Consider waiving gateway fee for single endpoint topology

In planning our migration to Particle Mesh, the most common deployment topology for our solution is a single gateway and a single endpoint. For example:

(1) Argon + (1) Xenon
(1) Boron + (1) Xenon

In fact, this is the lowest common denominator for most contemporary mesh deployments, where a single, low-power sensing endpoint communicates with a single gateway.

Where we are having trouble getting “on board” with Particle Mesh is the proposed gateway fee schedule as described in the FAQ.

If we are talking purely from a value-add perspective, in the single gateway/endpoint deployment scenario, most would find that in practice the gateway code [should] remain fairly static, and the endpoint code more dynamic. In other words, the majority of OTA servicing [value] would be targeting a single device.

The point at which potentially significant value is introduced is when the gateway:endpoint ratio moves from 1:1 to 1:M. For example, a repeater may be introduced to allow for increased distance between the endpoint and the gateway. This value can be seen/explained to the end customer and therefore can be seen/explained when adding the proposed gateway servicing fee to COGS.

Thank you for your consideration.



1 Like

The main reason for needing a 1:1 topology would be to collect data at the Xenon’s location that has no power available.

Your customers still have a choice in this situation. They can install power at the sensor’s location and use a Boron there instead (no mesh required).

The Comparison for your Customer is then:
The Cost to run Power verses the monthly Gateway fee (after your 10 free gateways).

Has anyone seen a Hint as to the proposed Gateway fee yet ?

It’ll no doubt be $1-3/mth, which for even maths lets call $30 a year / $150 over a 5 year lifetime, which adds a lot to the cost of the project.

I personally believe that every Boron it should allow 3 mesh clients to connect. The typical use case is simply wireless connectivity from where it is convenient to control the system to where the system interacts physically with the environment. Lighting systems, Window closing systems based on rain, or in my case with BBQ and large offset smokers you want the display system to be front and centre but to minimise wires across a hot metal surface it’d be good to have 1-2 wireless controlled fans operating a few metres away that would be sending their own actual usage (only novices don’t monitor what a system reports its doing based on presuming it’s doing what it was told to do) and ambient temperature conditions to prevent issues with being placed too close to a fire.

I’m actively interested in the mesh networking to see if it makes it much easier for clients to get a system up and working. I don’t think the average consumer is prepared to pay $150 extra for a basic system that happens not to have wires. If there are enterprise customers using it to link farms up then fair call, they can absorb that in the price tag that no doubt has 5 digits left of the decimal.

The current boron etc is running late and there is no sight or word on the commercial quantity SMD footprint version so I’m skeptical about Particle’s focus on general consumer land rather than whichever segment of industry was so keen on large mesh networks