What is wrong with CQC?

[123]

... if you have to actually watch a video or read some documentation in order to understand it, the product is doomed.

I'm with Frederick on this one, some of us do watch tutorials and read manuals and online help.
 
I think you only need to put the average person in front of a reasonably complex application, like database software, to prove some things are difficult to grasp by simply poking around the UI. A well-designed UI will certainly help but a few minutes spent with an engaging video goes a long way to clear away the fog and point people in the right direction. Some of the instructional material Google produces for their services is very well done and doesn't feel like watching paint dry. A dull tutorial is likely to turn people off as quickly as an opaque UI.
 
If not tutorials, perhaps CQC just needs an "elevator pitch" video. Something short and sweet to introduce its core strengths (tailored for the market you're seeking). Remember "What is Google Voice?" 

 

[Dean Roddey]

Certainly no one should ever feel like it's a problem to ask a question on the forum. Most small companies are happy to have plenty of traffic on their forums, since it demonstrates user involvement and active product usage.
 
Sometimes it does take a little back and forth, to make sure that we get the right information to answer the question correctly. If you read through the support forums of any similar products they are similar, though sometimes not as quickly responded to. It often requires some prompting to get the required info to diagnose an issue or to know that the question is really being answered correctly.
 
If it's a question about a specific piece of gear, I may not answer, since I may not know the answer. But CQC related questions are answered quickly, though if you ask late at night (and are further west) it might be the next morning before it's answered.

 

[dgage]

I hate to pile on but I'm with Ano and is why I chose insufficient documentation.  Just about everything he posted is how I felt/feel too but thought it was me because I didn't put enough time into it as I'm pretty busy.  I do know that I had a difficult time doing my initial vacation lighting automation because I couldn't find the appropriate syntax or command in the documentation.  If it wasn't for Dean answering, I'm not sure how long it would have taken me.  And when I came back to it to fix my code after 9-12 months that was broken due to V2 changes to the driver/field naming, I forgot the syntax structure.  Some of my lighting automation is still broken due to the changes but I got tired of fighting with it due to lack of time.

 

[Dean Roddey]

It's clearly not insufficient documentation, since that stuff is laid out in extensive detail. It can only be an issue of finding what you want.

 

[dgage]

I'll throw out Microsoft Technet as something I personally like.  It supports individual pages as well as documents broken up into smaller chunks as well as examples.  I like it much more than individual PDF, Word, or similar documentation.  For me, examples is the biggest thing missing in CQC and I've stated this multiple times.  And when I do find examples on the forum, primarily from you Dean, they are at another level of detail that I haven't reached yet and Ano stated the same.  It would be different if we didn't try but I definitely did try to get in and once I accomplished what I needed to, I felt like it would take a lot of work to get much more.  You've made significant strides since with Version 2 AutoGen but I haven't had time to work with it.  With the Lutron RadioRa2 driver issue fixed and all of the other features, you've definitely got my attention but I don't know if I have the time or patience to wade through documentation to develop a custom CQC solution...so I really do hope the Autogen is as good as advertised.

 

[jdk972003]

I just read this whole thread again and realized the feedback falls into two categories based on their target user with some overlap obviously:

• Retail users (lack of a better term)
• Integration (HA experienced or commercial) users

I think the conversation boils down to whats your business target Dean?  Grow your business base by appealing to the masses or grow your business base by improving the system integrator (or experienced HA guys) experience.  I think the first is a lot larger target with more long term potential.  I think the second is probably easier but with a market cap.
 
All the feedback you have gotten is probably great, but its all provided from the perspective of what THAT user thinks is important (reminds me of your description of how everyone wants the driver they need).
 
Developing UI, installer packages, and pre-made hubs leans to the retail/broad base approach.
Training videos, documentation, and similar leans to the integrator approach.
 
So...this comes back around to whats your business plan?  What are your marketing targets?  What are the market drivers and how do you get ahead of that curve.  You should answer those then you can probably take this threads feedback and make a better call on which pieces make sense to integrate into your plan.

 

[jkmonroe]

that's a pretty concise way to put it.  part of the intent of my post was to start the conversation along the lines of 'retail users are all that will be left.'
 
as much as no one wants to admit this, the large companies *will* be forced to adapt.  it won't be a race to the bottom, per se, but it will be a race to the easiest solution.  see Crestron Pyng - 3 years ago it would have been unthinkable for the 800lb gorilla to step it down like that.  And now you can get Pyng for $499.

 

[Dean Roddey]

A company like Crestron will still have lots of residential, commercial, and corporate revenues. There's still a big market out there in that area as well. It's not really an either/or proposition. Yeh, there will be a lot larger number of people at the lower end, but there will be  more competitors at the lower end as well. If one company could get all of the potential low end, then it could be pretty huge. But that seems unlikely to me. At the higher end, there are a lot fewer mouths to feed, and still a lot of money available (and more will become available as the economy continues to ramp back up.)
 
I still believe that a software based solution like ours, which can be configured to run tiny systems up to huge systems all from the same development effort, could be an advantage if you want to try to get some from any available market tiers. That can't be done with a dedicated hardware system, which has to sort of pick a price point (or a set of price points with separate products.) A software based system can in theory address a broad range of customers, directly as a product itself and via other companies that use a very restricted version of it, within some hardware configuration at some price point they want to attack.

 

[jkmonroe]

im not considering commercial/corporate.  but these companies will end up self-canibilizing, because the only thing that they will be able to compete on in the near future is price.  folks that purchase a place with this stuff already in place will be one thing, but why buy a system that costs $15K when a $5K system does the exact same thing?  And how does that hold when a $100 system does the *exact same thing*?  The same holds true on reliability of the various technologies - see Lutron Caseta, which uses the *exact same technology* in ClearConnect that RA2 uses for half the cost.
 
i totally agree that a software solution is much more modular in that it can grow with you, but at the same time think there needs to be a way to get off of that mindset.  when I got back into HA a couple of years ago, I had to buy a PC specifically to use as my master server; i literally did not have one in my house.  and that's the way it goes - everyone has a smartphone, tablet, and laptop, while nearly no one has a typical desktop.
 
i guess this is a long winded way to say that the folks buying their 10,000ft mansions of tomorrow will automate them with hubs, because thats what they will be used to.  capture part of the entry level market and grow with them (see SmartThings 2.0 and Wink Hub 2.0).  disruptive technology at its best!  

 

[Deane Johnson]

So, JK, is it your thinking that the Crestron approach as we have known it doesn't have a place in the future?  That is, a whole house hard wired system of considerable complexity.

 

[Dean Roddey]

The high end will remain in the realm of professional installers who will install stuff that they sell, which is going to continue to be full fledged systems. People who own a 10K foot house aren't going to do any work themselves, they'll hire someone. That someone isn't going to install super-inexpensive stuff. There's nothing in it for them, and it's impossible to add much value to it due to lack of customization. And those types of homes are likely to have a fair amount of IT infrastructure as well, for various reasons.
 
So the thing that gets sold will be what the installer is used to, the home owner won't have any preference generally, any more than he would have gotten personally involved in what routers to install or what A/C unit to use.
 
On the software front, the point was that the same product can run in a tiny hubby product, or a small solid state pre-fab box, or a regular PC, or the server that is already in the closet for other reasons (such as media or telephony or whatever.) If it's well componentized, the same software can drive all of those scenarios just through packaging.

 

[jkmonroe]

im not saying it wont have its place, im saying that in the grand scheme of people who (1) can afford it and (2) give a shit is going to be so small that the market itself will evaporate. 
 

 

[Dean Roddey]

I would also point out that the Caseta isn't the same as RA2, AFAIK. It doesn't support repeaters, and it has a limited range. In a larger house, you would have to use separate Caseta hubs to cover the house, with some stuff on one and some on another. That wouldn't be too great a solution. RA2 allows for repeaters.
 
Companies like Lutron are pretty likely to tier their products appropriately, as it would seem they have done with the Caseta.

 

[Deane Johnson]

So, a small capable system with an up to date and desirable GUI that was kept up to date with drivers might have the best opportunity in the future.
 
That would possibly mean that a piece of software like CQC has become too heavy to find other than a niche market in today's HA world.
 
The one thing I think I am seeing in all of these "new" products is that they are concentrating on lights, door locks and thermostats.  What is going to happen to all of the other stuff we do with HA?  Home theater control, security, etc.
 
EDITED: To correct spelling error.

 

[jkmonroe]

This is my take, yes.  
 
reply to edit: this is why I think a hubified CQC could cause some real disruption in the space.  see my first post in this thread.
 

So, a small capable system with an up to date and disable GUI that was kept up to date with drivers might have the best opportunity in the future.
 
That would possibly mean that a piece of software like CQC has become too heavy to find other than a niche market in today's HA world.