That's definiite not the case. You can definitely write your own device drivers, and third party drivers currently outnumber the ones I've done probably. If you are into it and hvae the skills, you can write quite elaborate macros using the built in CML macro language.

In fact, that's one of the biggest advantages to a custom installer. Because of the object oriented nature of the macro language, you can actually create quite reusable chunks of code that can allow you to deploy each new system in less time with less programming (but does your client know that?)

For instance, I'm working on a set of macros that can very easily adapt to many (hopefully most) home theaters with just a little modification. I will be releasing them soon, perhaps in this next release. So those types of macro packs offer both the opportunity in many cases to get a lot of functionality done for a little work, but also the ability to modify them as required so they are flexible, but you still don't have to start from scratch.

You can create similar macro sets yourself, and just deploy them in various configurations in each new installation. Over time, you should be able to create a very flexible setup that you can customize easily, to minimize the time invested per-installation.


You can ask any of my existing users. Getting a new driver is pretty easy. I will do them free for you if you'll send me the device for a few days, or you can do them yourself. You can either either do them in CML (which provides a full graphical development environment in which you can build and test the driver offline), or you can do them in PDL (the protocol description language) which allows you to do simpler control by just defining the protocol which a generic driver will then parse and animate.


If you are a skilled programmer, then you are my kinda customer. My problem, if anything, is that CQC is too powerful for non-programmers. CQC was really designed in many ways on the assumption that just being a 'wire puller' isn't going to cut it in the future of C&A, and that software development will be what it's really all about, and where the real money will be made. So CQC is designed to allow you to build up your own customization 'tools' that you can deploy over and over.


In terms of making money, I believe that, as in all new business paradigms that come along, the means is there. You just have to find it. I believe that the move towards systems based more on programming languages will allow (as discussed above) the creation of code bases of your own proprietary advantage that will allow you to deliver functionality that you feel is best for minimal time, through maximum reuse from installation to installation.

On the hardware, if you add value to the hardware, by creating configurations that you know are robust and flexible (and in some cases turn it into an 'appliance' even though it's a PC inside), then I think that you can get the markups on that that will make it worth it. If the customer is looking at buying a Dell and doing the work themselves, or buying a built system from you, but confident that it's appropriate to the task and that you will do the customization work, I believe that you can arrange to get your markup.

I'm not trying to be flippant about your problems by any means. But, I just think that the market is going to go this way, one way or another. There is always a concern when this type of paradigm shift occurs that you won't be able to make money in the new world, but a way is always found, and those who find it will prosper most moving forward.

I'm certainly not getting rich on a per-sale basis. My software is only a few hundred dollars. So there's a lot of wiggle room there to add value to my software via customization work and sell the software package you eventually deliver for many, many times more than what you are paying me for it.


This message was edited by Dean Roddey on 05/29/04 15:23.