Bond strategy from user vs developer perspective

Since I am coming only recently to this forum and haven’t been able to digest all the communication I like to get a better understanding of the approach driven by the bond team and to what extend the customer/end user has input in the progress and direction being taken.
Let me interduce myself as a technical person with experience in science and engineering of microprocessors and underlying hardware technology. In my role as circuit design lead on several generations of POWER processors I came across a lot of issues with design methodology to enhance the efficiency of the designer to handle ever larger functional partitions. The main underlying concepts used in chip industry is modularity and hierarchy to scale up designs without loosing view of the details.
How does this matter here?
My first impression from the bond based approach is strictly from the end user perspektive experiencing first hand the limited functionality provided within the current standard app. As a reference point I will use my experience with Harmony based AV control of multiple independent products trying to work together with a user friendly interface.
What I am seeing is a lack of strategy to accommodate the large variety of control interfaces Bond with fixed templates. The most common problems user will find is that while some template provides significant advantage when it nearly fits the device control requirements but it fails to fall short in some missing functions. Here is a need to be dealt with in an adaptive way by enabling users to add missing functions from a library and if need be train the system as Harmony allows very extensively.
In general a more generic approach should also be available. The user can define a template based on the existing functionality of his particular remote and pull those respective symbols from a library. once that set is assembled the system can try to identify a functional template that matches closely the input by the user and ask for specific test of one or the other function to narrow down which operable template has the best overlap with the requirements. Then the user can add the missing functions in a learn mode to complement the starting template.
In a more general way to provide a shell template based on the product the user wants to control with fields to be assigned to functions taken from a symbol table could be the starting point.
Please give me some feedback so I can understand better what the actual current strategy is that will make Bond an adaptive support environment.

1 Like

You asked for feedback, so here is mine: I am always surprised at people who try to have tools bend to their will rather than seeking out tools that might better meet their desired outcome.

As an eager DIY-er, the Bond platform gives me nearly everything I want to manage my RF (and occasionally IR) devices the way I want.

Would the ability to have additional template creation options and guidance, as well as maybe a way to share among the community, be awesome? Sure!
Can I make any hardware compatible device do what I want? So far, yes.
I do use a mixture of devices and programming to get real world controls and integrations (Harmony remotes, Insteon switches, keypads, and remotes – all controlled through my ISY controller and leveraging Bond’s local API), but it works well for me.

I do have Dyson fans that think they’re ceiling fans, or lamps and monitors that think they’re fireplaces – but it works, and I’m able to make enough changes via local API calls that the Bond app makes decent sense, even though it’s not my default method of controlling Bond-Bridge-associated devices.

Again, I’d love the ability to PATCH or update any properties of any device, support dimming natively, have a list of icons, ability to make my own Actions, etc.
But I’m doing well enough with what there is, and even though the Bond team is small, they do seem very responsive to the community, over time.
With patience on our part as customers, and with clear and specific use case requests being brought to Bond staff, we have a good chance of getting a lot of nice-to-haves added.

Of course, the Bond technology and design being leveraged and licensed by partners to make “Smart by Bond” products with Bond built in (no need for a Bridge) is something that I have begun prioritizing for my home renovation plans. Going to get Smart by Bond ceiling fans, landscape lighting, and will be selecting something compatible for shades/blinds.

1 Like