What is wrong with CQC?

[roussell]

First off, I think CQC (and Dean by extension) is awesome. I looked at it YEARS ago when it was cheeper and I could afford it (back when you had two pricing models; consumer and professional). I asked and at the time there was no interest in supporting Insteon and I had just made a decent investment (for me) into the technology. Fast forward a bunch of years and I have completely removed Windows from my home (the Microsoft variety at least), have even more Insteon gear, and money is even tighter (thank you now-ex-wife). I would gladly run a Windows box if CQC was the only thing on it, I'm in love with the media capabilities of CQC and that would make the switch worth it alone. However:
 
With my mix of 5 iPads and 3 Android tablets including one 21" (all wall-mounted or single-purpose devices), 3 iPhones, plus all the Sonos, Arduino, CQC boards, Plex, DirecTV, Roku, Receivers, TVs, Insteon, Zwave, etc devices controlled by the system; I simply can't afford CQC entry fee plus the yearly maintenance. I'm not saying that you've priced your model incorrectly, it's just too high for me. The counter argument has always been (not by you Dean, just in general) that "you spend thousands of dollars on hardware, but you want to back it up will $100-$200 software??? That's ridiculous." Well, my answer is; "Yes, yes I do." I run Indigo on a 8 year old mac mini. The investment is about 1/10th of what CQC would be (plus no maintenance $). It controls all of the above and literally never fails. Yes, there are a few things on my wish list but is it worth paying literally thousands more to get those items? For me the answer is no. Matt and Jay provide outstanding support and to just be two guys do an amazing job for very little financial reward.
 
Yes I do have a lot of equipment, but it wasn't a bulk purchase. I buy a few switches here and there. It took 3 years to get the 8 Sonos I have now. The iPads were all bought used, some of the Sonos gear was open box purchases or used - that's an option I have with hardware, not so with software (non-transferable licenses and such). Except for the projector in the theater, I've never bought a single piece of HA/HT hardware priced in the thousands. I have a metric-shit-ton of $50 purchases and about half that in $100-200 purchases. When things get in the $300-$500 range I start sweating the purchase and really thinking through if I "need" it. The $500-$1000 range causes serious heartburn and fingernail-chewing (it took over a year of constant worry to buy a Big Green Egg and I really want an Apple watch but DAMN it's expensive). Anything over $1000 has to come with lips or at least provide a path to getting them. ;-)
 
I understand your model, you cater to the professional and high-end DIYer. You use the consumers for innovation and beta testing so that you have a more stable, robust product for professionals. It's not a bad model, I just don't have any fiscal room to play in that ecosystem.
 
So in a nutshell, I love CQC, but it's too expensive. For me... 
 
Terry

 

[pete_c]

@Dean,
 
Personally thinking these are very difficult times relating to the software automation business and I envy you in your endeavour of CQC.
 
These days many folks knowledge base relating to computers in general are not much beyond their cell phones / tablets / widgets / Facebook or Twitter. 
 
It's easy because it sells.

 

[Deane Johnson]

Pete you make a very good point.  Are we headed in a direction where a CQC or HomeSeer can no longer exist due to lack of users?  I fear that we might be getting into an era where only a few computer nerds will be able to use the software which will cause it to disappear.
 
I have been following the CQC forum daily since becoming a CQC user and I've notice massive amounts of time and energy being devoted to making it work with a lot of peripheral devices.  I often wonder how long that can go on given the on-going changes being made in these devices.  Is CQC and HA getting like the government, that is, getting so big and complex that nobody can manage it any longer. 
 
Hats off to Dean for starting this thread.  His willingness to openly and objectively discuss these issues say a great deal about him.  His being so open and honest was one of the things that drew my attention to CQC in the first place.
 
Dean asked the question "What's wrong with CQC"?  To keep this excellent discussion going, I'd like to ask the same question in a different way.  "What should be done with CQC to get it ready to face the brave new future of home automation".  

 

[fcwilt]

When Elan "absorbed" HomeLogic one of first things they did was relegate a lot of the hardware devices that HomeLogic supported to the "unsupported" category.
 
Disappointing from my point of view since several devices that I used were no longer supported but perhaps a good move from their point of view of reducing the workload on the developers who had to maintain all of the drivers for those devices.

 

[pete_c]

I like this discussion as it does sort of open a window of what is expected tomorrow relating to automation, use of and DIYing automation stuff.
 
Personally Cocoontech automation forum users are mostly of that type today. (DIYers)
 
History like tinkering is another hobby here.
 
Relating to this or that; we are currently in the time of (nothing to do with technology or maybe it is?).....
 
"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative." Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

 

[Dean Roddey]

@Ano: After you parted with CQC, did you ever find a Home Automation software package that you liked?  If so, which one was it?

 
I think he chose to use none, i.e. just the Omni by itself.

 

[Dean Roddey]

So, for those who find the price too high, I'm assuming it's mostly due to the number of clients? I.e. you want more clients than the lower end tiers support and that would force you to a higher tier? If that's the case, would it make a difference to you if we update the client limits from these:
 
1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 22, 34   (these are the per-tier limits bronze to unobtainium)
 
to these:
 
4, 6, 9, 14, 18, 25, 37
 
So Bronze would now allow 4 clients, a silver 6, a Gold 9, and so forth. Would that get the client limits up to the point where you could get in at a tier you feel comfortable with?
 
N.B. though there is a yearly fee, keep in mind that those fees accrue to tier upgrades. And, if you are on a lower tier, it doesn't take many to get to the next one. So it allows you to both get all the new versions that come out, and it's sort of a layaway plan for the next highest tier also. So it's a pretty good deal.

 

[NeverDie]

If I were Dean, I'd look into joining: http://www.threadgroup.org/
just in case it's the Next Big Thing.

 

[Deane Johnson]

Dean, I'm not one who thinks the CQC price is too high.  I am rather pleased with it's low cost compared to it's robustness and reliability.  I do think, however, that the number of clients on the low tier is a bit skimpy.  The entry level of only 1 client it pretty limiting.
 
In my case, I mainly only use only 1. When someone posted a MS tablet on sale for $79 I thought I might just purchase one to play around with trying to do something additional with CQC, then I realized that adding an additional client would be $99 and that makes a small tablet cost $179 instead of $79.  Project abandoned.
 
That's not CQC's problem, but it made me realize that 1 client isn't much to work with and that makes what I consider CQC's reasonble pricing not quite as attractive.
 
While I don't consider the CQC price too high, I note that the largest number of respondents to your excellent poll indicate they do feel it's too high.

 

[ano]

Actually CQC does have a web server, has had for a long time. Of course we couldn't be doing an HTML5 client or support Websockets without that.

 
Actually I knew you would say that, and sorry to lead you on, but EVERY product I have ever purchased that claimed to have a web server also had a web page, and where is CQC's web page?  This is like me going to a car dealership, and the sales guy telling me the car I'm going to buy has a great engine. So I buy the car, press Start and nothing happens. then the sales guy tells me, oh, it has a great engine but you need to connect it to the drivetrain yourself. Oh, and you need to buy a drivetrain. That's not included.  
 
Why can't EVERY driver come with its own web page, at least a rudimentary one to get you started? And why can't CQC come with a home page that links to all these web pages?  If CQC had that, I might still be using it today.
 

@Ano: After you parted with CQC, did you ever find a Home Automation software package that you liked?  If so, which one was it?

Sort of, but I'm still looking. 
 
So I spent MANY years of my life and lots of $$$ playing with Homeseer and then CQC. (Money on HW cost, not so much software.) They were fun, and I certainly learned an enormous amount from both of them. I had voice recognition at one point, 2 LED signs with status messages, text-to-speech with 8 speakers that I could individually control, UPB lighting, two touch screens, lots of motion detectors, etc.  i considered it my home automation lab more than anything, and I know it was a bit over-the-top.
 
Then last year we decided to downsize, so then for months i took most of the home automation stuff out so I could sell my house. I swapped out the Omni Pro II for an Omni LTe, and left in some UPB switches so it was upscale but not unmanageable for a normal buyer.   The house sold in one day, over asking, and was purchased by an older but tech savy gentleman part-time resident who did appreciate the security system/lighting automation.  He even bought PC Access and I gave him a lesson on how to start.
 
So for my new home I reevaluated.  We wanted smaller and easier to maintain and I wanted that for automation as well.  So I decided to install an Omni Pro II, Leviton UPB, Zigbee for the locks, Somfy for the curtain and blind control, the Omni Pro II for simple voice, Zigbee Omnistats, and HAIku for remote control on iPads and iPhones, and possibly HAIku Helper as well. 
 
So this is almost all off-the-shelf stuff, and because I'm adding drapery control and HLC UPB, I'll have a few more capabilities than my last house, and it will be MUCH simplier to maintain.  The automation will all run in the Omni. 
 
This will really give me 95% of what of want the automation for with 0% of the hassle.  No the voice announcements aren't as nice as the CQC ones, but that is O.K. I might add and LED sign also, because i found a converter that lets the Omni send simple messages to it via simple alpha commands the Omni can easily generate. And with the Leviton email board, I no longer need extra software to send texts or emails.
 
My needs changed, and people's automation needs are changing, and the world is changing in terms of technology. I think anyone designing home automation software REALLY REALLY needs to be aware of this. Radio Shack has filled for bankruptcy, can you believe it? :angry:  
 
I'm not saying CQC is a bad product by any stretch of the imagination. There is lots of love put into it. But sometimes you just need to reevaluate the past, learn from it and decide how to move forward. I think Dean is doing a great thing by looking for suggestions.   Sometimes when you just hang around with your closest friends, you don't get a realistic impression what others may be thinking.

 

[ano]

I wanted to add one more thing, because i know Dean started this thread with a survey.  From someone whose job it is to perform market research, I will say to be VERY careful when interpreting survey results. Your first impression might be to look for the top answered selections and just work on addressing those. DON'T DO IT. Apple, for one, can tell you that a survey is a very poor method to use to design a product. Apple designs their products the right way by feeling the market, learning from the market, then going out and designing the product that their gut tells them is best. They design the product that everyone want BEFORE anyone even knows that want it. If Apple had conducted a survey in 2007 and asked everyone what they wanted in a smartphone, do you think it would even slightly resemble an iPhone? Absolutely NO. NO. NO.
 
You never want to design the product that people want. If you do you have already missed the boat. You want to design the product that people don't yet know they want BEFORE they know it.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Actually I knew you would say that, and sorry to lead you on, but EVERY product I have ever purchased that claimed to have a web server also had a web page, and where is CQC's web page?  This is like me going to a car dealership, and the sales guy telling me the car I'm going to buy has a great engine. So I buy the car, press Start and nothing happens. then the sales guy tells me, oh, it has a great engine but you need to connect it to the drivetrain yourself. Oh, and you need to buy a drivetrain. That's not included.  
 
Why can't EVERY driver come with its own web page, at least a rudimentary one to get you started? And why can't CQC come with a home page that links to all these web pages?  If CQC had that, I might still be using it today.

 
We just wouldn't have ever thought to do such a thing. That would be a gigantic security hole, which would allow anyone who can get around the (very weak) security that a browser provides to have complete control of your home. You have to take that stuff seriously these days, more than ever. We jump through a lot of hoops to create a very secure system, and are very leary of anything that would punch a huge hole through that security. I guess it could be provided with lots of "it's your own fault" legal caveats.
 
Most folks use the web server for things like:
 
1. They want to wrap a page within some other HTML, to control how its displayed, so they serve up a local HTML file via our web server that in turn referneces the other page.
2. To create their own custom content. The web server allows you to embed references to CQC fields in it which will be expanded automatically, and it also allows you to create dynamic content via CML.
 
And of course moving forward now that we support Websockets you can use standard HTML tools to create web based content, and our own HTML5 client will use it as well. Our HTML client will be driven by CQC user interfaces, i.e. you won't have to create them twice, the HTML5 client will create (as close as is reasonable) an HTML5 based version of the templates on the fly.

 

[Dean Roddey]

I'm not saying CQC is a bad product by any stretch of the imagination. There is lots of love put into it. But sometimes you just need to reevaluate the past, learn from it and decide how to move forward. I think Dean is doing a great thing by looking for suggestions.   Sometimes when you just hang around with your closest friends, you don't get a realistic impression what others may be thinking.

 
Yeh, right. Like someone who works as much as I do has friends! My computer is my friend, and honestly he doesn't much like me these days. Of course he's pretty passive aggressive slash high maintenance himself.

 

[ChrisCicc]

hen last year we decided to downsize, so then for months i took most of the home automation stuff out so I could sell my house.

 
Home automation systems are supposed to increase the value of your home, not decrease it. I think that says a lot about the current state of DIY systems... 

 

[Dean Roddey]

First off, I think CQC (and Dean by extension) is awesome. I looked at it YEARS ago when it was cheeper and I could afford it (back when you had two pricing models; consumer and professional). I asked and at the time there was no interest in supporting Insteon and I had just made a decent investment (for me) into the technology. Fast forward a bunch of years and I have completely removed Windows from my home (the Microsoft variety at least), have even more Insteon gear, and money is even tighter (thank you now-ex-wife). I would gladly run a Windows box if CQC was the only thing on it, I'm in love with the media capabilities of CQC and that would make the switch worth it alone. However:

 
BTW, we do support the ISY now. I recently did a new V2 compatible ISY driver. I'm not an ISY fan, not because I don't like it, I just don't know a lot about it. But I will say that it is nice in that we can almost completely auto-configure to it, since it provides info about all of the devise, names, types, etc... So it's one of the few systems of that sort that you can just plug in and CQC will immediately know what it needs to know without any intervention. It could provide a bit more info, and we do allow you to use the Notes field to give us some extra info in some cases (i.e. to tell us that though Bubba is a relay, treat it like a light switch since I'm using it to control a light., that sort of stuff.) But for the most part it requires no intervention.
 
There are more examples of this type of thing showing up lately, it's a good thing. I recently added a V2 driver for Yamaha receivers that support their YNC protocol, which also allows us to query the capabilities of the device and auto-configure to it. Hue is like that as well. Those types of auto-configuration capabilities certainly go along way towards making it easier to set up a system.
 
People talk about one button setup, but in many cases it's never going to happen. You have an Omni? Well there's no way to talk to it unless you know where to find the AES security key for your system and tell us what it is. Radio RA2 is really nice as a system, but we can't figure out what devices it makes available, you have to tell us their addresses, give them names, etc... There's nothing we can do to get around such things if the devices don't allow us to automatically figure out what is available.
 
I'm certainly not arguing for any sort of 'one ring to rule them all' type of protocol. There's nothing wrong with a widely support syntax for control, but the things that really trip us up is more to do with inconsistency of how devices work, inability to auto-configure to them, etc... No one can make those things simpler in the automation system, because those problems are in the devices themselves.