?
Apple doesn't like to expose complexity, so they don't describe a client-server relationship.
But they spilled their hand when they said that the HomeKit app must be running in the foreground of the iDevice -- and that no HomeKit Accessory device info leaves the home.
This post appears to give no reason for putting Siri and homekit in the Apple TV itself instead of just touch-based iOS devices.
I was thinking that as well. While I am sure a new AppleTV will have a homekit control app(s), the same thing will be available on iOS devices and probably OS X as well. I doubt there will be a single hub device. That just doesn't make any sense.
-kpluck
You have 24 lights, 4 security cams, 3 motion detectors ... In the upstairs bedrooms and hall ways ...
You want to spend your time, remote controlling each one of these ...
Why not hire a maid and text her to do that for you (and hope she does it)?
Better -- spend $99 and get it done?
Apple doesn't like to expose complexity, so they don't describe a client-server relationship.
But they spilled their hand when they said that the HomeKit app must be running in the foreground of the iDevice -- and that no HomeKit Accessory device info leaves the home.
Perhaps there is a miscommunication. I thought you said in more than one instance that a home sever would be required.
The way you affect multiple devices with a single command is by building group scripted actions.
The HomeKit app must be running in the foreground but it has access to all of the third party apps which reside inside the Homekit environment.
My mention of mini-servers running in each appliance is in reference to how almost every remote control device is managed. I would assume that the vast majority of the Homekit appliances will be running a version of embedded Linux. Without a server request/response protocol nothing would work. It is the simplest of servers but it is a server. Even the lowly light switch will have a cpu, wifi and an operating system, along with a basic web server to communicate with the iOS device.
The fact remains that network protocol is a major aspect of the system. A home network is isolated form the Internet in terms of outside requests reaching the inside devices. It needs a special secure method for that to happen which is the secret ingredient in HomeKit, but it will need a corresponding partner on the inside which is where the router comes into play. Sure it could be a Mac or an AppleTV but to me the AE seems like the likely candidate since it already has 90% of the requirements with ethernet ports, firewall and port forwarding capabilities, etc.
We're talking past each other ... From prior posts, I know you understand client-server relationships ...
We'll just have to wait and see ...
While it may be true that many of these accessories can be considered to be self-contained servers, they are limited to performing functions specific to that particular device -- a Phillips Hue Bridge can control Hue light bulbs, but cannot control a garage door, a thermostat or even non-Hue light bulbs. On its own, each of these accessories is pretty much doing its own thing.
HomeKit attempts to improve this situation by creating a database of all the accessories in a home to provide a central monitoring and control point. This database is set up by an app that acts as a HomeKit Accessory Browser. The app listens for new accessories, and when detected, uniquely names them (including the room they are in) and adds them to the database (along with the commands to control the specific devices). As additional accessories are added, removed or (relocated to another room) the setup process is repeated.
From the WWDC Keynote, HomeKit was presented as an [B][I]universal remote control[/I][/B] for all your accessories. You can control accessories individually and as groups (e.g. downstairs lights or door locks). Siri voice commands can be used to control HomeKit accessories.
So, what is known so far, is that [B][I]HomeKit requires an iOS 8 device[/I][/B] -- which means an iPad 2 or newer, iPad Mini, iPhone 4S or newer. It is unclear whether an iPod Touch will be supported. While the 3rd generation AppleTV has the hardware needed to run iOS 8, it is unclear whether Apple will support it for iOS 8 and HomeKit.
Restating this: Any qualified iDevice can act as a HomeKit [B][I]universal remote control[/I][/B]
Now, this is a biggie: It is unclear whether the HomeKit [B][I]universal remote control[/I][/B] only [B][I][COLOR=blue]works within the home[/COLOR][/I][/B] -- or if it can be used off site as well.
AFAICT, it only works within the home!
This could change in the future, but onsite-only severely limits the utility of the whole concept, IMO.
So, the proposition of using a Router vs using an AppleTV to interface HomeKit accessories is moot.
I really hope that Apple opens up the current AppleTV (or a new one) to be used as a HomeKit server (in addition to its other uses) ... seems like a no brainer.
In researching the above, I reviewed the WWDC Keynote, the developer docs and an hour-long HomeKit developer video.
Somewhere half way through the video we lost our internet connection (happens, maybe once or twice a month) ...
Hmm ... If had been offsite, trying use iPhone to remotely control the HomeKit accessories at my home, I would have been SOL!
If I'd had an AppleTV running as the HomeKit Server within my home -- everything would have operated as scheduled -- door locks, windows, security, lights, thermostat ...
Indigo is a Mac only home automation app/server that already does much of what people have been discussing in this thread. Not everything, but it gets the job done. I use it with a Mac Mini and a bunch of Insteon devices to do a number of fairly simple things with lighting mostly. I recently added two Insteon water leak detectors that can send me email and text messages through Messages when something is leaking in the kitchen or the laundry closet. There are a ton of other functions people use Indigo for including sprinkler automation, home security, energy monitoring, thermostat control etc., etc. Remote access is through their own iOS app called Indigo Touch.
Indigo also works with Z-Wave and old legacy X-10 as well as Insteon. The Indigo developers plan to support Homekit any way they can. Seems like it might be a good collaboration.
http://www.indigodomo.com