DIY Smart Home
Protocol/Controller Evolution
And My Past Smart Home Controller Choices
Last Updated: 02/10/2026
Introduction
Having followed home DIY automation technologies for about 15 years, it's interesting (even if only to me) to review the evolution of (DIY) smart home protocols, devices, and controllers. For the most part, the evolution of controllers' capabilities steered the hobby's direction. During this evolution, solutions have become more capable and easier to use, but even today, complex automation setups require a technically savvy user. As these products evolved, improved (or died), and as my device count increased, I periodically upgraded my controllers. On this page, I combine my understanding of the evolution of DIY home automation with my major controller purchase decisions, including some factors that influenced the choice of protocols and products best suited to my use cases.
​
For this write-up, it is useful to divide the timeline into three distinct periods: early (starting around 2008 to 2012), middle (2012-2018), and recent (2020-2025). These periods coincidentally correspond to some of my significant controller purchase decisions: the first in 2010, the second in 2018, and the third in 2025.
Before 2008, the dominant technology for DIY residential automation and control was X10. It wasn't until around 2005 that other technologies began appearing on the market. Therefore, 2008 seems to be a suitable starting point for this discussion.
​
2008-2012
Smart Home Communication Protocols
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
It is useful to start the discussion with the protocols available and popular before discussing specific products/controllers. The protocols initially defined a single, integrated ecosystem of sensors, switches, and controllers. This is especially true at this time. (Later on, controllers evolved to be multi-protocol, making this less true.) Therefore, before examining the controller, it is enlightening to compare the available home control protocols to determine their capabilities and ecosystems, as this directly impacts controllers that implement those protocols. The following is a list of the available protocols considered around that time.
​
-
X10 was invented in the 1970s and was the very first home automation platform. It used powerline communication, meaning devices plugged into outlets communicated over your home's electrical wiring. Although popular at the time, X10 was unreliable because its communication relied on the house wiring topology, which wasn't designed to support a higher-frequency protocol. Additionally, it was generally not easy to use. Despite being inexpensive and widely available as an open standard, it had limited commands, no encryption, and was prone to interference.
-
Insteon emerged around 2005, helping transition the older X10 standard from wired to wireless smart home connectivity. Insteon is a home automation protocol that bridges the gap between powerline and wireless protocols by using both. This dual-band approach (powerline plus RF) made it more reliable than X10, and backward compatibility made upgrading easier. Insteon was a proprietary protocol developed by Smartlabs. Therefore, it was a closed ecosystem, meaning Insteon devices only worked with other Insteon devices.
-
Z-Wave was commercially launched around 2003-2004 and gained popularity in North America by 2005. Developed by Zensys in Denmark and later acquired by Silicon Labs, Z-Wave uses sub-GHz RF frequencies (908.42 MHz in the US) to improve wall penetration, thereby avoiding the crowded 2.4 GHz band. It operates as a wireless mesh network, with many third-party vendors, such as GE and Leviton, creating compatible products thanks to Zensys's focus on interoperability.
-
Zigbee, an official standard (IEEE 802.15.4) since 2003, operates at 2.4 GHz and supports a mesh topology, similar to Z-Wave, but offers higher data throughput. However, it is susceptible to interference and initially encountered significant interoperability issues among manufacturers due to various application-layer profiles. For instance, Control4 and Philips Hue both use Zigbee, but did not work together until the release of the Zigbee 3.0 standard in 2016.
-
UPB (Universal Powerline Bus) is another powerline protocol worth mentioning. It is a powerline-only communication system that operates at a higher voltage and provides a stronger signal than X10. The main issue is that, because it's designed exclusively for power lines, it tends to be more expensive and more complex to install. While UPB was more reliable than X10, it never gained widespread use due to its cost and complexity.
-
While Wi-Fi existed, smart home devices that used it were rare from 2000 to 2010. WiFi chips were power-hungry and more expensive than other protocols, making them impractical for battery-powered sensors or inexpensive devices. The first Wi-Fi-based smart home products emerged in the late 2010s. Ethernet was also available, but few, if any, smart home products supported it. Also, pulling new cables throughout a house was a non-starter for most people, and still is today.
​​
Additionally, several proprietary (closed) solutions from manufacturers such as Lutron, Crestron, Control4, and others were becoming more widely available. All of these solutions required dealer installation and updating. All of these solutions were relatively expensive and lacked interoperability. They mainly targeted high-net-worth customers. For these reasons, these solutions were not considered part of the DIY smart home ecosystem and are not included in this discussion.​​​​​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Selecting a Home Automation Protocol in 2010
The hub solutions during this time were not typically multi-protocol. Therefore, at this time, one main protocol was chosen to standardize on. Choosing the protocol then informs the controller selection. In summary, the landscape at this time was mainly X10 (aging but widespread), Insteon (a proprietary upgrade to X10), Z-Wave (an interoperable option), Zigbee (a standard solution that faced interoperability issues), and UPB (a niche powerline option). Additionally, during this period, it was generally not possible to find products supporting multiple protocols, so a single protocol had to be chosen. Although Zigbee was a standard and would eventually address its interoperability issues, Z-Wave seemed the better choice at the time.
​​
Having selected the protocol, the real challenge was finding a hub or controller with the right features at a reasonable cost to manage the home.​
​
Major Z-Wave Controller Options in 2008-2012
​
Even though Z-Wave seemed like a good solution at the time, there weren't many hub controller options available. When selecting a Z-Wave hub and controller, the main options considered at this time were:
​​
-
HomeSeer emerged as one of the earliest Z-Wave controller vendors. It was founded in 1999 and initially released a home automation software package called HS1. Originally supporting X10, Z-Wave support was added in 2002. In 2005, the HS2 software was released, along with the PRO-100 hardware. HomeSeer emphasizes local-first automation: its software runs on x86 PCs or Raspberry Pi and supports local execution of automations. Automations are created via a Web-based GUI, and Smartphone apps are used for device control. They took a software-first approach, allowing users to run their software platform (at the time HS2) on PCs with USB Z-Wave sticks. Later on, HomeSeer also launched standalone boxes.
-
Mi Casa Verde/Vera launched around 2008 and quickly gained popularity among enthusiasts. Their early models (Vera1, Vera2) laid the foundation, but with Vera3, VeraLite (2011), and their UI5, they became a popular choice thanks to their ease of use, affordable pricing, and large community support.
-
​​​OpenHAB and Indigo were software-based home automation controllers. OpenHAB was hardware-agnostic and could run on Linux PCs and Raspberry Pi, but, while very powerful, it was not as user-friendly. Indigo was a professional-grade home control server for macOS that integrated Z-Wave, INSTEON, and X10 protocols.
Some of the products discussed in the next time period were available in this timeframe but are not listed here because they were too new and not yet mature enough to be considered.
​​​​​​​​​​​
Picking a Home Controller in 2010.
To justify the choices made, it's helpful to review my basic requirements for a home automation system. Someone with different requirements, perspectives, or information may reach a very different decision.
​
-
Relatively cost-effective solution (ie, inexpensive).
-
Relatively simple yet powerful home automation programming, preferably having a GUI for simple automations and programming for complex automations.
-
Long term manufacturer and product viability.
-
Supports a protocol that is long-term viable and wide device interoperability.
-
Strong third-party and community support and integrations.
​​​​​​
In hindsight, probably the correct choice for a home automation hub would have been HomeSeer (since they are still going in 2025). Still, for my first home automation hub, Mi Casa Verde's Vera solution was chosen because it seemed to offer a good balance of ease of use, affordability, strong third-party support, and general popularity.
​
In hindsight, I should have picked HomeSeer or waited a year or two for SmartThings or Hubitat to mature. Subsequent MiCasaVerde products, such as VeraEdge and VeraPlus, were excellent improvements. However, after a few years, the brand began to experience financial difficulties, and its software quality suffered as a result. MiCasaVerde was acquired by Ezlo in 2018, which provided minimal support to the legacy products.
​
Thus, after 4-5 years (around 2014), it became necessary to switch to a different smart home platform, but this time the goal was to do so without discarding the light switches and sensors already purchased.
​
Coming Up
​
As with most technological evolutions, the products continued to improve, become more powerful and feature-rich, and become somewhat easier (at least for the technically savvy enthusiast) to program. Most players in the market are small companies, and some have not survived or have been acquired. In the next time period . . . .