No, youāre right Homey Bridge wouldnāt help for that. On the other hand, I would think thatās 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, Iām not so sure. I would consider myself as part of the target audience. I certainly would have gone for SHS if it wasnāt for these shortcomings. But part of the appeal of Homey for me, is that it has built in support for all the relevant protocols. Iām 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. Iām 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.
You guys are giving us new product ideas by the minute
Subscribed (was not already by mistake) and liked
Iām too new here to really understand whatās not sufficient with HomeyLink, but Iāve read a few posts that state itās 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.
Iām another customer who would love to pair SHS with my Homey Pro. Canāt understand why this isnāt 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. Iām 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 isnāt possible (yet).
I havenāt 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, āadvanced features are limited. Device-specific Flow cards and certain functionality will only be available on the Homey Pro where the devices are physically connectedā. 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 Iām 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 deviceās antennas and has all apps and flows running in one (more powerful) place.
Hi @Doekse and the Homey team 
Thanks for bringing up @willemvanoorschot5507ās question in the podcast. I think the question is really about the desire to combine SHS (on a VM/Docker with more resources) with dedicated radio hardware as a coordinator ā while still keeping Homeyās user experience.
I get the argument that Homey Bridge is cheaper than using a Homey Pro as a bridge under SHS. But as @DaneedeKruyff already points out: it overlooks those who already own a Homey Pro and now want to build on top of it with SHS ā and Iām probably not the only one in that situation. 
And that brings me to something a bit broader. Limited history on sensor data in Insights, instability when building a larger Thread setup (documented here), and hardware that doesnāt always live up to expectations in practice. These are limitations that users feel in their day-to-day ā and that kind of feedback is worth listening to. 
It would be great if Homey could eventually open up to external radio hardware ā not because the existing lineup is bad, but because it would give users the flexibility to build the setup that fits their specific needs. There are dedicated coordinators from the likes of SMLIGHT or Nabu Casa that are purpose-built for Zigbee and Thread. That requires more openness in the platform ā but thatās exactly the kind of flexibility that would make it even stronger. 
For many, one all-in-one unit is the perfect solution ā and thatās precisely Homeyās strength. But for those with larger setups or more specific needs, the ability to distribute tasks across multiple instances with dedicated resources could be really valuable. Not a requirement for everyone ā just an option for those who want it.
The new Ask feature shows youāre thinking in that direction ā and thatās great. Could something similar work for updates in general ā both OS and apps? I currently check manually myself, because I donāt want to risk coming home to a setup thatās fallen apart after an update I didnāt know was coming. Notify the user, show release notes, let the user approve ā ideally with a time-based reminder. More control, fewer surprises.
I say this as someone who genuinely likes Homey ā from what Iāve tried, the user experience and UI are hard to beat. This isnāt a demand or a criticism, itās an invitation. Maybe others in the community feel the same ā and maybe thatās exactly the kind of conversation that could lead to exciting partnerships with hardware manufacturers down the line. 
Thanks for listening ā keep up the great work! 
@Doekse Now we have the zone sorting (which I love by the way) I would like to make an additional suggestion. I personally like to sort all my flows in folders that match the zone. So all flows concerning zone Living room are also in a folder called Living room. So it would be nice if I could sort the maps in the Flow section the same way as it works with the zones.
Or, even more advanced, make it possible to assign flows to Zones, just like devices (copy zone structure to the flow section).
Probably will not get high on the priority list, but would be a nice to have.
I use a similar way of working. I assume by āmapā you mean āfolderā . Would be nice to set your own sorting order of folders and flows/sub-folders in a folder.
But also devices in a zone, so that you can group similar types of devices, like lights. You can, of course, create sub-zones, but the contents is not shown one level up (parent level). At least in the mobile app. Currently, you need to open the sub-zone before you see the included devices. Maybe a hierarchical tree view is an option to display zones and devices, similar like in the web app.
Changed āmapā to āfolderā. Thanks.
I cannot find how to sort this 
. Homey 2023 with latest FW and app.
In the web interface you can just drag and drop the zones in the order you wish. Not sure if you can actually change the order in the app, but the app will reflect the changes in the web interface.
Tnx found it I looked in the wrong place
Hey @Doekse
Question for the next Podcast if this is an acceptable place to submit them.
And this may be too niche for consideration but has homey thought about an even more lightweight version of homey bridge?
Many of its protocols work perfectly fine across multiple rooms (zigbee, zwave, 433mhz). Others however, specifically bluetooth and infrared, can fail to reach or in case of IR, lack line of sight even in the same room. Meaning you might need to purchase many bridges if you have these kinds of devices scattered in your home. The cost of which racks up.
The bridgeās hub style form factor also demands somewhere to place the device that isnāt unsightly or awkward.
One thing that is abundant in most rooms however, are wall outlets. I was thinking perhaps there could be a strong enough use case in the community for homey āsatelitesā that can plug directly into wall outlets and provide just the very short range protocols in many more places, and a reduced cost.
I like this idea, although I have no clue if itās commercially doable.
I recently added a few IKEA Matter bulbs and itās taken me several weeks to build a stable thread network that will support them reliably. The answer was (mostly) dotting GrillPlats sockets around as thread routers. I know Iām not the only one to do that!
I donāt personally need Bluetooth extension but I would happily have used a Homey wallplug over thread with the extra option of IR. Unless, of course, the stability from the GrillPlats is just because itās IKEA code!
Iām the UK, which illustrates the potential commercial issue, though. I would need UK format, others wouldnāt, and the price would have to at least compete with IKEA.
Cheers,
Russell
Hi all,
For episode 14 of the Homey Podcast, Iām excited to have both Shane Whatley and Paul Hibbert joining me.
Got any questions youād like me to ask them? Drop them in the comments below!
What would it take or what would have to change for both gentlemen to switch to Homey?
Some questions for both:
- What is - in your view - a āsmart homeā and which role does Homey play in that?
- You both use multiple smart home hubs, including Homey. For what purpose do you use Homey and how does Homey compare to the other platforms you use?
- What kind of new insights did you gain about your smart home when you started using Homey?
- What kind of smart home automations did Homey enable you to create, that you were not able to achieve before using Homey?
- Which smart home automation - that is supported by your Homey - are you most proud of?
