Brands (Manufacturers) should be first-class database entities

[kepstin]

This is a follow-up to OHF-Device-Database/device-database#184

First, a minor terminology thing: "Brand" is a more appropriate term than "Manufacturer". Many devices are sold under a brand name which is different from the manufacturer. Many companies do not manufacture devices themselves, but instead subcontract a separate company to manufacture the device. Another case to consider is using a licensed trademark, e.g. Signify manufactures bulbs that are sold under the "Philips" and "WiZ" brands (many of these are currently mis-labeled in the device database, making them hard to find).

For a future-looking point of view, a "Brand" should probably be a separate entity in the database with its own unique ID. This will allow there to be a page in the frontend that provides an overview for a brand, and allow things like links to the brand's website, brand logos, etc. to be attached to the brand.

Using relational linking between the brand and device will allow dealing with device manufacturers that have similar or overlapping names. Not something that's likely to happen, given trademark laws, but it could happen…

Another thing to consider is how to support co-branded devices. For example, the Ecowitt WS90 weather station powered by Shelly should show up both when browsing Ecowitt devices and when browsing Shelly devices. This device is currently only assigned to the Shelly brand, with "Ecowitt" stuck in the device name instead: https://device-database-preview.openhomefoundation.org/device/68a92ea2-d038-4867-bd84-010b76835c0e

If the plan is to move to user-contributed data, being able to edit brands to correct information and add aliases (or merge duplicate brands) will likely be quite important.

[mkerstner]

Thanks for the follow-up discussion on this one.

Manufacturer stems from the inherited relation to how they are reflected in Home Assistant, which is our starting point for having datasets shared by our wonderful community.

From a wording perspective I agree that "brand" is the more commonly used term, especially from a consumer perspective - that could be a plain wording change on the website (keeping the underlying manufacturer structure)

Generally, having it as a new separate first-class entity in the database needs further discussion, as we currently also have a concept of aliases for manufacturers, which could also handle these situations. But agree, opening up the concept of "brands" is something where we'd need community contributions to manage (initially and thereafter).

CC: @PhilipTrauner

[Hedda]

@mkerstner related to this and also to this concern on duplication https://github.com/orgs/OHF-Device-Database/discussions/121

FYI, another thing here to consider are edge-cases where another company is a licensee of product trademark and thus produces branded devices using a other companies brand/trademark, as for example mentioned by a representative from LEDVANCE here -> https://community.home-assistant.io/t/ledvance-joins-works-with-home-assistant/1028685/24

Quote:

• For clarification:

  ams-OSRAM and LEDVANCE are two different companies. But LEDVANCE is the licensee of product trademark OSRAM for general lighting and that’s why LEDVANCE produces the OSRAM branded products. Now the apps and the cloud and the system is with LEDVANCE and not relying on OSRAM here. In US the brand name is SYLVANIA, in Rest of the world (except some exceptions) it is OSRAM.

And yet another egde-case is when the brand that a dougher-company is owned by larger mother-company or multi-industry conglomerate. Like for example Philips Hue which is probably the the world most known smart home lighting ecosystem, which is actually owned and manufactured by Signify (formerly Royal Philips Lighting), which licenses the Philips brand name.

• https://www.philips-hue.com/en-us/about-us

So the manufacturer is not always the brand it is sold under and might not appear anywhere on the product packaging.