Zigbee Alliance has done something extremely valuable, but it is not within their capability: they have written all the application layer behaviors that can run on devices using Zigbee into a unified alliance-level standard, just like Bluetooth has definitively established the audio protocol, allowing everyone to communicate on the same frequency. However, when this is applied to smart homes, it immediately “stalls”—a single light can be broken down into hundreds or thousands of variations, with functional granularity that is astonishingly detailed. To have the alliance encode every single functional grain into eternal clauses is akin to counting sand with bare hands. The old method for wired systems is to “write your own manual”: attach a proprietary protocol/instruction table with the package, allowing the host to translate each item. In theory, wireless systems could also follow this method, but currently, no one is doing it, so the alliance can only retreat to major checkpoints, creating standards for products that are “stable in category and limited in variation,” leaving the vast long tail blank. Differentiation is the soul of a product; as long as there is a desire to create highlights that are “unique to me,” there will inevitably be forks at the protocol level. At this point, the most reasonable route is not to continue pressuring the alliance to “cut corners,” but for each manufacturer to open-source their device-side protocols directly, handing over the parsing rights to gateways and the cloud—allowing the system side to adapt to devices, rather than the other way around. What the Zigbee Alliance is doing is correct and meaningful, but the fragmentation of smart products determines that the application layer protocols cannot be standardized. The smart home system must have the alliance set the broad framework, manufacturers reveal their cards, and the fragmentation managed by the system application management layer; this is the only sustainable symbiotic approach.