What is wrong with CQC?

That whole integration industry is just backwards.  It is unfortunate that they let their customers view things from a construction point of view where CQC is a 2x4 and installing it is just labor instead of more of an IT industry view of software, professional services to configure, and a service contract to support.     It is easy to understand why their customers feel deceived when they see what is from their view a 2x4 with hundreds of % markup, but I guess if you're gonna sell in that space you have to cater to their rules... 
 
IMO the ideal balance for CQC would be to make the simple stuff simpler and leave the harder/less common stuff (like writing drivers) "not simple".
 
For example because of allowing for totally custom graphics (which I contend is not a concern for most customers) something simple like placing a slider control on a screen is not a simple "drag and drop" operation.
 
Now I understand that you have worked hard on automating the creating of screens but I'm not sure that is the way to go.
 
Frederick C. Wilt said:
IMO the ideal balance for CQC would be to make the simple stuff simpler and leave the harder/less common stuff (like writing drivers) "not simple".
The best software in the world LOOKS simple and very approachable, but when you did deeper, you find all the power you need. Think MS Office apps.  I think just about anyone can run Word, and write a letter with no extra help.  But if you want to do very involved tasks, it can do that also. Excel is similar.  CQC needs to be like that. Approachable and easy to use by the beginner, with more involved features hidden from view.
 
wuench said:
That whole integration industry is just backwards.  It is unfortunate that they let their customers view things from a construction point of view where CQC is a 2x4 and installing it is just labor instead of more of an IT industry view of software, professional services to configure, and a service contract to support.     It is easy to understand why their customers feel deceived when they see what is from their view a 2x4 with hundreds of % markup, but I guess if you're gonna sell in that space you have to cater to their rules... 
 
I wish we could find more IT type folks looking to get into the automation world. Though, a big part of it is always going to be physical, so they'd still have to at least partner up with installers who can get the gear into place.
 
As mentioned above, how far is automation really going to get if it doesn't involve the light switches, outlets, fans, blinds, etc...? But that stuff requires someone who is qualified to install that stuff. Otherwise it will remain more of a novelty. Most folks (me included) probably shouldn't be allowed by law to replace light switches and outlets.
 
But, once that stuff is in place, there should be a lot of room in the modern home for IT infrastructure that includes both automation and things like telephony, and getting solid wireless networking going and things like that. An automation product like CQC should fall into that category of stuff and be something that IT types could become adept at installing, and maintaining over time, and folks like that typically wouldn't tend to consider it too complex to understand, even if its current form. And it would work into their way of doing things more than some proprietary hardware system would, it would seem to me.
 
ano said:
The best software in the world LOOKS simple and very approachable, but when you did deeper, you find all the power you need. Think MS Office apps.  I think just about anyone can run Word, and write a letter with no extra help.  But if you want to do very involved tasks, it can do that also. Excel is similar.  CQC needs to be like that. Approachable and easy to use by the beginner, with more involved features hidden from view.
 
Exactly the point I was trying to make. And I don't think it needs to be simple just for the beginner. I've done a lot of HA work and just because I can do the hard stuff doesn't mean I wouldn't like things to be faster and easier.
 
Dean Roddey 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.
 
But I get things when I buy a Porsche - more HP, higher torque, tighter steering, real leather.
 
What do you *really* get with a more expensive bit of kit for HA?  The game doesn't change when you add cost like it does with cross-analysis of just about every other product category.  HA, at any level, should provide you with logic and events, interfaces, integration between devices, and control lights, audio, video, HVAC, cameras, drapes, etc ...  
 
In terms of making the "front end" simpler for those wanting to move into DIY home automation, but lack the higher end skills (as I do), I would think a good starting point would be to make a short list of the most likely functions they would be interested in controlling.   Then figure out if the interface can be modified to make setting those things up not automatic, but very intuitive.
 
I'm a believer that software shouldn't need instructions to get started with it, but that anyone who bothers to study what's on the screen can accomplish what they want just from the GUI.  Then, when they are ready to dig deeper, they can seek advice from instruction, tutorials, forums.
 
People go towards what is pretty.  Web sites, printed material, TV, politicians, whatever.  The first thing that has to be done is to "look pretty".  I know most everyone on here has looked at the CastleOS site.  You have to admit, the site gets your attention because it looks positive, pretty and easy to do.  Whether it ultimately does everything the site leads you to believe is yet to be seen, but your initial hit is positive.  By the way Chris, this is a compliment, not a slam.
 
Yep.  But no product in this space really provides a good first impression - except Wink.  Seriously, these guys got it right (except the cloud bit, and no local control, and total lack of any usable logic).
 
But, the app is cool, and it works great.  I'm currently using the Wink for my ZWave lock until I figure out how to get it into CQC - being able to put a widget on the iOS notification screen is awesome.
 
Strange our different perceptions.  Taking the cue from your post about the Wink web site, I went there to see what it was all about.  I then realized that I had been there before and then, as now, quickly left feeling there was no substance to be had.
 
jkmonroe said:
heheh - that it is.  i picked up my Wink Hub for 1 penny.  sooo ...   :)
There's your answer, Dean.  That's the target price for the entry-level tier of CQC.
 
Seriously, though, I'm a little amused with the "ease of use and power, too" of Office apps.  In how many years?  With how many programmers?  And how many $B?  Plus, I'm old enough to remember when it didn't have the ease of use of some competitors, or the power of some others.
 
And regarding the support for these flavor of the month, cloud-based, iPhone app-driven hubs, they will all be abandoned by their manufacturers or swallow up by some Goliath and abandoned in less than 2 years.  Dropping everything else to focus on the support of one of them is too risky, and supporting all of them is impossible.
 
-Tom
 
Deane Johnson said:
...
People go towards what is pretty.  Web sites, printed material, TV, politicians, whatever.  The first thing that has to be done is to "look pretty".  I know most everyone on here has looked at the CastleOS site.  You have to admit, the site gets your attention because it looks positive, pretty and easy to do.  Whether it ultimately does everything the site leads you to believe is yet to be seen, but your initial hit is positive. ..
 
My "initial hit" was: "more sizzle than steak". Great presentation but when I look under the hood I can't find substance. What do I call substance?
 
Documentation and Examples
I was unable to find detailed documentation for the product. Even in Elve's early days, one could find a modest amount of documentation. What does exist shows great breadth but little depth such as: How to transfer the software license from one PC to another, how to do very basic setup (login, create a user account, create a device), how to identify the neutral wire, how to access the software via the Internet, etc. There is a post describing an installation that failed because the product requires port 80 and it was already in use by another application. It seems there are no installation instructions indicating port 80 is required nor does the installer appear to correctly handle the situation when the port is unavailable. Without documentation, I don't know much about the product's architecture (and strengths and limitations).
 
API
None yet. I imagine it is needed in order to write a custom driver. However, I'm not sure about this because drivers are not documented. What I have read is that people write C# code ("scripts") to talk directly to unsupported devices ("driverless" communication). 
 
Support Forum
There aren't many posts on the support forum; about 400 posts over 2.25 years. Many deal with reliability issues and new feature requests which is typical for a new product. Some recent posts, penned by people who appear to have spent some time with the product, are best characterized as jaded. Posts like this one concerning the functionality of timers (found in all the HA software I've ever evaluated ... at least six), makes me wonder what other functionality is missing. This post's comment about the inability of modifying a portion of an existing event is not a limitation I've seen in other HA software (certainly not in the one I use).
 
 
Moving on ...
 
The heated exchange about HomeKit (in another thread) made me do my own research. I read several articles but I think I found one that summarizes it best. Who would have a deep interest in HomeKit? Indigo Domotics of course! They make Indigo, HA software that runs on a Mac. HomeKit is summarized in this announcement and it's clearly designed to permit iDevices (iPod, IPhone, iPad) to control Apple-blessed "accessories" (Apple approved 3rd party hardware devices controllable by the Homekit protocol). iOS8 effectively contains a shared database of the user's HomeKit-aware accessories allowing any of the user's iDevices to control them. Siri can be instructed to control them. Yes, Apple will allow control of some existing HA hardware through the use of a hardware bridge (like the Insteon Hub Pro). The "hardware" qualifier is important because, currently, Apple will not permit software bridges. That detail is revealed in a second announcement by Indigo Domotics where they sadly explain to their customers that Indigo, despite being software that runs on a Mac, is considered a "software bridge" and is not an approved means of bridging. There's more but I'll let you read it yourself.
 
xlurkr said:
There's your answer, Dean.  That's the target price for the entry-level tier of CQC.
 
Some of them may be willing to do it. If it costs them $15 to make the thing in bulk, and they can earn ten times that selling information about you that they learn from their cloud based setup, it's probably worth it for them, if they can get enough users to make that database valuable.
 
Back
Top