What's going on with Sonoff and Ewelink?

Ideas & Suggestion Free discussion
1

What’s going on with Sonoff and Ewelink?

Even though the Sonoff product family is growing, it is still necessary to rely on products from other manufacturers, i.e. Ewelink compatible. LED light bulbs (I mean entire LED panels), various types of sensors and, last but not least, switches..

either because of the price or the features or quite simply that the sonoff product itself does not offer it at all. and lately I see a problem, a lot of these products have disappeared from the market, or their price has increased tremendously. for example, I bought a 30 cm LED circular panel and first the price increased by 20% and the mini same panel is unavailable or is for tuya.

Are we witnessing some kind of trade war between Sonoff or will they stop supporting third-party manufacturers and as a result, the manufacturers will stop selling them???

2

I’m sorry to say this but almost every sentence in your post is technically wrong.

eWeLink is not a protocol, not a radio standard, not an interoperability layer, and not a certification program. It’s simply an app + cloud + firmware ecosystem for Sonoff devices. That’s all.

There is no such thing as “eWeLink‑compatible products” in any technical sense.
If something works with eWeLink, it’s only because someone integrated it through Wi‑Fi, Zigbee, LAN mode, or some unofficial bridge. It’s not a real compatibility standard.

Sonoff has never “supported third‑party manufacturers”, because there is no program, no API, no certification, no partnership model. So they cannot “stop supporting” something that never existed.

As for LED panels disappearing from the market or becoming more expensive - that has nothing to do with Sonoff. For example, Tuya constantly rotates its OEM product lines, changes factories, replaces SKUs, and updates firmware. LED panel prices have also gone up globally due to higher costs of aluminium, PCB manufacturing, and shipping. Sonoff does not even manufacture LED panels, so there is no “trade war” to speak of.

In short:

  • eWeLink is not a protocol
  • “eWeLink‑compatible” is not a real category
  • Sonoff never supported third‑party devices
  • Tuya LED panels change constantly because of OEM churn
  • Prices went up due to global component costs
  • There is no conflict between Sonoff and anyone else

Your post is simply misunderstanding how these ecosystems work

3

maybe it wasn’t clear in the translation, but I didn’t write anywhere that it was an ewelink protocol

I also disagree that the ewelink ecosystem is becoming more closed. And compatibility exists, there are plenty of products that list it and it works, and if you can get technical support for them, ewelink labels them as compatible, even though they may not have such a wide range of features.

It seems to me that Sonoff has decided to completely close its ecosystem and thus gain a part of the markets that third-party manufacturers have had so far, but it has not yet started offering such products itself.

It seems to me that Sonoff has decided to completely close its ecosystem and thus gain a part of the markets that third-party manufacturers have had so far, but it has not yet started offering such products itself.

and your statements and not only this are always so strange, partly you criticize the opinions and observations of other users and partly you defend some steps as if you were an employee of the company. and your posts usually do not bring any help but only criticism of other participants of this forum. I see how you argue and quite often.

Therefore, I would like to ask you not to respond to my posts if you do not have a relevant answer, thank you.

4

Thank you for your message. I’ll address your points as clearly as possible, since you asked for “relevant answers”.

You’re right that you never explicitly called eWeLink a protocol - but the way you describe “compatibility” implies a technical standard that simply doesn’t exist. eWeLink is an app and a cloud service for Sonoff devices, not an interoperability layer. When third‑party products appear in eWeLink, it’s because someone implemented a minimal integration, not because there is an open ecosystem or certification program behind it.

As for the idea that Sonoff is “closing its ecosystem”: Sonoff has never provided an open ecosystem to close. They don’t publish a third‑party API for manufacturers, they don’t certify external devices, and they don’t offer a partner program. So the notion that they are now restricting something that was previously open doesn’t align with how their platform actually works.

Regarding market changes - the disappearance or price increase of certain Tuya/OEM products is simply the result of normal supply‑chain rotation and rising component costs. Sonoff doesn’t manufacture LED panels, nor do they compete in that category, so attributing those shifts to strategic ecosystem closure doesn’t match the facts. At all.

Finally, I assure you there is nothing personal in my replies. I address technical claims directly because inaccurate assumptions tend to spread quickly in these discussions. If that comes across as criticism, it’s only because I try to keep the conversation grounded in how these systems actually function.

If you prefer not to continue the exchange, I will respect that. But I would encourage taking a moment to think things through before drawing conclusions about broader market strategies. It usually leads to clearer and more productive discussions.

6

I couldn’t help but notice that negative changes have occurred. Surely the community sees it too.

Recurring errors that they are unable to fix. For example, the cameras in CubeOS. For a while they were working fine, now they’re dropping out again.

No communication with the community. Nobody knows which direction the development is taking.

7

at least someone sees it the same way. I’m also bothered that some products are abandoned and replaced by a new product that is waiting for countless updates to be usable. For example, sonoff ultra. The only thing that makes me happy so far is that updates are still coming to compatible products through the official channel (even though they say there are no compatible products). If the ewelink ecosystem is closed only to sonoff products, it will be sad. Software creators should push harder to make the system flexible

8

After all, this is how they lose skilled users, and if they don’t care, then no one can do anything about it.

9

I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here!

Sonoff primarily produces hardware—and sometimes software/firmware (I say software because they are developing CubeOS, etc.).

eWeLink is similar to Tuya; it covers other product lines like light bulbs and more…

…which other companies sell, claiming compatibility with the eWeLink app.

Sonoff, on the other hand, has become more open lately; they are currently betting on a new open protocol approach using MQTT, webhooks, and so on!

There isn’t a huge variety of Sonoff-branded light bulbs because Sonoff never really focused on a wide range of bulbs—or things like curtain motors, for that matter…

Conversely, eWeLink offers a wide variety of motors, bulbs, etc.

It all depends on your local market and other factors!

However, given the firmware policy Sonoff is adopting for the iHost and Hub Ultra—which involves supporting a wide range of third-party devices—I think most of those complaints wouldn’t really hold water!

Sonoff updates its products frequently! I’m not sure about eWeLink, but I think they operate more like Tuya; it’s easier and simpler to just launch a new version than to maintain a team—like the one Sonoff has—dedicated to fixing bugs across a vast product lineup.

The issues people complain about regarding CubeOS are normal, as it isn’t considered the final version yet; a lot of it is still in beta. This speaks volumes about the size of the team, which I imagine isn’t very large!

That said, Sonoff’s support team has consistently proven to be excellent at addressing issues and trying to fix them as quickly as possible!

10

Indeed, there is! I think we agree on some of the basic facts, but I’m not sure they support quite the conclusions you’re drawing from them.

Yes, Sonoff is primarily a hardware manufacturer, while eWeLink is the software/cloud platform. And yes, eWeLink-compatible products from other manufacturers exist. That distinction is important — but it also means that eWeLink shouldn’t be treated simply as “Tuya under another name”. The business models and the way integrations are implemented are not identical.

I also wouldn’t equate MQTT and webhooks with an “open protocol approach” in the broader sense. MQTT is an established, vendor-neutral protocol that Sonoff can use as an interface. That is certainly useful and can make products easier to integrate, but using open protocols doesn’t automatically make the underlying ecosystem open. The important question is what is actually exposed, documented and supported for third-party developers and manufacturers.

The same applies to iHost and Hub Ultra supporting third-party devices. That is a positive development, and I’m glad Sonoff is moving in that direction. But supporting third-party devices in a particular hub is not necessarily the same thing as having an open ecosystem at the manufacturer/platform level. Those are two different claims.

As for the lack of Sonoff-branded bulbs, motors, curtain devices, etc., I agree that this by itself says very little about ecosystem strategy. Product range is largely a matter of business priorities and market demand. I don’t think anyone needs to invent a conspiracy around it.

Where I would be more cautious is the statement that Sonoff “updates its products frequently” and therefore the issues are essentially normal. Frequent updates are good, but update frequency and long-term software maintenance are not the same thing. What matters to users is whether existing hardware continues to receive meaningful fixes and compatibility updates over a reasonable period of time.

And I’m not sure I would describe every CubeOS issue as simply “normal because it is beta”. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation for some bugs, but it doesn’t automatically make every reported problem irrelevant. Beta software is still something users are entitled to evaluate critically.

Finally, I agree that Sonoff support is generally responsive. I’ve had good experiences with them myself. But good support and an open ecosystem are also two separate things.

So I think the distinction worth keeping here is:

Sonoff = hardware manufacturer
eWeLink = platform/cloud ecosystem
MQTT/webhooks = integration mechanisms
iHost/Hub Ultra = products that may expose more open integration possibilities

Those things complement each other, but they shouldn’t be treated as interchangeable concepts. And none of them, by itself, proves either that Sonoff is “closing” its ecosystem or that it is now fully open.

11

We have errors here that keep repeating. For example, the CubeOS cameras worked fine since version 2.12. The cameras keep dropping out. So how are they fixing it if the errors keep happening over and over again?

How is it possible they claim to be open for 3rd when I still can’t add main own devices to CubeOS while running it in Docker?

12

For example, I don’t experience this kind of error; all 32 of my cameras—spread across three iHosts and a CubeOS test server—are working normally. However, I’d say my CubeOS server is more powerful in terms of hardware, whereas for the iHost cameras, I rely more on Matter export, which has proven to be solid and reliable.

13

Regarding the point about it being more open—referring to this announcement: https://youtu.be/G-_BlhdPJq0?is=hFMIMbxDVKPoGmn9 —I’d say that’s a positive aspect, as it opens up a wide range of possibilities for the products. And the fact that it supports Matter means it is inherently more open.

14

I didn’t mean to imply that everything is fine and we shouldn’t criticize. My point was that, since it’s a product still in beta, issues are bound to arise. I wouldn’t say it’s ready to be deployed for clients without causing headaches—that’s what I meant. Because it’s in beta, errors will happen and take time to fix.

15

I agree that Matter is a significant step toward interoperability, and the announcement looks like a positive move toward greater openness.

I’d still distinguish between “supports open standards” and “is an open ecosystem”, though. Matter, MQTT or webhooks can provide open interfaces while the underlying ecosystem, APIs, cloud services, certification, device onboarding, etc. can remain proprietary.

So I’d call it more open, rather than inherently open. The interesting question is how much of this is actually exposed and documented for third-party developers and manufacturers.

16

Are 4 cores and 4 GB of RAM not enough?

17

I have more cores and RAM available—I think I have 32GB of RAM allocated to it. Actual resource usage—both CPU and RAM—only spikes when viewing multiple camera feeds simultaneously. However, I’m not running this on a Raspberry Pi or anything like that; it’s on a Proxmox machine with SSDs, etc.

18

I wonder how Sonoff determines market demand? I haven’t seen any polls on the forum or anywhere else about what devices users expect! On the contrary, we’ve repeatedly written about what devices we need, but Sonoff is indifferent to customer desires! As for Ewelink, in my personal observations, with the release of the Prime subscription, you forgot about other users! Each update affects only the Prime subscription. Support for the Cast panel for Premium subscribers has been completely stopped. The Cast panel is terribly glitchy. Automatic device status updates are completely absent. You need to double-click the device icon three times to turn it on or off. I’ve written more than once about the need to perform manual updates like in browsers, if you’re not smart enough to implement normal automatic status updates. And what’s with the “Ewelink Pioneer”? What is this? What kind of beast is this? Where’s the development? Sonoff and Ewelink have a very strange development strategy!