What is wrong with CQC?

[Deane Johnson]

Bal, you are so right on with your description of the issues.  Your posts do an exceptional job of responding positively to Dean's original question in starting this thread.
 
As a relative newcomer to CQC, I have been checking all of the new posts on the CQC forum several times a day.  I had begun to sense that there was far too much time bieng spent on new gee-whizes, new things to do, drivers for every conceivable new device when the real need was to slow down the new stuff and re-examine the process of getting the basics accomplished by the less tech oriented user.  That's where the growth is, a broader base.  Think Steve Jobs.
 
Thank you Bal for stating the issues so clearly. 

 

[Dean Roddey]

As above, it comes down to a networked product. It does you no good to have local images, if you are designing or editing it from somewhere else on the network, and it does no good for a client running on other clients (which will clearly happen.) In order for the images to be available everywhere, you have to import them into CQC, which can store them such that they are available to any client running CQC. This is just a core requirement for networked products. Otherwise, you'd have to share every directory that included any resources you wanted to use, which still wouldn't help you if you are accessing the system from outside the home, nor would it allow CQC to impose security on the configuration data.
 
The cost of such a networked product is that CQC needs to control the resources so that it can make them available. The payoff is that you can edit and/or view from any machine in the network.
 
People often seem to think I do these types of things because I just don't understand what people want. But it's not that at all. It's just the nature of the beast for a networked, enterprise type of product. If it was a simple, single machine product, then it would be different and I would have done it the way you might otherwise expect (because most people use simple, single machine products.) But we can't make it work like such a simple product, all we can try to do is make people understand why it doesn't and the benefits you get in return.

 

[Dean Roddey]

BTW, I'm working at the moment on one of the key complaints from this thread (and previous ones.) So I should be able to check one big one off the list this week.

 

[dgage]

Dean,
 
Do you have an iPad?  I ask because some of the things Apple puts in place make the ecosystem simpler and better.  The ability to sync data between systems like a todo list or similar application is impressive, and that's at the cloud level.  Microsoft does some things like this too but they're often at another level of complexity.  I'm not sure if there would be value in you playing with one or not but it might be an interesting change of pace for you to interact with the Apple ecosystem for a while.  I actually have an iPad 3 sitting on my nightstand collecting dust; I'd be glad to send it to you to keep.  Not sure if this would actually help with anything CQC or not but who knows, it might spark something that does help.  Just let me know if you want it.
 
David

 

[Dean Roddey]

Syncing really isn't what you want to do in a system like this. It's specifically designed to use a client/server architecture, because it's secure and it allows for multi-user access without conflicts. Having to sync any changes every time you moved to a new machine would be vastly less convenient than just importing a small number of images that you want to use, at the point where you design the interfaces. It's done once and it's done and you don't have to deal with it again.
 
I mean the image upload thing is somewhat like complaining about having to upload the images to your web site that you want it to use, when you have them right there on your local machine. Well, you do, but that doesn't make them available to other machines when needed. You have to upload them to the web server so that they are available wherever anyone accesses the info.
 
If you are using any cloud based content, you have to copy it to the cloud before it's stored, and you then access it from there. Yes you do download it to edit it, but so do you download images and templates in CQC if you want to edit them, and when you store them, you send them back to the server again. It's exactly the same sort of situation.
 
I would have thunk that, in this day and age, that wouldn't be a foreign concept to most folks.

 

[dgage]

Sorry I used any example...it was more the interface and the ecosystem.  I had no intent of focusing on a specific technology or solution.  I've seen too many people at Microsoft (my employer) that won't use Apple products and my response is often...that is why X system works like it does.  I have an iPad and I really like it for what it is, I like my Windows 8 devices too.  Each have their positive points and things they do well.  Apple is by no means perfect but it has an interesting way of doing things sometimes...that is all I was suggesting.

 

[Dean Roddey]

There's nothing wrong with the concept of syncing, but it's just not the same sort of thing that is going on with the requirement to import images. I was just saying it's more akin to having to upload images to your web server, for the exact same reasons.
 
There is sync type things involved in CQC, in the case of media metadata. Because of the large amount of data and the requirement to access it really fast, and the fact that it's not sensitive info, CQC downloads the metadata to each local machine, effectively syncing them. In that sort of case, the concept of syncing makes sense.

 

[dgage]

Like I said, I wasn't thinking of syncing or any technology...I just don't communicate my point well sometimes.
 
I was throwing out a way for you to maybe get a fresh perspective.  I may be wrong but did you ever use Elve or test Homeseer?  You are great at what you do and you do have a great but not perfect product (nothing is) but you also live and breath your product.  You may not be able to see the forest because you're in the trees, in the weeds.  To continue the metaphor, maybe you're taking CQC away from the stream that produces the most healthy trees.
 
Take some time out and soar through the clouds...continue the strategic thinking that made you start this thread.  I'm starting a business and I'm so focused on the details that I feel I'm missing things, I'm going to get caught up in the business so much that I forget the purpose of the business.  So I've already scheduled periodic strategic meetings for me to step back and evaluate everything I'm doing.  Just because you do something great doesn't mean it will be successful.
 
This is more a treatise of me at this point than you so please understand I am not trying to communicate anything at all negative about you or CQC.  Far from it, I have too much respect for the hard work, effort, and dedication you have shown.  But I am starting a business and my cousin called me on Sunday as he and a friend are thinking of starting a business...so I've had this line of thought lately.  So it was with the thought of changing the game and getting a fresh perspective that I recommended looking at an iPad.  Like I said, I could be way off in my thinking and it might not provide any value at all.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Sure, I understand what you are saying. Of course 'strategic' thinking is long term, and I certainly do plenty of it and have long lists of things to do on that front, but you can only do one or two strategic level things per release and some are multi-release type things that require lots of infrastructural changes before you can even start on them. All of the V2/Auto-Gen stuff were the big ones over the last year and a half, and they have paid off considerably. It drastically reduces the effort required to get a nice GUI setup for core functionality.
 
We only have one big one for the next time, which is an HTML5 client, that we really need so that we can retire RIVA and have a better phone/browser based client story. It will be quite a bit to bite off, but it's really important. Being able to retire RIVA would get a big stone from around our neck on the Windows UI front as well, and free us up to make it much nicer, so it's doubly important to get this one done.
 
Fundamentally changing the product isn't even strategic, it's more like galactic. That sort of thing requires multiple years and can only be done incrementally. And we can't stop taking the existing product forward for all that time either, so in reality it would take longer than that.
 
I think what we are more likely to do is to find ways to package bits of what we have into more fixed function, simpler solutions, without having to fundamentally change the underlying product (because it is still important on the commercial side to be as powerful and flexible as it is), though of course professional installers won't complain about anything that makes their life easier without dumbing down the product. Even better, hopefully some third parties will be interested in pushing such things themselves.

 

[jdk972003]

First, dgage,I had that exact VHA metaphor in my post and removed it due to length.
 
Dean, You are CQC, and CQC is Dean.  Thats its greatest strength.  But inherently that means there are going to be opportunities for improvement you may not naturally perceive.  I think the fact you started this poll means you are at least conscious of the fact something is missing or holding CQC back at some level, somehow.  
 
Now, read your response to my image example.  Not as a CQC person but just a reader if you can.  Notice I gave an example and you responded with CQC's structure, networked images, access, etc etc.  You responded to specific points of the example and not to the idea being expressed concerning feel and interface.  Same with dgages posts.
 
I promise you, if you can step back and absorb the ideas being expressed here instead of the details, it will open doors for CQC that make it better.
 
I think your statement best sums up CQC's road block. (couldn't get the quote function to work for some reason)
 
But we can't make it work like such a simple product, all we can try to do is make people understand why it doesn't and the benefits you get in return.
 
That simply does not work in today's world and is similar to Blackberry's disastrous approach of ignoring what sells. That's the opposite of of my own statement earlier:
...its your job to make it function like they expect, but execute how you know is best.  Right now, it functions based on how you designed it to execute.
 
You need another set of eyes Dean.  Not an employee or such, I mean a friend, neighbor, wife, etc that knows nothing of what you do. You need to stand and watch them use your software from download through auto generation.  One rule. Your not allowed to say a word or assist them.
 
If they cannot make it through that process...you have obviously created a great program but have yet created great software.
 
I meant what I said, what you have created is simply the best.  It could be used to run a manufacturing facility if someone wrote the drivers. Its awesome.  But now you have to stop and make it awesomely easy and natural to use for somebody else i.e. maake it approachable.  Maybe that is or is not something you can do from within the forest, but it is a big piece of whats slowing CQC down from being adopted by a broader base.

 

[samgreco]

Adding to the above, I think that you also kind of missed the point on another thing.  Namely the confusion in pricing and understanding of what to buy, what is needed, etc.
 
While I understand your need and willingness to explain why you decided to do things the way you do.  Or why it's hard to say how many drivers and client licenses are needed, the casual visitor to your site doesn't know why and may never ask.  Some may be coming from here and be a part of the HA community, but I would bet a lot aren't.  If someone Google's HA, and eventually get to your site, will they push forward?  Will they jump to your forums and ask?
 
Also, I think that your pricing model itself may be turning a lot people off.  Something like:
 
You mean if I get a new tablet or phone in the house I need to pay more?
If I add a new device I need to pay more?
I have to pay an annual fee?
 
If that person is not part of the community we know, they probably won't get it, and probably won't feel comfortable.  Hell, I barely get it.
 
While all of this may make sense for the Pro side of the biz (and I KNOW it does), it hinders the DIY side.  Most people I know think that they buy a piece of software once and don't have to do anything else until they want or need to upgrade.
 
I think that you and all of the other companies involved in HA need to grow the pie to succeed.  Not to try and get a bigger piece of the small pie we have.  Because I think the small community of serious hobbyists in HA isn't going to grow much and most are rather settled.  You may get a few changing products here and there, but I don't think it's going to grow much.
 
You need to bring in more casual users to grow.
 
Just my 2c.

 

[Dean Roddey]

That simply does not work in today's world and is similar to Blackberry's disastrous approach of ignoring what sells. That's the opposite of my own statement earlier:

 
I can't really respond meaningfully to 'make it better'. That's not specific enough to do anything other than express sympathy that, yes, it like any other product can be made better and it would be nice to do so. I can really only respond to specific issues as to what people think could be better. You gave one, and you made it sound like it was a really bad thing. But that's not going to change. It's the nature of server based products. No amount of hand waving or wishing is going to make it change, just like the web server example I gave. You are never going to create a web site without uploading the images to the web server that you want to make available. If you think that's something that's going to keep people from using the product, then it's doomed, just as there would be no web sites if that were true.
 
And of course the documentation on the interface designer explains all of that in detail as well. If you think this type of product is going to be one you can sit down and use without ever reading anything or making any effort, it's not going to be that. We may create some pre-packaged, simplified bits of it that could be used that way, but CQC itself is not that type of product. It requires some actual effort in return for the benefits it provides. If a little effort is more than anyone is willing to make, then its just doomed in the DIY market.
 
Yes, I am very much willing to make it better, but I can only try to make it easier to use it for what it is. I can't make it something it's not.

 

[dgage]

In reading the comment about the VHS vs Betamax comparison and how better marketing/deals allowed the lesser technology to win, it made me think of your competition Dean.
 
There is probably more but let's look at Homeseer and CastleOS.  If I were a new user and I viewed those 3 websites, I'd probably start and stop with CastleOS first; I would only look at Homeseer and CQC if CastleOS failed to work as advertised.  Clicking on the first 4 tabs of the CastleOS webpage at the top; Features, The Hub, Compatible Devices, How-Tos...that just speaks to me.  It looks like a professional, modern, and coherent website focused on what the customer wants.  I've never used CastleOS but if I were a prospective user, I'd definitely consider giving it the first shot with little consideration of others.  I would if for no other reason that it seems to be the one most likely to succeed primarily due to marketing.  I don't think Bose makes very good speakers but they are great at marketing.  Monster Cables are way overpriced but the marketing is or at least was there.  Apple makes solid products but they have been a master of marketing...other companies would likely have squandered the iOS devices capabilities, it is the marketing that truly separates Apple products, at least in my mind.  Oh yeah, notice I didn't even mention Homeseer...I only thought of them when I reread my post...their website doesn't hold a candle to CastleOS either so why even bring them up.  As a user, I would only consider Homeseer along with CQC after finding out CastleOS wasn't as good as marketed.  Then CQC and Homeseer would be under greater scrutiny since the first product wasn't as good as advertised.
 
If I go to the CQC site, the first link is your Forum and the second link is your latest releases.  The third link is to some nice information and videos...I would like that as a new user.  But where do you communicate what the system can do...it looks like some random pictures floating through on the home page.  If a person doesn't realize the value of those rotating pictures, they may not stay on your site long because they don't find what they are looking for.  Where is your features page to tell me about all the great things CQC can do and your vast collection of connected systems you support?  Your website needs to speak to the customer, excite them, and it doesn't so I'd say your biggest problem is marketing and specifically, your website.
 
With the current website, you can improve CQC as much as you want and your market share will likely not change.  But if you were to stop making changes and completely revamp your website, I think you would get much more interest.
 
As I said, I am starting a business...one of my differentiators will be marketing and execution.  There are many established players in the home theater speaker and subwoofer business but I think I can do better by putting out a solid product, standing behind it, and most importantly, marketing better.  They all matter but the last one is the key and the one that will differentiate me from my competitors.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Another round through the web site is already near the top of the list. The current one was a very fast conversion from Silverlight to HTML5 that had to get done at the very end of the 4.6 release cycle, so there wasn't much time to do anything more than essentially convert the old web site to HTML5, and I was learning on the job. I'll be coming back to it soon.

 

[Deane Johnson]

I have a favorite illustration regarding software.  It is:
 
"Programmers have a tendency to think from the software out to the user.  Consumers have a tendency to think from the user back to the software."
 
Along that line, one of my favorite stories in the Steve Jobs biography had to do with a meeting he was having with his programming team regarding one of the new computers he was developing.  After he had gone through his usual tirade of what he wanted it to do, his creative team told him it was impossible to do what he was asking, it couldn't be done.  His response was . . . "then you'd better get started on it".  They ended up achieving what he was asking for.
 
I'm sure Dean feels a bit thrashed on the subject by now.  But, it has been one of the most worthwhile discussions on the subject I have ever seen on the internet.