Upcoming change in CQC pricing

[Dean Roddey]

I understand the new scheme (I think) where, as an existing customer I won't have to add any "new components" unless I feel there are necessary for my system but does that mean you'll continue to allow me *free* access to any upgrades or additional functionality in the components I already own? Only "new" components are going to cost me?

I guess I am a bit confused...

As with most companies, certainly new incremental releases will all be free for anyone who has licensed up to the previous paid release. If we happen to do a bug fix release for a previous version, then that would be the same. Some minor releases might have a small charge, since our minor releases are often quite extensive. Major releases, which are quite rare (fewer than one per two years so far), will probably have a slightly higher charge.

I.e. it will be the usual thing that almost every company does.

 

[claymahaffey]

Thanks for the notice, Dean. I understand the business decision you needed to make and appreciate that you let people who are thinking of using CQC know about the impending change. As a user, I also appreciate your reassurance that nothing changes for us except the switch from a maintenance/subscription model to a similarly-priced per-piece upgrade model once our maintenance fees run out (I think I've still got four years on mine.) My only concern was the client licenses you mentioned, but you handled that by saying that existing owners would have a "Bill Gates-like" cap.

For those of you looking, I'll add my thoughts on CQC. It is a very flexible system...I'd even call it a power system. Without a doubt the learning curve is steep to do anything complicated or fancy. But doing very simple things is pretty easy imho. I chose CQC because I don't want to be limited in how I execute my user interface. But it certainly took a bit of learning investment to get my head wrapped around how it works. I'm still no genius with it, but I can pretty much hack my way to good implementation of most UI designs I dream up short of iPhone-like multi-touch and gestures (Dean...any chance of that?)

The other positive I'll lay out there is that Dean has provided me with very good customer service as a DIYer.

 

[Dean Roddey]

but I can pretty much hack my way to good implementation of most UI designs I dream up short of iPhone-like multi-touch and gestures (Dean...any chance of that?)

The other positive I'll lay out there is that Dean has provided me with very good customer service as a DIYer.

As I understand it, Windows 7 supports multi-touch and gestures, but I've not looked into it. And supporting both schemes in the same package might be overly complicated. But, as we move forward such that Windows 7 is the dominant platform, that may be something to look into.

 

[claymahaffey]

As I understand it, Windows 7 supports multi-touch and gestures, but I've not looked into it. And supporting both schemes in the same package might be overly complicated. But, as we move forward such that Windows 7 is the dominant platform, that may be something to look into.

<OFF TOPIC> Just to follow-up, I'd like to be able to press and hold on a command button that is on the home schematic template...after a second or so be able to 'pull' my finger up or down to brighten or dim the light. I know I can do it with a pop-up, but I'd love to be able to use a gesture instead!<TOPIC BACK ON>

 

[DaveW42]

Dean,

Thanks for continuing to respond to these questions as they come up. As someone who has had extremely limited experience with the product and your company, it is great to see that you are trying to be responsive to the concerns people are raising.

As we are all experiencing, it is very difficult to have this type of conversation without having all of the details presented regarding the new pricing structure. Once the new structure becomes visible, it is possible that some here may like the new structure better. Others may prefer the old structure. As some have suggested, why not give us a brief window (e.g., 5 days) to view the new structure but purchase under the old one, before changes are implemented? If you did this, I think the amount of fear expressed within this thread would be greatly reduced.

Thanks,
Dave

Anyway, just wanted to bring up points I have heard or thought about myself. I truly hope whatever you do works and keeps CQC as a viable product for everyone.

It can't be out of your league if you already own it. So please, if you are an existing customer you just don't have anything to worry about.

New components only end really happen about once a year. If you want a new one that comes out, it won't be stupidly expensive. The individual components are all like $125 to $150 in the new pricing scheme. So, if one came out this year, and you liked it, you'd pick it up if you wanted it. Back before the fee based system we'd have an introductory period where existing customers could pick up new components for a small discount, otherwise, later you'd pay the whole price. We may do that in the new scheme, I dunno. If you could afford $95 a year, I don't think that $125 or $150 would put you into the poor house.

Other than for new components we may charge a nomimal fee for upgrades on new versions that have significant new stuff but no actual new licensable components. It won't be a huge price.

So, basically, if you wanted to insure you could get all the new stuff that comes out, for a known price, paying the maintenance fee some years ahead now would probably save you $25 or $50, maybe worst case $100 a year or some such thing like that. It's not going to be a $500 a year difference. OR, you could just do nothing and when new stuff comes out, if you want it, buy it, else don't. If you aren't of the 'want all the new toys type', then that may well be cheaper for you than paying up some years of fees.

It's really that simple, so folks should just chill out. I mean we are getting rid of the maintenance fee which, at the time we implemented it, was almost universally hated, and we went through exactly this same type of thing with that. Now we are getting rid of it, and letting you only buy what you want, and we get hit with the exact same thing.

If anyone wants to do the fee thing, just email me at support at charmedquark.com, as previously mentioned.

 

[drvnbysound]

This may not be helpful to anyone else, but I am not currently a CQC customer so I wanted to share some of my story and future plans...

I'll honestly say that I've been very interested in CQC for quite some time. Unfortunately it was only about 2 years ago that I really started getting interested in HA and doing a lot of reading on the forums - after the purchase of my first home. There have been many other higher priority expenses that I have needed to obligate my money to - simply stated, I got married. I will be the first to admit that I am not on the "poor" side of the house as I am currently a government employed engineer, but since I havent been able to get the major backbone components into place yet (e.g. complete structured wiring, automation panel, etc.) I have had no need to purchase CQC or other software. I will also be the first to admit that I am a software jew and I balked at the ~$600 price the first time I saw it. Ive finally got a lot of stuff paid off recently and have intentions to purchase an OmniPro II in the next 3-6 months and I would like to use CQC. (I actually sent Barry at ASI a request for a quote on 25+ HAI UPB switches and OP II today). However, as stated above, there is no good reason for me to make a ~$600 purchase if I'm not going to be using it for another 6+ months (seeing as there isnt a LOT that I would use CQC for with JUST the OP II, and the fact that the ~$600 purchase now would set me back farther to getting the other hardware). Now, as I've followed this thread for the last couple of days, I suppose there will come a time in the future where I will be one of the DIY customers who may still purchase CQC because of its power, or pursue something else.

Cliffs - Not a current CQC customer, dont have infrastructure in place to need CQC YET. Planning to begin purchasing and installing various components over the next 6-12 months, and may be one of the DIY'ers who chooses to go with another solution due to CQC seemingly moving away from the DIY market.

 

[drvnbysound]

I did want to ask a question regarding the new pricing structure. Say I was to purchase CQC AFTER the new plan takes effect at $xxxx. Over the next two years, we'll say that YY minor changes/updates/whatever are released, some of which are free patches/fixes and some are new components which cost $zzz. If I chose not to make any of the purchases for those components during the time, but say the third year there is a new full release that has something that I feel that I cant live without. Will it cost me more to move from a version thats OLD and hasnt been kept "current" than if I had made some of the previous purchases?

Basically, will there be any "penalty charges" for not keeping your system up-to-date with component purchases, or a discount for those who do?

NOTE: Realize my above post - I am not a current customer so I probably do not completely understand the current progression of updates vs new components.

As I wrote this out, I do realize that some components may be kept as separate purchases indefinitely, which may never effect the price of upgrading to new versions. However, I assume this would refer more to those components that may become integrated into the core architecture as the software progresses. This is definitely one of the things that was mentioned in an earlier post, where the current yearly maintenance fee basically keeps everyone upgrading/updating their software, but as this new structure is implemented I could see some users falling behind on versions.

 

[Dean Roddey]

OK, well this may change somewhat, but not likely much. We'll go back to the per component scheme. The component prices are:

1. Base System $200. Always required. Includes the dev tools, and 12 drivers
2. Intf. Viewer $150. Includes support for one Intf Viewer client
3. RIVA $150. Includes support for one RIVA client
4. Logic Srv $125
5. Event Srv $150]
6. Web Srv $125
7. XML GW Srv $125
8. Media Repo $150. The CQSL repository, genera media support is in the Base System.
9. App Ctrl $12

So, as you can see, you could, in theory, have a system for $200, if you drove the whole thing via remote control or something, i.e. no graphical clients. But, more likely a minimal system would be the Base, plus at least one Interface Viewer client, plus one of the other components like the Event Server or Web Server or something. So, at that point, you are at the price of the current system basically.

We have a few 'client packs' to add more clients:

1. Client License $100
2. Client 2 Pack $160
3. Client 5 Pack $375
4. Client 10 Pack $700

These have to be all either Interface Viewer or RIVA clients, you can't mix them in the same purchase. There's also some 'driver packs' if you need more drivers, but most folks wouldn't. They are $100 for ten more.

So, clearly, it would be a good deal to buy now instead of waiting. You get the whole package, with no realistic limits on the number of clients or drivers. Whereas in the new scheme, a full system with, say, three clients, would be $1300 plus a 2 client pack to add two more clients, for $1460. You could conceivably pare that back to the base, plus Intf Viewer plus Event Server plus a 2 client pack, which would get you a limited but reasonable system for $660 I think. But that's more than the current system plus 3 years of maintenance fee coverage.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Basically, will there be any "penalty charges" for not keeping your system up-to-date with component purchases, or a discount for those who do?

As with all such schemes, if you are upgrading across multiple versions that were charged for, it'll cost you more than upgrading from the most recent one. As most companies do, we'll post a list of 'upgrade from version X' type prices. Most companies want to encourage people to stay current, so it's almost always the least expensive over time to do that.

As I wrote this out, I do realize that some components may be kept as separate purchases indefinitely, which may never effect the price of upgrading to new versions. However, I assume this would refer more to those components that may become integrated into the core architecture as the software progresses. This is definitely one of the things that was mentioned in an earlier post, where the current yearly maintenance fee basically keeps everyone upgrading/updating their software, but as this new structure is implemented I could see some users falling behind on versions.

Well, the components will generally always be separate. However, if a new component comes out, it will obviously only work in the new version it's part of (and forward.) So you would need to upgrade to that version to get the new compnent. That may or may not involve going across any versiosn that were charged for. If not, then you just upgrade, pay for the new component, and that's it. If you did, then you'd need to pay the 'upgrade from version X' price, then pay for the component you want.

That doesn't mean of course that new functionality won't be part of lots of free releases. There'll be lots of smaller stuff that will always be coming out, as we always do. Even our increment dot.dot type releases often have very useful improvements and new stuff. But in terms of major new areas of functionality, that's generally packaged as separate components.

 

[claymahaffey]

I think the issue for new prospects is that we often don't know what pieces we need.

I've been using the following components on "phase 1" of my build for the past 18 months: Base, Intf Viewer, 2 Clients, Event Server and Media Repo. It has been all I've needed (and more) up to this point. In this system, I would have needed to add a couple of more clients, the logic server and the RIVA viewer to get me through 'phase II', which is just starting.

You might want to consider a 'starter' pack that has that grouping you mentioned above for a small discount (maybe throw in that 2 Client pack for $100 instead of $60 or something...) to encourage people to get started. Or maybe a 60 day trial instead of 30...I know that with my travel 30 days had me just hitting the 'what the...' point on the learning curve!

 

[dgeffs]

Just the thought of this is will most likely freak out your existing customers. My first reaction was to go to the J9AE website to see how they are doing. After I calmed down a bit, thought about having to start over and realized what a tremendous amount of effort I've put into my CQC installation I came to the conclusion I'd better stay where I am than move.

What? Did you read what I've posted here? I've made it clear that existing customers really have nothing to fear and nothing is going to change other than the fact that *You will have more choice*. I mean what's the problem with that? Calm down, dude.

I thought I made it pretty clear I had calmed down.

It's pretty easy to hear your frustration and honestly you must have been expecting this. Everyone's situation is different as far as they are concerned and some will feel abandoned and some don't really care. Everyone wants detail and I see in a more recent message you have provided some. This should ease some concerns. People don't like change or price increases and are always confused at first. That is the basis for my freak out comment.

I feel pretty safe in saying that those of us who are loyal CQC customers who base our entire automation systems on your software really want what is best for you and your company regardless of what you have to do to achieve this. We want to make sure CQC continues to evolve and I suspect most will adjust to the new structure with only some minor grousing up front.

Quite simply you offer the best product on the market at a reasonable cost (at the moment) and provide superb support via your forum. I don't know when I have ever been happier with a software purchase in my life (and I'm pretty old). You will have to fight this all over again once it hits your forum so have as much patience as possible and let's move on.

 

[zpollock]

I'm going to defend Dean a bit here, but also share my concerns.

I do have to admit that when I first read this announcement I had a "this sucks!" reaction. As Beelzerob pointed out, I felt like I'd been lured in under one pricing structure, and then had it changed on me. I do believe that the ongoing costs will be significantly more than the maintenance costs. I've been down this road with many other packages (HA and non-HA), and have seen it happen several times. However, having said that, I also believe that Dean has not made this decision without giving it much forethought, and that he must feel it is absolutely necessary to keep the company moving forward. While I certainly don't want to pay any more than I must, I'd much prefer a cost increase over seeing the company go under. My dollar investment in CQC is nothing compared to my time investment, and that isn't something that I wish to lose. HA is a very small niche market, and with such limited economies of scale Dean has to do what he must in order to keep the company solvent and growing. Yes, I'll likely spend an extra $100 or so per year beyond the original maintenance costs. I can tell you that my pile of "extra" and "to-be-implemented" hardware impulse buys certainly cost more than that.

The part that concerns me more, and that I don't have an easy answer to, is what this will do to the CQC community moving forward. While it may be possible to build a cheap CQC package under the new pricing, the "standard" configuration that most of us use looks like it will exceed 1K. Many potential DIY newbies are already on the fence about CQC because of the learning curve, but I think this pricing will put it out of the running for the majority of them. The issue there, in my opinion, is that thus far it seems that the bulk of the driver development and beta testing is done by the DIY crowd, with a few exceptions. The pros can't afford to beta test at customer sites, and can't possibly check all of the possible interfaces and usage scenarios themselves. If the pool of new DIY users dries up, the existing members will eventually start to dwindle due to attrition or the fact that they must now pay for new releases. That will make people less likely to jump on every new release. As less new members come in, there will be less talent to develop drivers, or less begging to get them developed by the local DIY driver gurus.

Having a wealth of drivers and a strong beta team benefits the pros as much or more than the DIY crowd. Dean cranks out code like crazy, but most of his focus is on the core product, not the drivers. While components such as the RIVA server are very useful, that means nothing to a turn-key end user if there isn't an iPhone (or Android, or whatever) client to run on it. The architecture is critical, but it's the (mostly DIY developed) drivers and interfaces that a prospective customer of the pro integrator cares about. If development in those areas diminish, then we all suffer. The same applies to the thoroughness of beta testing. Betas may be free, but if the user knows that the release version will cost, and has no plan to upgrade, then why bother beta testing?

One of the other developing HA apps has taken the approach of offering free licenses to users that develop and contribute significant drivers. Perhaps CQC could take a similar approach and offer free core components or upgrades for a period of time to those who are writing drivers. A similar incentive to get one of the local graphic gurus to develop a nice and cohesive graphics library for CQC would also be of great value in my opinion.

Finally, I would also offer the suggestion that in the upcoming price model where driver limits are enforced, that this only apply to drivers with hardware somewhere in the chain. For example, any driver connecting directly to a hardware component, or something such as a media player that eventually is amplified and sent to a hardware component would be counted. Something such as the horoscope, email, RSS feeds, or variables driver should not. These are often just small add-on pieces that are used to bulk-up an interface. In the case of the variables driver, that's being used as a workaround to address the lack of persistence and truly global variables in the tool, and some people have enough instances of that alone to exceed that base driver cap.

Yes, I realize that as an existing owner I'll be grandfathered in and these limitations won't apply to me, but I also have a vested interest in seeing the tool continue to grow. In this regard, what's good for the community is good for CQC.

 

[sic0048]

Zac - that is an excellent post and it mirrors my thoughts exactly (although I couldn't have expressed them as well as you did).

 

[aslamma]

Zac, I wonder the about the same things and posted that earlier in the thread. The long learning curve combined with the new price structure (well over 1k for a competent system) will scare off a lot of DIY users. That has to have a downstream effect, doesn't it?

My problem is that I need new hardware (and then the time to learn it - no real X10 CQC support), and then need the time to learn CQC. I am willing to do this, but can't make it happen in a month. So I could take a $600 risk on it, with a realistic chance that I would never use it or wait and pay ~1500 for the setup that I would need. Neither option is too appealing to me and this has most likely scared me off from CQC, although I am certainly intrigued by it and am very aware that it is a great product.

So yeah, as I mentioned earlier and what Zac has said may have a lot of truth. I, for one, am not likely to now be a CQC user. And I think its users like myself and the others here, who are active, and really getting into the stuff that help the product in many ways. If you reduce that, what may happen? Noone knows. However, Dean argues that there are not many DIY users anyway and that new approach may actually increase the DIY market since he can openly advertise price. I suppose this has some truth to it, but at the same time its odd because you are going to gain users by doubling or tripling the cost? Could happen though.

 

[icellama21]

Personally I'd like to see older versions of CQC on sale for lower prices to the DIY community. You can capture a lot of weekend warriors who would never pay more than $2-300 for an automation package. I suspect you would capture a large portion of the homeseer/etc sales if you offered a low price, moderate functionality package. Version 2.0 is more than enough for most folks. Of course this entail supporting older versions and backporting drivers, but you may just get enough volume to do that.