10

SmartHome Integration

I am seriously looking at iKettle3 and would like to integrate it into my SmartHome.

In oder to avoid too many Apps and Tools, I would like to integrate iKettle via WEB/REST-API into my FHEM or OpenHAB or OpenAssistant.

Is there an API-description you are able/willing to share with me/developers?

Would be a nice promotion for your product in that community.

Thanks!

Bernd

24 comments

  • Avatar
    Jayson Official comment

    Hello Bernd, 

    Currently the API for the 3rd Gen is closed. 

    Our developers are considering opening it in the future, but this has not been confirmed. 

    Best wishes, 

    Emma 

    Smarter Support

  • 2
    Avatar
    Torsten

    Hello Emma,

    Sorry about my bad English.

    So why in the future?

    In the future, the Melitta, WMF, etc., will do the same.

    only now you have an opportunity through the SmartHome Community external development and input.

    Help the developers !

     
  • 2
    Avatar
    Nick Clemmons

    I'll throw my vote on this feature! I'd love to control it directly from Samsung SmartThings, especially if temperature and keep warm time were integrated.

  • 2
    Avatar
    Joachim Sörensen

    I also give this feature a vote, Most that i would love to control my smarter coffee, WEB/Rest API

     

  • 1
    Avatar
    Keen Fann

    I want this as well! Please give it to us!

  • 1
    Avatar
    Christopher Wansing

    Would love to see that! We are a small smart home startup and would sell this device a lot more often if we would be able to integrate it with our system properly!

  • 1
    Avatar
    Michael Hübner

    I'am using the iKettle3 in a privat setting and it's a wonderful device, but I'am a developer too and from that point of view it would add so much more value if you'd open the api/ give keys away. I'm in particular interested in getting the current Temperatur of die iKettle3 via Amazons Alexa or Goggle Assistent  by asking them. Therefore I have to open up the app each time, which is a bit annoying. 

  • 1
    Avatar
    Jayson

    Hi Michael, 

    With the Alexa and Google Home integrations, you can ask them the temperature of the kettle. :) 

    To control with integration you use the name you gave the kettle in the app, if you called the kettle 'kettle' you can do the below. 

    For Alexa simply say "Alexa, what is the temperature of the kettle?" and Alexa will let you know the temperature live temperature of the water in the kettle! 

    The same with Google Assistant but the phrase is “Ok Google, what is the temperature of the kettle?”. 

    Best wishes, 

    Emma

     

  • 3
    Avatar
    Sebastiaan Jansen

    Hi Emma,

    Quick question, have your developers decided yet on opening a bit of the connectivity on the V3 yet (like with the older versions)?

    I bought an iKettle with the assumption that I could hook it up to my domotica (did a quick google, found a nice github page, didn't realize V3 completely threw away with the nice interface).

    So currently i'm somewhat disappointed and probably going to return the device and look for a used V2 version.. (really don't want to have to do this).

    My two cents on why I think the decision to close the API is somewhat of a bad one in the IoT world, when Smarter would no longer exist (give or take a few years), IFTT would no longer work nor would the google/alexa integration.

    By having an open API you pretty much give your device an additional selling point since lots of developers at home build integration into tons of home automation systems (for free!).

    Can you please check with the development team again? also ask how serious they are considering it (and in what time frame)? 

    Thanks,

    Sebastiaan

     

  • 1
    Avatar
    Ian White

    I'll throw my vote in for this. 

    Closed IOT products will eventually die to open ones - smart home integration is NOT going to work using an app for every device.

    First(ish) to market is great but the moment an open API competitor comes along anyone serious about home integration is going to drop you and not look back (or simply not purchase in the first place).

    I really like the iKettle 3.0 but it'll be donated the moment an open API product that looks about as good as the iKettle comes along. 

    I wish more companies would understand this, IFTTT integration is simply not good enough.

  • 2
    Avatar
    bernd

    I see no change or innovation with respect to that subject......

    too bad.

    I am off this company now.

    Sorry!

  • 2
    Avatar
    Tim Nesham

    We too would be interested in better API integration for our app. IFTTT is not very good. I imagine there are legal concerns with a 3rd party app sending commands directly to your iKettle?

  • 2
    Avatar
    Charlie Haley

    I am also putting in my support for this, I was disappointed to learn the API has been shut off on the latest version...

  • 0
    Avatar
    Charlie Haley

    Is there any update on this at all? I find it absolutely insane that this still hasn't been done in nearly 12 months... I'd like to be using this to develop apps and the current limitations are extremely frustrating. 

  • 1
    Avatar
    Gareth

    Hi,

    As I was just pointed to this by someone in the IFTTT thread, let me make our position clear.

    Our current generation products form part of a ruggedised IoT platform, all of which has to comply with various international standards regarding hardware, and many security considerations for the software, firmware and back end infrastructure. There are a number of APIs available to first and second parties, obviously IFTTT, Google and Amazon are examples, but also other organisations who provide Home/ IoT based solutions. All of them work with us under a mutual NDA and are (obviously) able to provide and demonstrate a very, very  serious security focus.

    We have mentioned that we'd consider providing a user API, but this is not 'open' nor is it 'opening up'. The only way we can see this working is that you would apply for an authentication key - this would correspond with your Smarter access and provide you access to the devices you have access to, either on your own device networks, or shared networks to which you are the owner.

    Judging by some of the comments, this isn't going to be what you expect. You're not going to just be able to open a socket and communicate directly with a kettle or coffee machine on your network - not even close. Our devices communicate to the cloud via their own VPN-like connection, which is how our products are safe even on a public network. You will need to communicate via HTTPS with a cloud-based API, with correct authentication, and of course, only access to your own devices.

    We'll consider rolling this out in beta soon, with a limit number of testers. If you're interested, contact us and we'll go from there. 

    But once again I'll point out that this is an enhancement we are considering providing long term - commercial IoT products have no obligation to provide open APIs so don't expect it from everyone, otherwise you're going to be very very disappointed in future as the market can and will tighten up in response to security issues, where the typical outcome is going to be 'Why take the risk?'.

    Cheers,

    Gareth

     

  • 0
    Avatar
    Gareth

    Hi,

    To help put it in context, we've had no responses based on this - this is what we need to prioritise on.

    Cheers,

    Gareth

  • 0
    Avatar
    Nick Clemmons

    I'd be glad to help beta test a feature like you mentioned above. I'm no developer but have used personal API keys before so if it's a moderately user-friendly process I could probably figure it out. I've been pretty content with IFTTT, though, and it sounds like this wouldn't be much different. I suspect that most users who are tech-savvy enough to use a personal API key are also able to set up similar behavior through IFTTT. That being said, I'm sure there are people who would like to be able to leave out the middle step of running through IFTTT. Another likely end result would be things like SmartThings apps that do all the background work for you and simply require the end user to apply for and enter a personal API key, which would work well for a lot of people too. I'm glad to know that security is a priority for you, though. To be honest my kettle is the smallest brand in my smart home set up so I'm glad to hear that you're taking it as seriously as the big names like Samsung. 

  • 0
    Avatar
    Vlad Alexandrov

    I would also be very happy to beta test this and can also code up a component for integrating coffee and kettle into Home Assistant.

    IFTTT isn't sufficient for complete integration at the moment and even if additional triggers/actions are added it would still be very helpful to bypass the extra step (especially given the sometimes unpredictable delay that IFTTT introduces)

  • 1
    Avatar
    Christopher Wansing

    Hi Gareth,

    thanks for clarifying some of the reasons. I am very positive about your decision to bring this forward by doing a first beta test soon. It is only logical, that the communication will happen secured through your cloud via for example an OAuth authentification.

    I would be comfortable with that and are familiar with this kind of API, so if you´re beta testing it please consider me for a slot.

    Regards, Christopher

  • 1
    Avatar
    Ian White

    Gareth, I’m not sure what your point about ‘not opening up’ is.

    Nobody is asking for unfettered access to your platform. Obviously an authentication key would only provide access to our devices, that’s not a moonshot idea, that’s a basic security principle your platform already supports, nothing new is being invented here.

    All we’re asking for is the same access the app currently provides, in api form.

    Assuming you have a half competent dev team that entire infrastructure is already in place bar a potentially different key than the api already authenticates with.

    I can control my entire aws, Azure, gcloud, openshift, blah blah cloud platform with a key and an api. Authenticated api access is a solved security problem.

    I don’t think anyone (and you’re right in that they should be dissapointed) is expected an open http port given your new infrastructure.
    But providing secured api acccess isn’t some new 2019 idea, at best it gets you to 1999?

    You have a great physical product. I still maintain you’ll be ousted long term by a pretty product and decent connectivity - home automation *will* become more mainsteam, and with it the requirement to interconnect. One app per product is not going to cut it past medium term.

    I look forward to the beta , though the need for one puzzles me. I do hope your app is already authenticating securely, using a non binary api, and only has access to ‘my’ devices..

  • 0
    Avatar
    Gareth

    Hi everyone,

    Thanks for your responses, both public and private. In general I think you get what we are looking at doing. I'll try to address the gist of most of the comments made publicly and privately here.

    There was a brief mention of Google Assistant - please note Google Home/Assistant is already supported today, if that's what is being referred to.

    To recap, we already provide APIs to our partners. These provide very specific access to specific devices based on very strict control and authentication. We partnered with the likes of Google, Amazon, IFTTT, others soon to be revealed, and third parties in the home automated space for these purposes.

    The 'public' API is for 'the public' to access the devices they have access to if they want to go one step further than IFTTT, Alexa, Google Home, etc. They will have access to these devices having set them up and associated them with their Smarter account.

    For anyone interested in using the devices for commercial purposes/large scale use of devices/setting the devices up without a Smarter account, etc, the public API is *not* for you. Please contact partnerships@smarter.am to discuss further in these cases.

    I think the reason for a beta phase should be pretty much obvious; we want to work with people who want to suggest features and means of access (control and trigger events, etc) and contribute towards providing this, rather than 'I can do this with my XXX and in year YYY I expect ZZZ' etc.

    Cheers,

    Gareth

  • 1
    Avatar
    Christopher Wansing

    For me it sounds about good. Thanks for the recap.

    Is there already a schedule for the start of the beta that you can share with us?

    Regards,

    Christopher

  • 0
    Avatar
    Tyler Pruce

    Hi Gareth,

     

    Thanks for the info. Any further information on the start of the beta or ways that we could sign up for it?

     

    Cheers,

    Tyler

  • 0
    Avatar
    Jan Werner

    I would never consider buying such a product unless it offers an open API. This API has to be accessible locally and use authentication mechanisms that don't rely on the vendor's server infrastructure.

    We've seen this countless times: a smart device (more or less so) is released, only offering a proprietary API. A year or two later, the vendor goes bankrupt or is sold to another company that has no interest in supporting "legacy" products. Servers are shut down and/or proprietary smartphone apps don't receive any updates and will stop being supported on iOS and Android. End of story.

    Edited by Jan Werner
Please sign in to leave a comment.