Using it for very-low traffic applications is simply not what it was designed to do
Was it not? Sure, it wasn’t specifically designed for low traffic, but it was designed with a wide range of traffic levels in mind; after all, virtually every WiFi capable device, home automation or not, uses very little traffic most of the time as it idles. Now, I absolutely appreciate Zigbee or ZWave being optimized for minimal energy consumption, which is useful for some device types; but I feel it isn’t right to call WiFi a poor choice for low traffic just because it also handles very high traffic well.
You raise an interesting point about congestion, though, and that is very much was I hoped to learn about. I am sometimes under impression that device designers assume everyone lives in a detached house so interference can be ignored. Do you know how specifically is Zigbee better in this regard? Living in a condominium I always had very poor experience with Zigbee reliability, which might or might not have been due to local radio noise at various ares of the spectrum, so I’m curious to learn about details how exactly these purpose-specific transfer layers deal with noisy neighborhoods.
In the context of communication networks, WiFi is a high speed netowrk. It was designed to be basically a “normal” (ethernet-like) network, but wireless. It acts for all intents and purposes like an ethernet network. There are significant requirements that devices need to follow, many include frequently saying “hello” (simplified). The complexity of the protocol to be able to send at gigabit and faster speeds over dozens of meters is significant. Having relatively low latency adds to this as well. If all you need is a few bytes every now and then, that isn’t ideal. Having devices in your network that follow older/slower standards is essentially like pulling the handbrake for your network (again, very simplified). But explaining this in detail is also very much beyond the scope of a comment here.
ZigBee devices form a mesh network, which WiFi devices don’t do. This means I can have my hub on one side of my house and a bunch of bulbs and smart outlets maintain a backbone through the house for a bunch of low power devices (like thermostats and door sensors) to connect to it.
If you’re having a bad ZigBee experience, I recommend making sure your bulbs can serve as a general ZigBee bridge, and not just a bridge for other bulbs of that brand. Otherwise, a well placed smart outlet can serve the same purpose.
Was it not? Sure, it wasn’t specifically designed for low traffic, but it was designed with a wide range of traffic levels in mind; after all, virtually every WiFi capable device, home automation or not, uses very little traffic most of the time as it idles. Now, I absolutely appreciate Zigbee or ZWave being optimized for minimal energy consumption, which is useful for some device types; but I feel it isn’t right to call WiFi a poor choice for low traffic just because it also handles very high traffic well.
You raise an interesting point about congestion, though, and that is very much was I hoped to learn about. I am sometimes under impression that device designers assume everyone lives in a detached house so interference can be ignored. Do you know how specifically is Zigbee better in this regard? Living in a condominium I always had very poor experience with Zigbee reliability, which might or might not have been due to local radio noise at various ares of the spectrum, so I’m curious to learn about details how exactly these purpose-specific transfer layers deal with noisy neighborhoods.
In the context of communication networks, WiFi is a high speed netowrk. It was designed to be basically a “normal” (ethernet-like) network, but wireless. It acts for all intents and purposes like an ethernet network. There are significant requirements that devices need to follow, many include frequently saying “hello” (simplified). The complexity of the protocol to be able to send at gigabit and faster speeds over dozens of meters is significant. Having relatively low latency adds to this as well. If all you need is a few bytes every now and then, that isn’t ideal. Having devices in your network that follow older/slower standards is essentially like pulling the handbrake for your network (again, very simplified). But explaining this in detail is also very much beyond the scope of a comment here.
ZigBee devices form a mesh network, which WiFi devices don’t do. This means I can have my hub on one side of my house and a bunch of bulbs and smart outlets maintain a backbone through the house for a bunch of low power devices (like thermostats and door sensors) to connect to it.
If you’re having a bad ZigBee experience, I recommend making sure your bulbs can serve as a general ZigBee bridge, and not just a bridge for other bulbs of that brand. Otherwise, a well placed smart outlet can serve the same purpose.
And that’s a great example of how Zigbee design principles are fundamentally better suited for home automation purposes than WiFi. Thank you.