Dean Roddey
Senior Member
Hey, I'm ready for some button presses...
What is wrong with CQC?
- Thread starter Dean Roddey
- Start date
Dean Roddey said:
But this just points to the astounding level of artificial pricing in the HA market. The stuff is expensive because it's supposed to be expensive?
Look at all of the new technology that has come out in the past couple of years that works well (enough) for people to throw all over their homes - like I said just a moment ago the HA space is being disrupted, and it's going to change. And the guy that buys the 10Kft home of tomorrow will already be familiar with a lot of the HA concepts, so it's going to be a lot harder for installers to just pad their invoices.
Yes, I do agree with you about the software.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
In my business I get into a lot of homes on a daily basis and I can tell you it's a smart phone and tablet world.
How many of these people are potential HA users if it was as simple as Steve Jobs tried to make things, I don't know.
How many of these people are potential HA users if it was as simple as Steve Jobs tried to make things, I don't know.
this is the entire point of HomeKit as I understand it. apple is trying its best to (1) secure and (2) simplify communications between smart home devices. all of the 700MM iOS devices that are out there are potential HA controllers.
i read the other thread where the homekit talk turned into a nightmare - so what ive said above is my own personal understanding of what it will be. please dont crucify me.
i read the other thread where the homekit talk turned into a nightmare - so what ive said above is my own personal understanding of what it will be. please dont crucify me.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
From what little sketchy information exists on Homekit, it appears that it is fraught with the Apple disease of not playing well with others. That is, unless you get in bed with Apple and play by Apple's rules, you don't play. Deja Vu.
That means that if I wanted to use a Homekit for running my home theater as I now do with CQC, no deal. It will apparently only talk to Homekit approved and configured devices.
It's certainly possible a device like Homekit could syphon off the majority of the HA market if it were glamorous enough, it certainly won't replace the CQC approach where any depth is desired. I guess the question might be if there are enough of us who demand the CQC level to keep a CQC alive.
Another question that comes to mind is whether or not CastleOS is already intending to be a more sophisticated version of the Homekit model.
That means that if I wanted to use a Homekit for running my home theater as I now do with CQC, no deal. It will apparently only talk to Homekit approved and configured devices.
It's certainly possible a device like Homekit could syphon off the majority of the HA market if it were glamorous enough, it certainly won't replace the CQC approach where any depth is desired. I guess the question might be if there are enough of us who demand the CQC level to keep a CQC alive.
Another question that comes to mind is whether or not CastleOS is already intending to be a more sophisticated version of the Homekit model.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
jkmonroe said:
No, more like it's expensive because it's designed to meet the needs of customers who want something that can be set up to work they want they want to work and to do more customized things. And also, it's usually more complex if it's targeting the custom installation market. And often more physically robust. For example, supporting repeaters, I would imagine, makes RA2 more complex than the Caseta system that doesn't have to deal with that. That allows it to deal with larger systems, but there are fewer larger systems, so it's priced to match the market it's targeting.
A Honda will transport you around as much as you need, but Porsche still sells a lot of cars, because people who can afford better typically want better. They new perfectly well that the Turbo 911 isn't going to get them anywhere that a Honda won't, but it's still a lot more fun to have the Turbo. The Turbo costs a lot more than the Honda, not because the parts are THAT much more expensive but because it's priced to the market it's serving, which is smaller but still lucrative.
Honda sells a lot more cars of course, but there's still two markets there, and the high end hasn't in all these years collapsed because a cheaper alternative exists.
pete_c
Guru
Here locally we have an automation store basically catering to high end stuff. The store has been around for many years. They do business because the high end customer remains. High end automation companies have remained in business these days. Historically aside from an initial installation of automation their customers agree to service contracts that maintain the automation paid for.
These companies are struggling and concurrently keeping up providing levels of customer satisfaction with automation for a price. This is one tier of automation price that will not change. It will get better and you will get more for the price.
Look at the other side of automation being sold at the big box stores. It works up to a point. The hub which connects to the internet and wirelessly connects to a bunch of home widgets. It works only as far as the use of wireless trinkets. Most folks still like the use of a wall switch to turn on their lights. Most of the time the electrical installation and purchase of an automation light switch isn't even considered.
The automated light switch is still evolving. Making the switch a wireless hybrid or wireless doesn't fix the inherent problems of using RF. That said though the price / labor to connect that same switch is still the same. (IE: $50-$200 for hardware and the price of the labor involved).
Here playing with a tiny wireless automation hub with a touchscreen. It works with primarily Zigbee and Z-Wave. It does provide automation just fine for all of those wireless trinkets out there in a tiny package and includes a wireless access point, firewall, router and switch. The only thing it doesn't do is install light switches; but you can use wireless Hue lamps with it.
Software like Dean's in general offers that computer savy consumer a choice of what they want to use and what it is that they want to automate in new world of automation that's not done yet. Dean's software isn't dependant on the cloud rather it does allow for that consumer to use whatever mechanisms of transport are available to communicate with the home mothership. Personally I do not have to watch over my automation these days because it just works.
Personally today CQC caters to that computer / automation pioneer savy person which is in one tier of DIY automation folks. It is not automation for the masses.
Here started to play with TTS and VR/touchscreens / light pens in the early 1980's. It was slow compared to today and it worked. Commercially I also played with it for financial institutions and it also worked but was still a bit slow. Today it has evolved with that interactive game and use of the Kinect. My children took to touch sceen / light pen CRTs when they were infants and did like them much more than the keyboard / mice back then. That said concurrently used light pen's in commercial endeavors and it did work fine at the time.
The OP here relates to what is wrong with CQC.
That is relative to the computer knowledge base of whom is using it. Here on CT you have a base of DIYers that have been mostly pioneers of automation using it for many years now and doing whatever it takes to automate their homes. This is a select group and not the average consumer. The future of automation will evolve with technology and is changing every day.
Having a choice of what it is you want to automation with what type of technology is still up there on the list. The programming / OS of mechanisms of action can be sometimes complicated while other times not depending on the knowledge base of whomever is using the software. It does get complicated to be able to provide that piece of software than can intercommunicate with whatever widgets suits your fancy.
Personally I use Homeseer software (since 1998) automation here to experiment with new stuff as I have evolved a bit having initially used X-10 / lighting automation from the late 1970's. It worked just fine for me to turn lighting on or off. I do not consider today lighting / HVAC automation anymore. Rather just basic functions of the heartbeat of the home that I do not pay attention to.
Many automation newbees today are awed with that cell phone widget that turns on their lighting and yes that is new to them and that is all that matters. Mostly these folks are used to free or $1 widget and do not see those grey areas defined relating to their automation; well nor care about them. I was prvy to using my home automation in the late 1990's / early 2000's using the first cellular methods of internet communications. GPRS was very slow but it worked globally for me.
That said concurrently for work stuff I needed to be able to talk to the mothership (work computer mothership) wherever and whenever that was possible no matter what. (so it was that private global network connection or that cellular connection wherever I was in the world - the whole thing was tied to keeping the mother ship engine continuously working no matter what.). My desktop in my office had a public IP address and the world to me of this private global network was all public IP addressing. Well I guess because they were one of the first companies to use a global interconnected network way before the internet was available to the masses.
I want and cannot get that AI automated home today. I think its closer today relatively writing than it ever was. It's just slow coming because we have to wait for everybody to catch up to the newest technologies and that in itself can take a long time. I am older now and time moves much faster for me and its still too slow.
These companies are struggling and concurrently keeping up providing levels of customer satisfaction with automation for a price. This is one tier of automation price that will not change. It will get better and you will get more for the price.
Look at the other side of automation being sold at the big box stores. It works up to a point. The hub which connects to the internet and wirelessly connects to a bunch of home widgets. It works only as far as the use of wireless trinkets. Most folks still like the use of a wall switch to turn on their lights. Most of the time the electrical installation and purchase of an automation light switch isn't even considered.
The automated light switch is still evolving. Making the switch a wireless hybrid or wireless doesn't fix the inherent problems of using RF. That said though the price / labor to connect that same switch is still the same. (IE: $50-$200 for hardware and the price of the labor involved).
Here playing with a tiny wireless automation hub with a touchscreen. It works with primarily Zigbee and Z-Wave. It does provide automation just fine for all of those wireless trinkets out there in a tiny package and includes a wireless access point, firewall, router and switch. The only thing it doesn't do is install light switches; but you can use wireless Hue lamps with it.
Software like Dean's in general offers that computer savy consumer a choice of what they want to use and what it is that they want to automate in new world of automation that's not done yet. Dean's software isn't dependant on the cloud rather it does allow for that consumer to use whatever mechanisms of transport are available to communicate with the home mothership. Personally I do not have to watch over my automation these days because it just works.
Personally today CQC caters to that computer / automation pioneer savy person which is in one tier of DIY automation folks. It is not automation for the masses.
Here started to play with TTS and VR/touchscreens / light pens in the early 1980's. It was slow compared to today and it worked. Commercially I also played with it for financial institutions and it also worked but was still a bit slow. Today it has evolved with that interactive game and use of the Kinect. My children took to touch sceen / light pen CRTs when they were infants and did like them much more than the keyboard / mice back then. That said concurrently used light pen's in commercial endeavors and it did work fine at the time.
The OP here relates to what is wrong with CQC.
That is relative to the computer knowledge base of whom is using it. Here on CT you have a base of DIYers that have been mostly pioneers of automation using it for many years now and doing whatever it takes to automate their homes. This is a select group and not the average consumer. The future of automation will evolve with technology and is changing every day.
Having a choice of what it is you want to automation with what type of technology is still up there on the list. The programming / OS of mechanisms of action can be sometimes complicated while other times not depending on the knowledge base of whomever is using the software. It does get complicated to be able to provide that piece of software than can intercommunicate with whatever widgets suits your fancy.
Personally I use Homeseer software (since 1998) automation here to experiment with new stuff as I have evolved a bit having initially used X-10 / lighting automation from the late 1970's. It worked just fine for me to turn lighting on or off. I do not consider today lighting / HVAC automation anymore. Rather just basic functions of the heartbeat of the home that I do not pay attention to.
Many automation newbees today are awed with that cell phone widget that turns on their lighting and yes that is new to them and that is all that matters. Mostly these folks are used to free or $1 widget and do not see those grey areas defined relating to their automation; well nor care about them. I was prvy to using my home automation in the late 1990's / early 2000's using the first cellular methods of internet communications. GPRS was very slow but it worked globally for me.
That said concurrently for work stuff I needed to be able to talk to the mothership (work computer mothership) wherever and whenever that was possible no matter what. (so it was that private global network connection or that cellular connection wherever I was in the world - the whole thing was tied to keeping the mother ship engine continuously working no matter what.). My desktop in my office had a public IP address and the world to me of this private global network was all public IP addressing. Well I guess because they were one of the first companies to use a global interconnected network way before the internet was available to the masses.
I want and cannot get that AI automated home today. I think its closer today relatively writing than it ever was. It's just slow coming because we have to wait for everybody to catch up to the newest technologies and that in itself can take a long time. I am older now and time moves much faster for me and its still too slow.
Don't you think that, to an extent, the high end market itself is shrinking?
I live in DC - and see first hand very well-off people with an HA interest buying smaller places with ease of access, versus larger places in the suburbs. These *were* the targets for the high-end HA shops, but no longer. And personally, I have a half-dozen friends that want to put in HA, can afford high end stuff, but end up using Wink or SmartThings because it does what they need. Open a closet door and turn on the light, have their Dropcam turn on and off using the Nest Away Mode (Works with Nest), or using Hue scenes 'because it's cool.' Desire aside, when your condo only has a total of 10 switches, there isn't a lot you can really do - and smart bulbs work best in those places.
I really don't have much criticism of CQC as a product (but I've been with them 10 years, so I've passed the learning curve). But I firmly believe that there is no place for a software based product in a high-end installation. For that matter, I don't believe that there is a place for software based product in a basic installation, either (unless you're one of us!). And yes, CT is full of the pioneers of HA, full of the tinkerers, and savvy folks who enjoy screwing around with the systems, so what I am trying to convey might get lost.
But the majority of the market isn't us, and it isn't high end; and those people *want* a simple hub that can do simple things. That's why I suggest that Dean throw some focus into getting those devices supported.
I'm sorry to distract from the original topic, but I rather like this debate about the direction and market for HA.
I live in DC - and see first hand very well-off people with an HA interest buying smaller places with ease of access, versus larger places in the suburbs. These *were* the targets for the high-end HA shops, but no longer. And personally, I have a half-dozen friends that want to put in HA, can afford high end stuff, but end up using Wink or SmartThings because it does what they need. Open a closet door and turn on the light, have their Dropcam turn on and off using the Nest Away Mode (Works with Nest), or using Hue scenes 'because it's cool.' Desire aside, when your condo only has a total of 10 switches, there isn't a lot you can really do - and smart bulbs work best in those places.
I really don't have much criticism of CQC as a product (but I've been with them 10 years, so I've passed the learning curve). But I firmly believe that there is no place for a software based product in a high-end installation. For that matter, I don't believe that there is a place for software based product in a basic installation, either (unless you're one of us!). And yes, CT is full of the pioneers of HA, full of the tinkerers, and savvy folks who enjoy screwing around with the systems, so what I am trying to convey might get lost.
But the majority of the market isn't us, and it isn't high end; and those people *want* a simple hub that can do simple things. That's why I suggest that Dean throw some focus into getting those devices supported.
I'm sorry to distract from the original topic, but I rather like this debate about the direction and market for HA.
pete_c
Guru
Personally I do not think there is a reasonably priced automation market yet for this stuff for the average home owner.
Testing of automation hubs in big box stores has already failed miserably free or monthly paid.
It works as you mention but mostly because is cloud/phone/wireless trinket dependant making it reasonably priced.
Having a mobile phone widget doesn't make the house automated; but it sells automation a bit even if that widget controls one lamp or monitors HVAC or CCTV.
There were many assumptions made before the waters were tested and mostly the assumptions were wrong but the sell was right; if that makes sense?
Folks tweet to millions their personal bowel movement habits or even make up stuff nary a concern.
Then afterwards same said folks get upset about privacy concerns relating to whom or what has read about their bowel habits.
Testing of automation hubs in big box stores has already failed miserably free or monthly paid.
It works as you mention but mostly because is cloud/phone/wireless trinket dependant making it reasonably priced.
Having a mobile phone widget doesn't make the house automated; but it sells automation a bit even if that widget controls one lamp or monitors HVAC or CCTV.
There were many assumptions made before the waters were tested and mostly the assumptions were wrong but the sell was right; if that makes sense?
Folks tweet to millions their personal bowel movement habits or even make up stuff nary a concern.
Then afterwards same said folks get upset about privacy concerns relating to whom or what has read about their bowel habits.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
Higher end (where that means paying someone to install a system for you) automation certainly struggled over the last decade because it wasn't a decade of much discretionary spending. But it's been picking back up by like 20+ percent points per year over the last couple years according to CEPro, since the economy is coming back. And that's just really begun. It may not get back to internet bubble years levels of excess any time soon, but it's coming back nicely.
Now, some of those systems are going to be something like a RTI setup, not huge, but still premium bits, for pros only. Lots of them will be C4 systems or Crestron systems, smaller or larger. Hopefully more of them will be CQC systems, though it is certainly true that getting it into a badged box would help a lot on that front.
Now, some of those systems are going to be something like a RTI setup, not huge, but still premium bits, for pros only. Lots of them will be C4 systems or Crestron systems, smaller or larger. Hopefully more of them will be CQC systems, though it is certainly true that getting it into a badged box would help a lot on that front.
Now Pete touched on the fact the original post was concerned with "what keeps someone from choosing CQC". I believe that is the same question as "Why has CQC not grown?" but asked from the viewpoint of an owner. i.e. it assumes the reason is within the software/process as the choices show. I think there is an underlying falsity with that assumption.
Dean, I think your right that CQC's scaling ability is its greatest strength. It allows you to target simple systems or complicated ones just as you say.
Now with that stated...
Which are you aiming for? Its back to my question...which market is your target? You could target both but those are diverging paths for priorities and goals. Not to mention the additional manpower and possible changes required for each goal (possibly conflicting even). There is a reason Crestron created its new simplified line...that has to tell you something of what they see happening in the market.
I agree, great, CQC scales and could target both markets...but that does not mean you and your company can do so simultaneously or efficiently (the key word to business).
Every time i RE-READ this thread :nutz: I realize CQC would be best served not by software changes and client feedback, but by some definitive business direction and related marketing choices. Those decisions will drive your programming changes.
Dean, I think your right that CQC's scaling ability is its greatest strength. It allows you to target simple systems or complicated ones just as you say.
Now with that stated...
Which are you aiming for? Its back to my question...which market is your target? You could target both but those are diverging paths for priorities and goals. Not to mention the additional manpower and possible changes required for each goal (possibly conflicting even). There is a reason Crestron created its new simplified line...that has to tell you something of what they see happening in the market.
I agree, great, CQC scales and could target both markets...but that does not mean you and your company can do so simultaneously or efficiently (the key word to business).
Every time i RE-READ this thread :nutz: I realize CQC would be best served not by software changes and client feedback, but by some definitive business direction and related marketing choices. Those decisions will drive your programming changes.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
Ultimately there is no conflict in terms of *functionality* between the two. Both have to be able to do basically the same things. The difference is going to be packaging. There's probably nothing fundamentally different between a Pyng and Crestron's next higher up the scale processor, other than it's just a lesser version thereof, purposefully so. It's probably mainly a difference in packaging, which for a hardware vendor means a totally different product so as to adjust price downwards (or sometimes just disabling functionality from some existing product and putting a different name on it.)
I think that the same applies to us, that there is more than one way this product (or functional pieces of it) can be packaged. We don't really need to do anything fundamentally different for any range of the market in terms of basic functionality, we just need to provide some different packing options, which I've noted a number of times in this thread we certainly understand and are going to address. But that still leaves the full bore version of the product available for those who need it.
I think that the same applies to us, that there is more than one way this product (or functional pieces of it) can be packaged. We don't really need to do anything fundamentally different for any range of the market in terms of basic functionality, we just need to provide some different packing options, which I've noted a number of times in this thread we certainly understand and are going to address. But that still leaves the full bore version of the product available for those who need it.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
Dean, what you just posted makes sense to me. But, something needs to happen to grow your market share, which we all want to happen.
Someone earlier in this thread made the suggestion that you try to set up some tests where in someone who has never used CQC previously proceeds to do so on their own with you watching. You're not allowed to say a thing to them, just observe.
That's probably sort of a hassle, and it might be hard to connect with the right persons to perform in the test, but it would certainly be eye opening in what to focus on to improve the usage experience. I would think it would even be good to let them mumble a bit about what they were frustrated with.
Someone earlier in this thread made the suggestion that you try to set up some tests where in someone who has never used CQC previously proceeds to do so on their own with you watching. You're not allowed to say a thing to them, just observe.
That's probably sort of a hassle, and it might be hard to connect with the right persons to perform in the test, but it would certainly be eye opening in what to focus on to improve the usage experience. I would think it would even be good to let them mumble a bit about what they were frustrated with.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
In the shorter term, probably getting some simpler, limited function versions of it out will be more important, then we can address the usability issues of the full bore product I guess. And those simpler versions may provide a better testing ground for figuring out what works best, which can then be retroactively applied to the full bore version of the product. I.e. we don't have to figure out how rework the entire administrative interface of the full bore version up front, we can do some smaller systems and work out strategies for exposing that limited functionality first, a more baby step but also maybe one that might reap revenue benefits quicker.
