The inVisible smart home

[Ruurd_van_der_Noord]

The visible smart home: why Homey Portal leads to dependency rather than transparency, openness …

The introduction of Homey Portal reveals a tension at the heart of smart-home strategy. On the one hand, automation promises less physical involvement and less attention to devices. Portal makes control tactile, visible, and, above all, always present. I would argue that Portal creates greater dependency on the Homey ecosystem, while the original promise of automation -transparency and invisibility- is pushed into the background.

Portal is a dedicated control panel. It is designed to encourage more frequent interaction and finer adjustments. This increased attention means more time spent on technology, not less. Yet my housemates and I want transparency and openness: no screens, no gadgets, …just something that works.

Design focused on dependency

It appears to me that Portal reinforces dependency on the ecosystem. It does not function as a standalone hub; it requires Homey Cloud, Homey Pro, Homey Pro, Mini, SHS, and so on. In other words, I must already be part of the Homey ecosystem to be able to use it.

In my view, Portal creates an open back end with a closed front end. Athom has emphasized openness -support for more than 70000 devices, Matter, Zigbee, Z-Wave, and so on, yet Portal itself is closed and platform-specific. By design, it makes switching to another system more difficult than before.

Athom’s parallel investments in Homey Energy, such as solar forecasts and export prices, increase the value of the platform as I add more data. Portal may do the same. Switching costs therefore increase: the more Portals I buy, the harder it becomes for me to switch.

Debate: who determines when the light turns on, and what color might be …

Imagine this: I walk into my study. Should the light turn on automatically, or should I have to touch Portal (why not speak?) Does the designer decide this? This is a complex question; a design is never (value-) neutral.

Homey Flows might activate a light based on my presence, mood, personal energy level, blood pressure, temperature, heart rate, time, light level, and, yes, sometimes the charge level of my plug-in batteries. In that context, Portal offers a possible manual override.

Intelligence could make Portal obsolete

In a future where automation is driven by AI or AGI and predicts my wishes with the promised astonishing accuracy, it could enhance rule-based triggers (adding ever more variables). It could understand my patterns, context, intentions, microclimate, and even macroclimate?

Technology could learn more and more from my corrections -through Portal, for example ;-)) and reduce the margin of error until manual intervention, including the use of Portal, becomes rare. The house would feel “just right” to my housemates and me: no screens, no buttons, no “things” at all.

If interaction is necessary, it can be done via voice rather than by touching a device. A device is often an example of cold communication; the voice feels warmer. I enjoy that warmth.

Just like everything else, Portal can eventually become obsolete. Technology can be present, transparent, and open without necessarily being tactile.

Transparency and openness over gadgets

Portal is a signal: it prioritizes visible, tactile control and strengthens the bond with the Homey ecosystem. At the same time, it deviates from the original promise of automation and, in my opinion, also from Homey’s original promise as a more open platform, although it was not as open as Home Assistant from the start.

I cherish and appreciate transparency and openness… Even my mobile phone seems to me a much more open and versatile tool; I don’t need to become hooked (again).

No screens, no buttons, no devicesjust my home.

[4x4_Pete]

It doesn‘t make any other sense than just being another revenue creator. And this is, although perfectly legitimate from Athom“s point of view, truely sad for all the users out there desperately waiting for long overdue fixes and features for the existing stuff. But this does not create iimediate new revenue - just satisfied customers who, however, had spent their money in the past and have long been scrapped from todays balance sheets but not from the marketing list as potential cash cows.

That is sad business reality.

[Ruurd_van_der_Noord]

Yes indeed Pete, sad it is, … still I once in a while openly refuse to accept this as something inevitable or even self-evident.

[Doekse]

Interesting take! I do agree with the underlying idea that the best smart home is one that mostly just works in the background without you having to think about it.

Where I disagree a little is the idea that automation and manual control are somehow opposites.

You can automate 99% of what happens in your home and still have moments where you consciously want to change something. Maybe you want the lights a little brighter, change the temperature, start some music, or simply see what is happening in your home. For those moments, I think having a dedicated interface can actually make the technology disappear more than having to grab your phone, unlock it, open an app and find the right device.

Portal also doesn’t determine whether your study light turns on automatically or whether you have to touch a screen. That’s entirely up to you. You can have a Flow turn it on automatically and never touch Portal at all. Portal is simply there for the moments where you do want to intervene.

I’m also not entirely convinced voice is inherently more transparent. Take music volume, for example. If I want to raise or lower the volume using voice, I either need to know roughly what percentage it is currently set to or just guess how much I want to change it by.

With Portal, I can simply rest my finger on the ring, immediately see the current volume, and then turn the dial to adjust it. To me, that’s actually a much more natural and transparent interaction.

As for ecosystem dependency, that’s of course fair to some extent. Portal is a Homey product, so naturally it works with Homey. But I don’t think that makes Homey itself any less open. The Zigbee, Z-Wave, Matter, API integrations, etc. underneath it all remain exactly the same. And perhaps most importantly, Portal is completely optional.

If your ideal smart home is "no screens, no buttons, no devices, just my home", that’s perfectly possible with Homey as well. You simply wouldn’t buy a Portal.

And if we eventually reach a point where AI can perfectly predict what every person in a household wants at every moment, I suspect Portal becoming obsolete will be one of the smaller changes we’ll have to deal with

[Ruurd_van_der_Noord]

Thank you for your extensive and thoughtful response Doekse!

Yes, I agree with an important part of it:
“Portal is simply there for the moments where you do want to intervene.”
And I don’t have to buy it ;-)) … indeed!

In those moments, Portal can genuinely be useful, especially because it reduces the time and friction involved. Reaching for a phone, unlocking it, opening an app, and navigating to the right control is often less natural than using a device that is already in the room. That is a quality! And yes, whether voice or a physical interface works better is contextual. Voice is not always appropriate or reliable, especially in contexts where there is noise, music, other people or ambiguity.

My point is therefore not that Portal takes away automation, nor that it forces anyone to control their home manually. It is optional, and Homey Flows and HomeyScript can still make a home highly automated. Thank you for that. … But rather, … I see Portal as a design signal within a wider evolution that I would like to discuss here.

I am reminded of Heidegger’s point that technology is not simply a neutral instrument that we use without being changed by it. Technologies also shape their users: they influence what we notice, what we consider controllable, and how we understand the world around us. They can even shape our bodies.
A device can lock me in, not only technically, through an ecosystem, but also through the habits and expectations it creates.
Consider the hammer: it does not merely extend the carpenter’s hand; through repeated use, it also shapes the carpenter’s body, skills, posture, movements, and sense of the material. I find this a helpful way to think about technology.

My point is that a product is never only functional; it also expresses an idea about how we relate to it as a thing, a device, and a technology. Portal gives interaction a visible, tactile, and permanent place in the home.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this. For me, it is helpful to reflect on the habits, expectations, and forms of interaction that (a) technology invites, encourages, and gradually normalises.

I also agree that Homey’s underlying integrations remain open, at least so far, and in the technical sense: Zigbee, Z-Wave, Matter, APIs, and the many supported devices do not disappear because Portal exists.
But the idea behind Portal could be a signal of an increasing lock-in. My debate is less about those protocols and more about the direction of the user experience. A dedicated, Homey-specific control might make the ecosystem more attractive and even more coherent, but it could increase attachment to this ecosystem over time. This is not necessarily wrong; it simply is worth recognizing and debating.

Perhaps the real question is not whether control and automation are opposites. They are not, I think, my point takes a slight different angle.

For me, the most compelling smart home remains one in which the technology is capable, transparent, and open, and does not constantly ask to be seen, touched, or managed. Yes, I do not have to buy Portal, Doekse, … I know thank you ;-))

[Doekse]

@Ruurd_van_der_Noord

But the idea behind Portal could be a signal of an increasing lock-in. My debate is less about those protocols and more about the direction of the user experience.

And I’m here to reaffirm that more vendor lock-in is never the goal. Quite the opposite, really. Hence our motto: “Smart home is better together"

[sverrelp]

Will the Homey Portal be supported by community/official apps in the future?

[Ruurd_van_der_Noord]

Thank you Abe, … I understand the reassurance from Athom/Homey, and I appreciate it. I also agree that the stated goal is not lock-in.

My point is simply that product design can influence a company’s direction over time. Changes in user experience can shape how a company positions itself, what it prioritizes, and even how it redefines its own aims, even though intentions were different.

Design is not neutral by nature, neither for users nor for companies.

☙ ☙ ☙ ☙ ☙ ☙ ☙ ☙ ☙ ☙

[Ruurd_van_der_Noord]

Very interesting question, Sverrelp. The implication behind your question may be some uncertainty about Homey’s direction, its openness, and whether Portal remains an optional interface or becomes part of a broader shift. Or am I reading this wrong, or am I overstating it?

[Ruurd_van_der_Noord]

In addition, Bas van Bavel is a useful reminder -he writes about early capitalist societies- that a system can start out open and attractive, yet still evolve in ways that reduce openness over time.

[Peter_Kawa]

@sverrelp

Will the Homey Portal be supported by community/official apps in the future?

The Homey portal base functionality (as I see it): it can control certain devices residing in a Homey zone;
Which implies it really shouldn’t matter if these devices are part of “official” or community apps.

If devices of community apps were ignored, the portal is “pretty useless” imho.

[Ruurd_van_der_Noord]

Yes, Peter, I agree. I would even argue that this applies to the entire Homey ecosystem.

The question here is not whether the apps, devices, and other components will work; this topic/discussion is not about finding a solution.

My question is how changes in design influence users, companies, and communities. I hope you and other community members will share their thoughts on this.