On one side is the home appliance overlord, and on the other side are the technological upstarts.
Midea and Xiaomi, these two companies are heading towards two completely different paths in the smart home AI track: one is desperately trying to make friends with everyone, and the other is working hard to lock users into their own luxury suites.
The reason why we compare these two is because they are both doing the same thing – putting AI into every appliance in your home, so that the house can learn to “serve” you.
But they chose completely opposite paths, and this difference reveals the most critical bifurcation point in the future of smart homes.
Midea’s abacus is very simple: I don’t make systems, I act as a “super socket”.
Do you have more than 500 million home appliances?
Then make them connect to any platform.
As of the first quarter of 2026, more than 500 million Midea home appliances across all categories have Internet capabilities, and 140 million smart home appliances have been connected to the Internet globally, with more than 150 million connected users.
This scale gives it the confidence to not build a closed ecosystem, but to simultaneously access the in-vehicle systems of Huawei Hongmeng, Alibaba Qianwen, WeChat AI, and multiple car companies.
You can turn on and off the air conditioner with just one sentence on WeChat, remotely start the water heater on the Wenjie car, and configure the network with a “touch” on the Hongmeng mobile phone – all operations do not require jumping to the Midea App.
Its strategic positioning is to enable all smart homes to “grow” on Midea home appliances and become a unified dispatch hub across ecosystems.
Xiaomi’s idea is also simple: I want you to live in my “Renchejia” suite.
The number of connected devices to Xiaomi’s AIoT platform has reached 1.119 billion (excluding mobile phones and tablets), and the number of highly sticky users with more than 5 devices has reached 23.6 million.
Its path is vertical unification – relying on ThePaper OS HyperConnect to allow mobile phones, cars, TVs, speakers, door locks, air conditioners… all to flow seamlessly within its own system.
Xiaomi Band 10 Pro can remotely control third-party brand models such as Tesla, BMW, and Xpeng, but the scheduling logic of the core family is completely controlled by the Mijia system in a closed loop.
What it pursues is that once you enter the ecology, you can never get out again – because when you go out, you use the bracelet to open the door, when you come home, you use XiaoAi to turn on the air conditioner, and when driving, you relay the mobile phone navigation on the car machine, all seamlessly connected, and the user stickiness is extremely high.
The key difference is not the quality of the technology, but the different ecological niches.
Midea’s path is rooted in its status as a home appliance giant: it has a large number of existing devices, but lacks operating systems, large models, and high-frequency interactive portals. These can only be supplemented by external ecosystems, so open cooperation and “exogenous” AI transformation are the optimal solution.
Xiaomi’s path is rooted in its consumer electronics genes: it started with mobile phones, and has accumulated its own full-scenario closed-loop capabilities for people, cars, and homes. The Paper OS and 1.1 billion devices have formed a strong network effect. Taking a closed and highly sticky route is the optimal solution.
But one thing must be made clear: these two models cannot be unconditionally mutually exclusive.
Midea’s open strategy may not be fully applicable when facing high-end players like Huawei.
Huawei follows the “underlying infrastructure first” route, focusing on stable PLC power line carrier connections, which is suitable for users with high requirements such as large flat-floor villas.
If Midea relies entirely on the external ecosystem, its shortcomings in non-home appliance smart categories (lighting, security, audio and video) will continue to exist. However, Huawei and Haier have established quite complete closed loops in these fields.
On the other hand, when Xiaomi’s closed strategy faces traditional home appliance giants like Midea, its advantages mainly lie with young geeks and budget-sensitive people. There is still a gap in the high-end market and technological depth.
The outcome of smart home will not be one that takes all.
Midea’s model is essentially about building “infrastructure” – allowing all ecosystems to seamlessly use its home appliance capabilities; Xiaomi’s model is essentially about building a “high-end hotel” – everything is arranged for you when you move in, but don’t think about changing rooms at will.
There are no absolute advantages or disadvantages between the two paths. They are oriented to the hierarchical needs of different user groups: if you are a technology geek or a young person who enjoys the fun of configuring smart scenes by yourself, Xiaomi’s “if…then…” graphical automation framework will make you unable to stop; if you are a multi-generational family and just want to go home and enjoy mature and active smart services, Midea’s self-evolving intelligent MevoX – the senseless experience of “hot water comes when you open the door, purification starts when you close the window” is more suitable for you.
The judgment of industry analyst Major General Ding is very clear: Midea has greatly lowered the threshold for smart home interaction with the help of high-frequency portals such as WeChat, pushing the industry from “manufacturers push intelligence” to “users actively using intelligence”; and Xiaomi’s cost-effective ecosystem has greatly lowered the threshold for smart home popularization and is the first choice for domestic mass users to access smart homes.
The two routes coexist in the same market and stimulate each other. This is the healthiest driving force for smart homes to move from “concept” to “daily life”.
