[Dean Roddey]

As I'm sure most of you know, I'm the vendor of a software based C&A system ( www.charmedquark.com ), and as such I catch a lot of flack from various fronts that PC based systems are inherently incapable of being made robust, and therefore are unacceptable in any way, shape, or form. And of course there are other C&A automation products in use by the folks in the forum, e.g. ML, Girder, etc...


I'm interested in the thinking of you guys wrt to this issue. Clearly I understand that the folks here are not the whole market by any means, but represent a mix of technical and non-technical DIY types. So that should be kept in mind by anyone reading the responses here.


Clearly, a PC used in a daily sort of way, with constant access by the user to the net, porn surfing, installing all kinds of questionable apps and so forth can lead to instability in a general purpose PC. But I believe that when used as a 'C&A appliance' in a closet, managed over the net indirectly via the C&A system's management system, so no exposure to the network via shares or daily usage, that they be made more than robust enough for this application.


If you want to go further, you can create a CD based boot image, combined with a small RAID system for data redundancy, and create a more closed system, delivered as semi-CE device. So there is a lot of potential range here that can be addressed, and obviously anyone who wants to meet the needs of any market needs to know where that market stands, so as to make long term strategy.


So, with all of that in mind, what are your feelings on this front?


- Do you believe that PC based control and automation is just anathema, period?


- Do you believe that the kinds of 'hardening' above can make them acceptable?


- How important is this robustness in terms of price differential, or would you just prefer to ghost the disk and put it back if it ever freaks out and pay less?


- How important is it in a software based C&A product that the product integrate into your existing computers vs. how important is it for that product to come on hardened hardware and kept isolated?


- How important is that a C&A system be networked distributed vs. being a replacement for traditional 'single box' C&A solutions?


- How many of you would be willing to use a computer based system if there was a professional available to support you in your efforts, and what kind of range of feeds would you consider within your tolerance range?


- To what degree is this decision a price-driven decision, and to what degree is it a complexity driven decision?


- And any other comments you might have on the subject.

 

[Dean Roddey]

BTW, I have invited Mario to be involved in this thread as well, and for us both to keep things non-denominational and to discourage any such from our respective 'camps'. I believe that getting good answers to these questions are beneficial for all of us who are interested in improving the fortunes of software based automation.


So let's not talk about the features of the various software systems, but what you think of software based systems in general, and what aspects of hardware based systems that you feel must evolve in the software C&A world in order for you to take it seriously and adopt it.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Oh, and I guess one of the questions should be, if you've not made any moves in this area yet, is C&A something that care absolutely nothing about, something that you are interested in but don't really understand, are very interested in but don't feel you can afford the time and/or money, etc...

 

[Lifter]

To try and stay on topic, I personally don't think any non-PC based system can achieve a truly optimal system. I don't have a clue what fronts you've been getting flack from. Do people just think PC based setups are unreliable?


Slightly OT, I've checked out your site periodically over the months, and I don't think I'm alone in my thoughts when I visit it. I always ask "What is it, what does it do?". It really comes off like something for insiders, programmers and IT professionals only, and that people like me should just stay away.


I bring this up because I'm not sure if that's the impression you're trying to give off. I'm a pretty hardcore Girder user. My main GML file has over a hundred different commands in it. I'm no programmer, but with Girder I learned how to do Lua scripting and there isn't anything I can think of creatively that I can't do or figure out how to do with my system.


What I'm saying is that I'm no tech genius, but I'm smart enough to set up a very, very advanced Girder setup with no prior knowledge. But your system doesn't look like it's intended for me whatsoever. To be honest, I don't even know what C&A means (control & automation?), and because I don't, I feel like I shouldn't even be visiting your site.

 

[Sweet Sounds]

I've used your software, and we've exchanged emails a few months ago regarding some obscure switcher control. I like the modular idea and am wide open to a computer as a central controller. Stability is not an issue for me, as even my desktop that is used for surfing the net and installing (sometimes questionable) applications has been running for over 6 months without a reboot. I think a Win2k machine properly set up and maintained in a dedicated role is more than stable and much more flexible than a hardware based solution.


The issue I see with CQC and other computer based apps is the typical end user is not going to teach themselves how to program it. Of course this also extends to hardware based solutions that are equally difficult to configure, or more...


I think for one solution to gain massive approval and use it has to be super easy. I have recently purchased an AMX Axcent3 controller because even though you still have to learn the syntax for programming it, it's proven reliable, and there are vast resources available to get you out of a bind.


On to the "What would it take?"

- I want an application where I can create buttons on a screen. For each of these buttons I can do one of 2 things...

1) Create a macro to launch other buttons (Read commands) (Either hidden or visible)

2) telling the application that "When I press this button (Command) send "XXXXX" out serial port X.


That's the interface and programmability I'd like to see. It's easy for the novice, and scalable for the advanced user.

 

[Sweet Sounds]

My apologies, I should answer the rest of your questions as well...


- Do you believe that PC based control and automation is just anathema, period?


Not at all


- Do you believe that the kinds of 'hardening' above can make them acceptable?


Absolutely - Perhaps you could even provide a Windows answer file to your users that will configure a Windows install for them. Just tell them "Insert this floppy and the Windows CD and you're off"


- How important is this robustness in terms of price differential, or would you just prefer to ghost the disk and put it back if it ever freaks out and pay less?


I see robustness as a huge value, and to get into the business sector of this, price is irrelevant. I don't care what anyone says. The company I work for bought 3 $12,000 BSS SoundWeb matrix mixers for our auditorium without flinching. The only thing that will get any system wide adoption is stability. The system has been in place for 3 years, and has failed only once due to hardware issues. Never had an issue with programming. The bottom line is an installer must be able to design, justify, deploy, and hopefully NEVER support a system. Remember... It's the VPs that run these presentation rooms


- How important is it in a software based C&A product that the product integrate into your existing computers vs. how important is it for that product to come on hardened hardware and kept isolated?


I personally would prefer to use a dedicated machine. Others will install it on their HTPC. I think it should be irrelevant.


- How important is that a C&A system be networked distributed vs. being a replacement for traditional 'single box' C&A solutions?


Network distribution is huge for me, as I am doing this for the "Whole House" thing. As I said, I went AMX, so whole house is going to be proprietary and expensive, but hands-off when it's done.


- How many of you would be willing to use a computer based system if there was a professional available to support you in your efforts, and what kind of range of feeds would you consider within your tolerance range?


Pro support is not optional. there is no if. Professional installations require professional support (And probably VARs too). Email, phone, chat, IM, It really doesn't matter to me, but I know many who hate a product if the support isn't a live body on the other end of a phone.


- To what degree is this decision a price-driven decision, and to what degree is it a complexity driven decision?


Again, from a commercial standpoint money is no object (read quality is worth the price) Complexity is the problem of the installer. It's all about total cost of ownership. I'd sooner spend $10000 more on a system that won't need support than to spend $1000 on one that will.


Now personally at home?... Cheaper is better. Money is an object for me. But I have to answer both! Your competition is cheap too, it's complexity that will decide.


Sorry for the long post!

 

[ELMitz]

- Do you believe that PC based control and automation is just anathema, period?


No, in fact I find it to be preferable in many respects.


- Do you believe that the kinds of 'hardening' above can make them acceptable?


Unnecessary in my opinion for the level of complexity I intend on having.


- How important is this robustness in terms of price differential, or would you just prefer to ghost the disk and put it back if it ever freaks out and pay less?


Ghost disc is fine, although if that robustness is inexpensive I would consider it. I think my pivot point on this is somewhere around $250


- How important is it in a software based C&A product that the product integrate into your existing computers vs. how important is it for that product to come on hardened hardware and kept isolated?


I would probably prefer an isolated solution that would play nicely on an integrated system if necessary.


- How important is that a C&A system be networked distributed vs. being a replacement for traditional 'single box' C&A solutions?




Speak English please! This may be part of CQ's problem... I'm a reasonably smart guy (physician) who has built my own computers for years. Even programmed my existing Pronto remotes with custom GUI. But I cannot for the life of me, after reading almost every word on CQs website, figure it out... The same can sort of be said for MainLobby as well, though not to the same degree.


- How many of you would be willing to use a computer based system if there was a professional available to support you in your efforts, and what kind of range of feeds would you consider within your tolerance range?


I would be willing to use a computer based system without a professional there to support it, but it would be nice to have somebody program my entire system to do what I want for me I would rather pay on a per hour basis etc.


Even better would be for the authors (or some representative of the software) to provide appropriate manuals, samples/templates, and tutorials so that their target DIYer market wouldn't need to rely on professional help. Heck, I would rather pay $35 for a great "Charmed Quark or MainLobby for Dummies" book and do it myself. The old excuse ("we have an excellent support forum...") for not providing said documentation is getting old and less reasonable given the variety of complexity many users are programming.


- To what degree is this decision a price-driven decision, and to what degree is it a complexity driven decision?


Which decision? If you are referring to the immediately preceding question I suppose it is a price decision because if somebody offered to program my system in total for $100 I would jump at it.


- And any other comments you might have on the subject.


See above...


My biggest frustration with Girder, CQ, MainLobby etc is not the steep learning curves but the lack of proper tutorials, samples, and documentation.

 

[Trick414]

Well, this doesn't really answer your questions, but...


I posted once in one of your posts about my idea of the way it might all be set up (light switches, etc.).


The problem I see is the hardware OTHER than the computer and its accompanying software. What I mean is all the stuff the computer is supposed to control.


As far as I can tell, you either have the inexpensive X10 type of stuff, or totally proprietary AMX level items. There doesn't appear to be a real industry standard for remote controlled switches, plugs, thermostats, alarms, sprinkler systems, etc. Yeah, yeah, you can piece it all together, and some of those industries at least support a few "standards" within that industry. But, the whole "smart home" thing has never really come together.


I guess what it boils down to is... when I can run up to the Home Depot and pull a plug off the shelf that will integrate seamlessly with what I'm running at the house, then we are there. Sure, you can surf the net and find many, if not all, items necessary to build a house from the ground up with home automation in mind. But, it's not Home Depot...


I'm planning on building a new house in 5-7 years when we retire, and it will be built with home automation in mind. However, I've spent countless hours researching and will have the money to do so. I won't be some guy just trying to get into a house for his family at the least cost. I noticed on the Leviton site a document for some new wiring "standards". At least, they are pushing for more cable wiring, Cat5/6 stuff, etc. But, my sister is having a house built. A few phone lines (cat5e at least) and a few cable lines is all they provided. I had them run a few more lines, explaining about HDTV, home networking, etc. Hardly cutting edge home automation to say the least. They looked at me like I was some techno-geek. And these are the people building houses today.


I'm very frustrated with the building industry right now. We have the technology to bring this all together for surpsingly little cost if done AT THE TIME OF BUILD. There, I think, is the real problem.

 

[rbmcgee]

Dean, do you actually know who you want to target and how you want to position your product?


Using CQC to play and pause Theatertek seems to be using turbine to cut your lawn. And yet, you don't seem to give the girder, netremote, pronto, usb-uirt, irman, etc. credit for doing what it was designed to do and instead insist on wedging CQC into that space.


Are you sure you want to do that?


Controlling an HTPC and whole-house automation are completely different animals that would appeal to completely different people who have completely different needs.


Before you continue asking for input on CQC, I would suggest you think some things through first and ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate people.


I'm actually not trying to be mean, but trying to be helpful.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Quote:

Dean, do you actually know who you want to target and how you want to position your product?

This post isn't about CQC, as previously noted. It's about software vs. hardware based automation, and people's opinions on that point. So I won't get into defending my product here.

Quote:

Controlling an HTPC and whole-house automation are completely different animals that would appeal to completely different people who have completely different needs.

The fact that they are different animals doesn't mean that one product cannot address them both. And many people might start on the HTPC, then get the bug to start moving out, and if the product is limited to the HTPC, they find that they have to start all over again. So there are considerations for future growth, and I clearly believe that anyone looking for whole house automation wants to include the HTPC in that umbrella and allow that HTPC to be a first class citizen sort of control console in that automation solution, so there is clearly a connection there.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Quote:

I guess what it boils down to is... when I can run up to the Home Depot and pull a plug off the shelf that will integrate seamlessly with what I'm running at the house, then we are there. Sure, you can surf the net and find many, if not all, items necessary to build a house from the ground up with home automation in mind. But, it's not Home Depot...

Unfortunately, that is not something any of us software based automation vendors can do anything about. All we can do is provide the glue to stick them together. Not even the rich traditional automation based products can do anything about it, because it's just too big a world for anyone to control.


I think that as close as we may ever get is that new homes from a particular builder might get a standard set of hardware, or something of that sort, so that automation vendors can target those particular sets of hardware with pre-fab setups. But I can't see much beyond that. You just aren't going to be able to twist the arms of both GE and Sony to make them agree on a single standard. And frankly, a standard of the complexity appropriate for a high end audio processor isn't going to be appropriate for a $25 light switch.

 

[Dean Roddey]

One thing I find interesting, and I completely understand where it comes from so I'm not complaining about it, just pointing it out as an interesting phenomenon... I don't know about the other vendors, but I get almost equal complaints that there isn't enough documentation and that there is so much documentation that it's overwhelming. I assume that this means that there's not enough documentation of the right sort, but it's hard to tell exactly what to fix.


One obvious issue is that the broader the target market for the product (i.e. the more masters it is designed to serve), the less and less that product is a product and the more it is a toolkit from which an end 'product' is built. We have to serve many masters in order to have a viable product, since every customer or custom installer has a different idea of what a good C&A scheme is, and if you can't support them, you lose out. So this presses us to make the the products broader and broader, but this also makes the product less immediately gratifying for any one possible user.


It's something that I don't know how to address completely. Part of the problem is also the market now vs. the market tomorrow. Today, you either address the DIY crowd and eek (sp?) a small business, or you address the larger whole home market and try to fight against the traditional systems but have the possibility to have a real product. The latter makes the products more complex sometimes than the DIY crowd might feel comfortable with, but in order to insure that we can continue to provide you with a quality product that will mature and become better, we have to have a real company, and the DIY market really is just barely able to support a couple of companies, much less a good selection that will give you plenty of choices.


Anyway, I'm rambing, but the bottom line is that there are mutually conflicting requirements here that we have to meet, and there's no way around them, so we just have to find the best way to finesse them, and that's why I'm interested in your thoughts.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Quote:

On to the "What would it take?" - I want an application where I can create buttons on a screen. For each of these buttons I can do one of 2 things... 1) Create a macro to launch other buttons (Read commands) (Either hidden or visible) 2) telling the application that "When I press this button (Command) send "XXXXX" out serial port X.

Pretty much all of the available products can meet that level of functionality. Though on number 2, you really want something one level of abstraction removed from what you've asked for. I.e. you probably really want to tell some device driver "do X to the device" and have it send whatever is appropriate to the device, whether that's IR, serial, USB, socket, or whatever. And I think that pretty much all of the available products do work that way as well.

 

[rbmcgee]

Quote:

The fact that they are different animals doesn't mean that one product cannot address them both

I disagree and firmly believe that, over time , you will underswtand the difference as well. Your subsequent posts scream that you are talking to completely different markets with completely different needs. I'm surprised you don't see it.
Quote:

It's something that I don't know how to address completely

Quote:

Anyway, I'm rambing, but the bottom line is that there are mutually conflicting requirements here that we have to meet, and there's no way around them, so we just have to find the best way to finesse them, and that's why I'm interested in your thoughts.

Exactly. Figure out who you want to appeal to and then design a solution for that group. Trying to serve both masters with a single solution is simply not going to cut it.


Case in point. I'll bet 90% + of the people on this forum don't even understand CQC or what it does. Your language is geared toward either the installer or the geek.

 

[Dean Roddey]

My assumption that people here ARE geeks, to one degree or another, i.e. DIY types. I don't believe that it is acceptable to address the home automation world, but not address the HTPC, because the HTPC will end up being an important component of many control environments. So I just have to disagree with your argument in this case.


If companies just bailed out of any situation that they didn't know how to address completely, we'd not have many companies, because business if full of such situations.


Clearly CQC is oriented towards the higher end of the scale relative to a simple front end just intended to run programs in a user friendly way. But a software based automation system that doesn't address the realities of (and take advantage of the special features of) the PC and the HTPC is kind of silly to me.

 

[rbmcgee]

Dean, yes, anyone who wants home automation does indeed want HTPC automation as well (provided they also use an HTPC). Your mistake is believeing that people who want HTPC control also want home automation or at least want to start with a product that does both.


Truth is, for HT/HTPC control I use a pronto, a tablet and a desktop PC. It includes Netremote, girder, Theatertek, and the usb-uirt. It was cheap, simple to setup, easy for anyone to use. I know I can't turn on my A/C or start my dishwasher with this setup but to tell you the truth, that's not important for me.
Quote:

But a software based automation system that doesn't address the realities of (and take advantage of the special features of) the PC and the HTPC is kind of silly to me.

You've got to get off this "those other things are silly" attitude. Nothing silly about it. My setup does exactly what I want it to do. And that's not silly.


You have either over-engineered your product or you are drastically mis-marketing it.

 

[dreicher]

Great discussion. As stated earlier, we won't dive headlong into "matching up" or defending our products, as we collectively feel we are right in what we're doing or the direction we're headed. If we didn't, that would be problematic.


I think the most obvious answer to this conundrum is: both. Users want a robust, scalable solution (typically associated with the proprietary solutions) and a infinitely customizable, open architecture system for interface design and the ability to choose off-the-rack componentry ($1000 touchscreen devices v. $12000 touchscreen devices, etc.).


We're beginning to make inroads into this area through interfacing to Crestron control systems that handle lighting, HVAC and some of the more "mission-critical" componentry. In doing so, we're able to deliver an end-user solution that is of much better value without loss of stability. Should the "network" go down, redundancies are in place to keep necessary components functioning. Let's face it, even Crestron and AMX systems still put a light switch on the wall - for local control and redundancy.


The "issue" with serving the DIY market is there is no standard set of componentry, hardware, end goals, etc. from our user base. Therefore, it becomes a great challenge to document "how to do it" vs. "this can be done" - there are just too many variables in the equation to have a point A -> point B documentation. As a company, we've found some success in melding the ability to customize a solution with predominantly "out-of-the-box" add-ons. For example, a typical user could purchase an entire suite of products and have a main screen, dvd catalogging, music catalogging and playback, weather information, xm radio control, etc. with very little interaction (at least interaction that isn't heavily documented and included).


While I agree that a forum is no substitute for a excellent support forum, it is not without merit either. Certainly, there is value in allowing users to communicate solutions, tips/tricks and help along the learning curve. However, Cinemar and most (if not all) pay-to-play HTPC tools have some degree of accessibility via live toll-free tech support, instant messaging, e-mail, etc. with the added virtue of generally being able to speak directly with a developer, or the developer. As for the technospeak, I agree it sometimes gets carried away. In these instances, nobody is going to get upset by "In English, please?" response. We all do our very best to make things very simple, but software developers as a whole are about efficiency, so they tend to talk in as few words as possible. Notice the irony of the long-winded posts by myself and Dean!


I'm not intimately familiar will all the options out there for control/automation/media management - they are numerous and varied, but I can say (for the most part) we're all trying to make things as powerful as possible and as possible as possible. We just recently released a server update that dramatically simplifies our server command syntax allowing the user to define commands in English, like Volume.Mute instead of MLServeCmd.MLVolume|WAVETOGGLEMUTE. We've also begun building demonstration scenes with new updates that showcase what you can do with the updates and how to use them (or replicate them). It's certainly far from nirvana, but it's of great importance to all of us in the industry.


I think the best solution at this point is to get the user out of the gate as quickly and painlessly as possible and then give them the support and tools to extend the functionality and refinement of their system as they learn. We would all love to build a XP Media Center Edition and have complete control over the hardware - it would be infinitely easier, but it's not any of our philosophies. So, we're relegated to trying to build the interface and control systems, then trying to marry them to hardware/software devices in any way possible. Sometimes the manufacturers make this part enjoyable - others not so much.


I think the simple reality is, a computer (or even seperate controller system) will never fully control a home - without backup. Bill Gates owns a software company, spent $97,000,000 and 7 years building his home and I'll bet you a can of Coke that he's got light switches on the walls and thermostats somewhere in the house. They may be cast entirely in gold, cost $10,000 a piece and have 4 Cat5 hookups each, but in some fashion they still work the same as the 19¢ jobs you can pickup at Home Depot. Even a CE or XP-embedded device that is written to a Flash ROM and completely isolated will at some point break, need upgrade or replacement.


I think the idea is to allow users to upgrade components as technology progresses through off-the-rack scalability. I would much rather spend $5,000 a year than $50,000 now and 10 years from now have a system that is still cutting edge and fresh. You will see companies like Cinemar, CQC, et al begin to make a push into the integrator solution area as time progresses which will begin to expand revenue streams to allow us to do more internally along with using a distributed network of integrators to continue to push our core products forward with plug-in development, hardware support, funding or just whining to get additional feature sets. It's a foregone reality at this point, and everyone will win in the long run. The DIYers will have a much larger base of tools at their disposal, a broader support base, among other things; the non-DIYers will have a value-priced alternative that includes professional design and integration without the exhorbitant hardware prices; builders will have the ability to design an out-of-the box hardware/software solution that the average homeowner can option into that is "plug-and-play" for the guys on-site. It's beginning to happen already and it is really, truly just the beginning.


Anyway, I've rambled long enough. Great topic for discussion - hope it continues.


Daniel Reicher

Cinemar, Inc.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Quote:

Your mistake is believeing that people who want HTPC control also want home automation or at least want to start with a product that does both.

I don't believe that. But I believe that that many people who want HTPC control will also immediately or eventually want home automation, or if they were to step back and look where they want to be eventually, that they would be best served by starting with a product that can deal with the immediate needs but grow into the larger envrionment, and therefore I offer a feature set that tries to address them both.


I don't see anything wrong with this. Nor do I see anything wrong with marketing a product to a group which is not the product's primary market, but which might have a reasonable number of potential customers it might serve.


I also try to market it to custom installers, and it's clearly very much designed for that market, but that's not the only group to whom it would be targeted, and it is the group to whom I have to provide some proof that software based automation is viable, and hence the questions I'm asking here to get feedback on that subject, not to argue with you about my marketing.

 

[dreicher]

In Dean's defense, I believe a large percentage of the users on this forum could very easily qualify as professional dealers / integrators were it not for other chosen professions.


We obviously have different product philosophies and marketing strategies; however, I know of many users in this forum that are customizing "installer-type" systems to extend functionality and are quite capable of utilizing a system as complex as CQC seems if it's best suited to their needs.


I will also concede that HTPC users as a whole and automation users have some overlap that must be considered to some degree; however, they are by and large very different markets - with very different needs. Again, Cinemar obviously feels the HTPC market for media management and information is the market for us; however, we do offer a quite capable automation system for tying into lighting, HVAC, hardware components, etc. with feedback to the interface for those so inclined.


I think it's great of users to give such candid feedback. It can only lead to advances and refinements of products to the companies that are trying to serve these various markets, and I for one feel that avsforum users as a whole are a great "control case" for how products will play in the integrator community.


Daniel Reicher

Cinemar, Inc.

 

[Dean Roddey]

The way I see it is that, Cinemar and Charmed Quark and whoever else, though competitors, are in the end both really competing against the traditional hardware based systems. We can work our butts off and fight feature for feature, but if we never get out of the DIY market, we'll never build serious companies. However, if we could get even a few percent of the overall automation market now owned by the 'traditional' systems and their custom installers, that's enough to allow us to grow real companies that can provide the kinds of services and support that many people want, or to write those books and manuals with professional tech writers, and create more canned solutions based on our more flexible underlying tool sets, create pre-fab hardware/equipment solutions that can be bought as a group and used as is, and afford the marketing, sales, R&D, and so forth required to grow our markets.


But all those things cost money and that means revenues and revenues means getting a bigger slice of the market and getting a bigger slice of the market means, inevitably, convincing people that PC based systems are viable, so that they in turn will make it known to the people they hire to install their systems that they think the advantages of software/PC based solutions make them the desirable solution, even if in some cases by layering it over some hardware system like an Omni or other security system. As long as my product is the one 'on the top' in a particular installation, i.e. closest to the user, it's perfectly fine with me that it's layered over a hardware product that does the low level control, though that clearly adds considerably to the cost to the user.


None of this means that I'm thinking of the DIY market as someone to use to work my way up the food chain, then to abandon. That's the great benefit of software based solutions is that they are very scalable up and down if built correctly, despite arguments to the contrary above. So I would always want to provide a good solution to the DIY market, but if that's the only market that I and others can get into, we will remain basically small fry, and won't be able to afford that super-slick, professionally written user manual, knowledgable tech support teams, and other goodies you all probably will feel is important.


What does this have to do with you? Well, I guess the fact that you guys are the leading edge of proving the viability of software based solutions, you are providing the proving ground that such systems can be stable and powerful and flexible, and can provide us the feedback we need to make that happen. Yeh, it's kind of a bummer that you end up proving the solution and then the rich people get to buy the resulting products without any effort, but such is life


I'm not sure I should have even said any of this, since perhaps it gives a little too good a view of the man behind the curtain, and I don't want to give the wrong impressions, or make people feel that we software based vendors are doomed or near-doomed or anything. I believe that, as in a large number of important industries in the recent past, C&A will be taken over by PC based systems. People didn't believe it would happen in publishing, music production, video production, special effects, and so forth, but it was inevitable. I believe that C&A is in many ways, even more amenable to attack by the strengths of PCs and the software to put them to work.


But in the C&A world, maybe even more than in all those other worlds, there is a 'priesthood' between the vendor and the non-technical customer, through whom most information is filtered. If those priests believe that a software solution isn't viable, then it matters little if it really is or isn't, because their non-technical customers take their word for it, because that's why they hired them.


This is a difficult barrier to breach, but when you heretical DIY guys prove that these systems work, you make it easier to prove this to the priesthood. And, in the end, you will get yourselves better products because helping us get through that barrier will get us the revenues we need to take our products and companies up a number of notches.