None of these sound like what consumers want
What we need is an open standard for local (in the home) connectivity, with many competing implementations of the home hub with different features and capabilities. Some might be really simple to use but restrictive, for example provided by Apple and fully integrated with their ecosystem for people who use that. At the other extreme, some might be really geeky: running on OpenWRT and configured by editing text files with vi. In between, there would be some which integrate well with other ecosystems (Samsung, Xbox, etc) and have various levels of controllability, security and privacy.
Within the home, it must be possible to have devices (IoT devices and controllers like phones) talk to each other, without any information passing outside (like using DLNA to control your home media today).
In some cases (for example for remote access when travelling) it may be useful to have internet servers to co-ordinate and secure access -- but those must be able to be chosen independent of the hub manufacturer and selected by the user just as they choose email services today. In the same way as for email, these must also be able to be self- or community- hosted, not just owned by big internet companies.
None of that will stop Apple, Google, Samsung, etc being big players in IoT -- many people will choose their products, just as they choose their phones, TVs, and email services today. But the discerning or privacy-conscious consumer should be free to choose alternatives which match their requirements, lifestyle, language, community norms, etc.
Who is representing consumers (and geeks) in these discussions?