Please tell me what these limitations and problems are?

First off, i completely agree with Alan and Tony, a good programmer will save you and actually make you money, if you have the jobs to sell. When we started in with Crestron, we were still scrapping by and so I NEEDED to do the programming myself regardless of the time it took.

I have spent time learning SB and understanding the Templates. I recently programmed a system that included:

5.1 Media Room with Denon AVR
6 zones of DA
A 4 zone hdmi matrix with 2 video zones active
3 lighting loads
Prodigy ipod dock
Tivo
bluray
Sonos for media room and one for DA (not feedback to controls, it was existing equipment)
Xbox 360
Apple TV
Mac mini

Controls = 2x PTX3, 1x PTL4, 2x Audio Keypad, Iphone App, Xpanel, Ipad App

I spent 9 hours programming and that included loading, troubleshooting a defective keypad that was locking up a PAMP, and fine tuning. Yes i spent time up front developing this, but that's no different than doing the same thing in SIMPL. Also, i AM letting SB build my panel pages, so i can drop in a new source and have every graphic layout done, comnplete on every graphic interface, all matching the same them, all my custom graphics.

They were able to control every zone from any interface (except the hardbuttong keypads), custom graphics (plug for stamp and tactical), semi custom layouts.

System has been running fine. I will be going back for a follow up soon and will sure need to make some tweaks as they've lived with the system. 

If I've said this once I've said it a thousand times (and I'm not trying to get on anybody's case here). I have never seen an industry where so many people suffer from low self esteem.

Here's some background. I've been in this industry longer than alot of the members on this site have been on the planet.  I've got a small but successful shop, and the economy doesn't affect my business at all.  I'm a better salesman than I am an installer.  I personally program everything my company installs.  

That being said.  Why in the world would a person consider charging $75. per hr for programming a Crestron system?  We charge more for that to program a Harmony or URC remote control.  

I just want to point out what is obvious to me.

#1.  They can't install the equipment.  That's why they called you.
#2.  They can't program it on their own. That's why they called you.
#3.  If you gave them the software, they still couldn't do it.
#4.  They can't get the software to program it.
#5.  If they did happen to get the software it would take them an eternity to figure it out and it still wouldn't be right, because they don't know how the system works.
#6.  Maybe 1 out of 20 people in this industry can program your system. The majority of your installers can't do it.
#7.  You invested thousands of dollars for the opportunity and training to provide that system to your clients.
#8.  Crestron, whether it's prodigy or any of their other systems is the Cadillac of control.  There's nothing better.

If you take all of these points that I just made, you could swap a word or two in the sentence and you'd be describing a doctor.  So why don't you charge Doctor rates?  After all, you're installing these in Doctor's homes.

My point being, you do something of value for a living.  Not everyone can do what you do.  In fact, I can't.  So start charging accordingly.  

So, if you use my analogy we'll say that 8 out of 10 installers can wire the system without supervision (that's a high number but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt). But only 1 can program it.

So please explain to me why programming costs less than installation?  

If I owned a baseball team and needed a pitcher I could get plenty of decent pitchers for X amount of dollars.  If I want a Cy Young winner I'm gonna have to pay alot more.   

To use another sports analogy, if you're a NFL player and you get hurt, you go to Dr. James Andrews.  Why? Because the perception is, he's the only one that can do the surgery.  And you pay top dollar for it.  

One day I'm going to write a self help/sales book for this industry. :)

Here's a link to help you with your pricing.  Good Luck.
[Link: nolo.com]

Hasbeen,
that post is simply genius. I agree 100%.

Gman
I say a quote from a CAIP and add you margin to their price. You'd be surprised at how many people don't argue the programming price.

I don't really get it...if your market truly can't support 100-150/hour for programming, how can it support automation at the crestron level? Why not just stick with the products (I assume) you are comfortable with both installation and programming -wise such as URC/RTI or whatever else you were using before starting with prodigy? If the market isn't ready to pay for crestron and you feel it will eventually now would be a good time to hone your skills with it (at home or in the shop) so you aren't out there reinventing the wheel on each project.

This is what we do presently. My reference to the 75.00 programming was hypothetical only. I have run into competitors who are billing out at these prices and I know of Crestron prodigy dealers in Toronto who are doing the same.

75.00 was a number I picked out of my head but I do know of some companies who charge that little.

[Link: justhifi.com]

You should be thrilled.  Your competition is about to put themselves out of business, giving you a larger slice of the pie.

I've never had a problem competing against these guys at higher prices but it just goes to show that the mid market business ( Prodigy, C4) is becoming more and more price driven.

BTW...I agree 100 percent with what you shared earlier.

I would like to offer (spam) my services for the cover graphic :D!

Agree 100% with your entire post.

I am a pretty good systembuilder coder. I worked for a company that bought into the koolaid that it was the future and anyone in the company could become a programmer. You have to learn to code it and the way you think about Simpl is not how you approach SB. A good SB system will contain a batch of specialized macros that were first coded in Simpl. It requires you to understand how the wizard works and how to fix it quickly when it screws up. Alas, that can mean starting from scratch.

It also means defining the feature set, understanding its limitations as well as what it does best and trying to design your systems to fit its strengths. This also is what you should do with any programmer. Typically, it is not how a system is designed irrespective of the control system. That said, what SB does better than any other system is do the basic data entry. Where it fails is that it has to knit together the program each time you make a basic change. For a large program that could take 15-20 minutes. While knitting together it can occasionally take a dump and fail to make the proper connections between its database and how it knits together the logic or code it will build to make the system run.

It is not the efficiency --or lack thereof--of that code. Believe it or not, spend enough time with the simpl code SB creates and you will know where to go to fix it manually--if you can. But if you must remain in a SB environment you can be out of luck when it takes that dump. At some point, you learn to be very, very creative and if the approved way to code fails you come up with a second, third or forth way to build that code. This happens in Simpl, the most famous example being when someone used the the X-Sig symbol--inter-processor communication-within the same Simpl program. But with SB, you do this not to be more efficient but to code around when ever it broke.

If you are a small company SB makes a lot more sense to use to program, at least till you grow till a certain size. But you need to understand it and Crestron does a horrible job teaching it. You'll have to learn for yourself how to get it to work. After a certain point, the efficiencies of Simpl win out. For example, you cannot copy and paste the logic from one remote to an other. It's choose a button, scroll and attach that button to some logic--every time for every UI.

I understand the desire to control your world that some new to Crestron need to preserve. It was 3rd party coding issues that caused me to learn to code. I also understand the economics of keeping this line item in house. Till you learn to sell programming it can be hard to win bids against C4 or Elan which are done in house. If a for hire coder wants 800/day or 2K for a job where you've allocated 800 you have an issue. You may fear that waiting for him to free himself to code your job to be a problem. You may not have the documentation he needs and the charge backs that come back to cost you a lot of extra money. I do think SB a better option for some new to Crestron then others here but I also think you need to understand what it does well and what it does not in order to decide when you should--and if you should--move away from it to Simpl, typically in the form of a for hire or in house Simpl coder.

This is a good start for "lab" equipment.

It's not broken for certain. Quirky? Absolutely. Unstable? Depends on the build. Like all software, sometimes they fix one problem but that introduces others. It is impossible for QE to imagine every possible scenario that someone will try in SB.
Alan, Stamp, Tony, myself and others here have been programming or working with Crestron for many years. Some of us even remember Panel and DOS Workshop (the software before SIMPL/VTPro/SB). Some of us only remember back to the days of the STS Wizard(I still have this on 3.5" floppy) or Application Builder. Speaking of, for those of you who think SB is quirky you have NO IDEA. Go find a copy of Application Builder and work that software for a bit. SB is built on the D3 engine. D3 works fine but as has been stated it is lighting so the variables are more controllable.

Whether or not you use SIMPL or SB or hire a CAIP is up to you. Those that start in SB seem to get very frustrated. GMan is an example of someone who is frustrated with SB and he has ever right to be. It has cost him money. In fairness he went into Crestronland thinking this would be like RTI or URC or even old Elan. Those systems allow you to configure, with some advanced logic, the remote to control a system. Crestron is a blank canvas every time you start a project. Want the 3 button on that remote to work on 4 different devices? YOU are responsible for writing the code to make that happen. In GMan's case (sorry if it seems I am picking on you G, just a good example) he started with SB and has not really seen what's under the hood. Most of us old guys began with what's under the hood and helped build the engine by BETA testing over the years. So it is easier for a confident SIMPL programmer to make something happen quickly in his "native" environment. Put that same guy in SB where he has little experience and it becomes just as difficult for him, if not more so. The problem with traditional Crestron programmers trying to move to SB is that they know what they would do under the hood and assume that SB is doing the same thing. Not the case at all. Newbies moving over from RTI or URC look at SB and think that this should go a smoothly as what they are used to because they have no idea what is under the hood. SB is easy and insanely difficult all at the same time. The prinicipals of using the software is very easy. Doing complex programming is much more difficult and likely will require you to write some custom Logic modules to make the system work how you want it to work.


This is the key advantage of SB to me. The time spent building a GUI is painful. It's not that it's hard it is just time consuming so having that done for you is a huge plus. Let it build the pages for you.


Yes, you can do reliable jobs with Prodigy. Prodigy is a limited product line built off the same bones and brains as the full line product. Have confidence in the gear. Yes, sometimes you get a DOA piece or you have a product failure. TBTS will help you out when that happens. The amount of call-backs are going to directly related to how well the system is programmed.

Yes, you can do a lot of jobs simply using Composer. Look at what Composer builds for a system. THAT is what you can do with Composer. No more, no less. Move into SB for a quick customization and you are no longer doing a Composer project. Make sense?


No offense but none of those system really require any "programming". They require you to navigate a piece of software where you will configure with the assistance of a background wizard how a system will function. Lutron would be the most intensive programming listed there. Even then it is on par with SB and honestly I think Lutron software to be just as buggy.


Customization can mean many things. Maybe they tried to customize the panel flow and function (DO NOT DO THIS). Maybe they needed some time based logic to handle certain automation conditions. Maybe they simple want the GUI to use their graphics (time consuming). Prodigy is a product line. The processors (PMC2 and PMC3 or PMC3-XP) differ between generations but both have plenty of horsepower for most systems. Large or small is also relative. I would not use a PMC3-XP as my primary processor in a project with 32+ zones of video distro and 64+ zones of audio. It has the horsepower but it has port limitations which make it the wrong box for the job.


Theoretically this system is inside the sandbox for SB but outside the sandbox for Composer. Whether or not you need a CAIP or a SIMPL programmer is up to you. I would recommend that every dealer have a relationship with a CAIP firm. You may not use them on all projects but when you need them you will be glad you have a working relationship with them. Just remember they likely cannot drop everything to take on your last minute project.


Should still be okay inside SB.


The video switching shouldn't create any grief as long as you have a SB compatible module for that switcher. If you do not and Crestron does not then you may want to ask your CAIP to build you one.


Again, I don't see anything that exceeds the capability of SB. Could there be bugs that make things work differently than you expect? Absolutely. The number of user interfaces has a limit and I believe it is 9 for touch panels (handheld or wall mounted).


No, the advantage of using a CAIP is that the programming labor becomes a line item. It depends on the CAIP on how pricing is handled. Feel free to contact me via PM if you wish to discuss pricing structure.


If you are a one man band you only need to grasp how to load processors and remotes. How to set up a VPN or port forwarding to the processor so a CAIP can get to the system for diagnosis. Why do you think a CAIP is out of the question? Most don't require a retainer fee. Some do require that you provide a scope of work and also schematics. Others do not. Hiring a CAIP is easy enough.

Yes, to all questions.


If you are going to play in the big leagues you have to have Crestron, or AMX, on you product line card. Prodigy can be profitable but you need someone to hand hold you through the learning process. That likely won't happen but having a resource that you can tap into (RC, IP, EST forums or a CAIP you work with or eve TBTS)will make it easier. This almost sounds like a situation where you are saying if you can't do it yourself easily then you will walk away from a product. In this industry that is a bad move. It's your business of course so do what is best for you but there are a ton of resources available to new-to-Crestron dealers. Start with Prodigy and a few years from now you will have a staff of 10 and knocking out the $670k projects.


Just hang in there man. You should use a CAIP at least until you are up to speed on programming in SIMPL/VTPro. From there maybe you want to take over all the programming. Maybe not. Bidding a job and having labor as a line item, knowing that it will not be more than what you see on that piece of paper, can help a business make money. The discussion of how to make money with Crestron is not for a public space like this however.

I think you would be wise to start your journey by hiring out your programming for awhile, at least. If you are a one man shop, the time you will spend troubleshooting problems and call backs will eat up a great deal of your profit. This will give you some time to take some courses and get more confident with the programming and what's under the hood as AVgenius wrote about. Another good reason to outsource is so that you can understand how to quote programming. A good CAIP or 3rd party programmer will contract quote your programming so you'll have a fixed cost for that part of the project. I had to learn the hard way. Our 1st few jobs with Adagio were based on how we priced programming for Elan. Lost my shirt on that line item....lol

Partner with a programmer that you can work well with and you;ll be fine.

I'm happy to say that we will be outsourcing the programming as it will allow us...me especially....to regain some trust in the product.


It is a very stable product line ( as long as the programming is stable)


You didn't derail anything...your questions are valid and I appreciate your input

I agree 90%, but not 100%.

The doctor spent a lot of money on undergrad and med school (8 yrs). Then, worked as an intern for a year. Then, residency for 3-6 years. Some do a 1-3 year fellowship after that. During those years, the doctor works like a dog, gets paid little, and gets even more socially retarded.

A cardiac surgeon screws up, and the client dies. A CI screws up, and the client can't change the channel.

CIs should be charging a lot because of the high overhead and training/knowledge required.

BTW, you're probably charging less than 'doctor rates'.

Finally a chance to reply. As my dad used to say, I was overcome by events.

First, thanks avgenius1, for your detailed and in depth reply to my post. I appreciate it more than you know, and it really helped me.

Honestly, I never thought about hiring a CAIP. I just assumed that it would be too expensive. Like Sofa King said, I too am scraping by, and need to do the programming myself, because even if it takes me longer than I think, it is still money in my pocket. However, your advice, and other posts as well, made me look a little differently at the CAIP angle. I will look into that for sure.

The other issue is just knowing that I can do the programming if the customer needs it, if the CAIP is busy etc, etc.

Thirdly, I just like this stuff. I just want to know how to do it, and get good at it. I'm also looking forward to the time when I can't physically do the labor I do now, attics etc. Getting old, and knowledge is valuable. I'm hoping that I can just keep learning, not just Crestron, but a lot of other things as well.

I really do want to do Crestron too. It's a chance to work with the top dog and come in on the ground floor. Prodigy is really exciting, and I hope I do grow into those bigger jobs. That's the plan anyway. I wasn't really wanting to walk away from the product, but I was willing to cut my losses if I couldn't get honest information. I think I've read and "favorited" every Prodigy and Systembuilder thread that came up here, and on the Crestron forum as well.

Gmans post opened the door for me to ask a pointed question, and the info throughout the post, not just in response to me, really tipped the scale. Your post avgenius1,was particularly helpful. I'm excited about the class in Sept, and I'm signed up for the next Systembuilder class too.

And Gman, thanks for the thread and the response. Thanks for sharing your experience with Prodigy, your failures and successes. Thanks for the help.

Sofa King, the job you described is a larger project for me, but one I envision as perfect for Prodigy.

Hasbeen, that was a great post. I for one, have been one of those low self-esteem guys, but I'm learning. I watch the race to the bottom, and I've realized it's not a race I want to enter, much less win!

Best Regards,
G