No, you’re right Homey Bridge wouldn’t help for that. On the other hand, I would think that’s not really a problem for the target audience for an SHS.
Plenty other options around and I would bet you these type of users will already have one or more Thread (Border Router) capable devices in their home.
Yeah, I’m not so sure. I would consider myself as part of the target audience. I certainly would have gone for SHS if it wasn’t for these shortcomings. But part of the appeal of Homey for me, is that it has built in support for all the relevant protocols. I’m not so interested in using some other external device like an Apple TV or a phone as a TBR, and/or some external ZigBee antenna with zigbee2mqtt. But Homey Pro also has its limitations when it comes to both memory and computing power, even though the 2026 edition has more memory. I’m hoping that there will be an updated bridge with Thread and improved Zigbee, or even a completely new device which only works as an antenna, but the second best thing would be if I could use my existing Pro as an antenna extension for SHS.
1 Like
You guys are giving us new product ideas by the minute
3 Likes
Subscribed (was not already by mistake) and liked
I’m too new here to really understand what’s not sufficient with HomeyLink, but I’ve read a few posts that state it’s not.
Perhaps the issue is that HomeyLink needs to evolve to something better? 
Years ago Hubitat Elevation had this issue and invented something that completely eliminated the issue so devices of any type could be shared bi-directionally with multiple hubs with almost no impact on any of the hubs.
1 Like
I’m another customer who would love to pair SHS with my Homey Pro. Can’t understand why this isn’t implemented the same way as the Bridge. It just feels wrong to buy a Bridge in addition to my Pro when the Pro obviously is a better devise hardware wise. I’m also not to keen on several third party options to get all the antennas I want/need. Especially since they are already in place in my existing hardware. So it would be great to get a statement from Athom explaining why this, to me obvious, intergration isn’t possible (yet).
1 Like
I haven’t tried HomeyLink myself, only read about it. But in my understanding, HomeyLink would allow you to see and control the devices added to your Homey Pro in the SHS instance, but then it also requires that all device-supporting apps run on the Homey Pro. I suppose largely for this reason, it also has important limitations in setting up and running flows with these devices in the SHS instance. As Athom says, “advanced features are limited. Device-specific Flow cards and certain functionality will only be available on the Homey Pro where the devices are physically connected”. Which again means that even some wifi-based devices that could have been added directly on the SHS may have to be added to the Homey Pro if you want flows that use device specific flow cards from these in combination with some from, say, Zigbee devices.
So if you have to run the device-supporting apps on the Homey Pro, and you have to run pretty much all device specific flows on the Homey Pro, the computing power and memory related arguments for using SHS start falling apart.
Although I’m sure there are some ways of working around some of these limitations, it is undeniably clunky compared to the prospect of an SHS which just uses some other Homey device’s antennas and has all apps and flows running in one (more powerful) place.
