Wyze Hub Ideas

This is a great idea but I was thinking a Wyze Hub for all smart devices. Create a Wyze Hub that has a z wave, zigbee, bluetooth, IR, and wifi radios in it. One well made inexpensive hub that you could use to bring everything in your home together and give it the ability to work offline and online.

Could the new devices have a built-in mesh network (ie. Zwave like). That way even if they are in an area with low signal they can still communicate. I think this is very helpful with sensor communications. But also a light bulb switch and other items.

How about a wyze mesh wifi sysytem possibly with a built in Zig-bee hub???

These last two replies are exactly why it needs to be an universal type hub. That way it could work with and control everything (z wave, zigbee, etcā€¦)

Wink wink.

Is Wyze going to come out with a Local Storage hub? I just purchased a Blink mini and Blink is coming out with a Blink storage hub and it will be accessible via the mobile app. The Blink mini supports full time recording too. It will work like my wired system with a DVR build in. I can check all cameras from the remote app and export the URL through my router firewall.

The sync module 2 is available now but , As of right now the storage ( user supplied flash drive) on the blink sync module 2 is not accessible via the app

Heres the new Wyze sense hub launching tomorrow from the email :eyes: unnamed

1 Like

SimpliWyze?

copyright lawsuit ?:eyes:

So, the fine print on my broadband says that they can limit the number of attached devicesā€¦ Iā€™m not sure why, I guess thereā€™s a reason. So while the no-hub required gadgets are great, Iā€™ve wondered in the back of my mind could/would/should a limit ever be enforced. Glad the question is asked.

Xfinity absolutely limits it on their equipment. Basically what they did was limit to 50 devices, then made it unable to use bridge mode so you couldnā€™t use their gateway with a separate router. If you wanted more devices you needed to upgrade to their mesh. I ended up sending back their equipment and just buying my own

Why do you need bridge mode? Connect your routerā€™s WAN port to an Ethernet port on the ISP router. What could Xfinity be doing to police the number of connections behind a double NAT (all connections appear with the single MAC address of your router)?

Because without the gateway being in bridge mode your own router can only be used as an access point, not a router. Which the gateway had issues with so it constantly dumped my entire network. Now it doesnā€™t matter because using my own items starting at the box I have Iā€™ve 100 devices total connected to my network and have no issuess

That may be true for wireless but is not true for the hardwired Ethernet setup I described. Just a single short cable between the routers. (Your internal clients would connect only to your personal router/AP.)

Even if you absolutely must connect the 2nd router wirelessly for some reason, lots of routers can act as clients even without touching the first routerā€™s settings.

Anyway, glad you got it working to your needs.

1 Like

The fact remains though, you shouldnā€™t HAVE to do this to get your smart home up and working. The cameras I can understand, they need a level of bandwidth that is just not able to be achieved on anything short of maybe Bluetooth, which would not be ideal. However for smart switches, sensors, door locks, smart blinds, etc there just isnā€™t a reason to have these be WiFi based.

First, I was responding only to the Xfinity router 50 device limit thing.

Second, huh? Are you proposing hardwiring Ethernet to every light switch and door lock et al.? Of course they need to be wireless (whether WiFi or Zigbee etc.).

no Iā€™m not saying wired ethernet, that would still result in the same thing. ISPs track by MAC address, so regardless of wired or wireless it would result in deprioritization of the connection at best, Connections for anything other than Cameras should be via ZWave or Zigbee.

FWIW, my ISP (tries to) split my overall bandwidth between all the unique devices that they can detect on my network. This adds up extremely quickly these days with Smart TVs, Smart Appliances, Cell Phones, Laptops, equipment to Work from Home, etc. I am at 20 devices on my network at a very quick count and Iā€™m sure I am missing a lot. Unfortunately I donā€™t really have a choice for my ISP, and they know it so they are not maintaining the infrastructure as they should be so I refuse to pay more than absolutely necessary.

Okay but then my earlier point applies. Just daisy chain your own router via Ethernet, turn off the ISP routerā€™s WiFi (or simply use a different SSID for all your real devices), and the only MAC address the ISP will ever see is that of your personal router. If you want to get even cagier many routers will let you spoof MAC addresses so you can pretend your router is a single Dell laptop or something.

With not that many smart bridges offered in the market that have both zigbee and z wave attenas i think wyze will be a great competitor for it. It will have all the capabilities for home assistance integration an smartthings. Also it should work with all product like philips hue, many smart switch and dimmer brands, yale, kwikset, and even their own lock brand. Basically a device that connects a full smart home interface with out putting the stress on someoneā€™s internet