Caveat for anyone considering Zigbee smart blinds
I found a good deal on some Yoolax Zigbee-based smart blinds. Saved a few hundred dollars cheaper over the closest Z-Wave based equivalents I could find.
Nearly every Zigbee-based blind also comes with an accompanying remote, so I thought (naively) that their remotes would also be Zigbee-based and function via direct device binding - like the Z-Wave blinds I saw and the single Zigbee blind I already own (Ikea Fyrtur). Direct binding at the protocol level for a device installed into my home has real appeal - the device keeps basic functionality even if I move out, all while not being tied to a proprietary remote that may eventually get lost or broken.
However, I found out the remote for my Yoolax blinds (like many cheap-to-mid-range Zigbee blinds) is actually an old 433hz RF remote - and more than that, the Zigbee protocol is particular about how blinds should be controlled.
A window covering device following the spec ought to implement the `window covering` cluster to communicate it's state and take commands. This sounds fine, but it also means the device won't communicate via the `on/off` cluster or the `level control` clusters, which is what 99% of Zigbee remotes expose as an interface (since those are used to control lights, switches & dimmers). There are Zigbee blinds out there that can receive commands via the `on/off` & `level control` clusters to workaround this incompatibility, but this doesn't appear to be a widely adopted convention.
For my use case, I was dismayed to only find 3 Zigbee remotes that actually act as a client of the `window covering` cluster:
- now-unobtainable Ikea E1766 remotes for the Fyrtur blinds
- remotes from Somfy (expensive)
- remotes from Profalux (expensive and impossible to find in North America)
So, if you're out there thinking about Zigbee smart blinds, and you care about direct binding their remote controls, I strongly recommend some close research of the device you're buying, or just getting Z-Wave motors instead.
(Z-Wave handles this better at the protocol level, all cover devices are required by the spec to respond to the equivalents of the on/off binding & level control binding.)