To get this back on topic, sort of, which is to say to get back to exchanging information as opposed to snide remarks at each other, having an internal FCC test facility is very expensive, which is why few companies, even Cisco, have one. When you send a device out to test, wait in line you only find out that you've failed and have to reverse engineer why and then fix it. Send it back and hope you pass. Having the test facility in house is akin to having a full spectrum analyzer, that allows you to check the RF performance at a job site. You can use trial and error to decide WiFi channels or you can use the scope to tell you what channels have the least interference. You can attempt to move the WAPs around to minimize interference or you can just throw time at the problem.

Ultimately, you generally can get to the same result. Having the tool allows you to get there quicker. Does speed always count? I can promise you I wish I could afford --and justify the cost of a 25k eye pattern analyzer for HDMI. Full blown WiFi costs a minimum of 5k and the time to learn the software. There are less expensive solutions, some of which I own and use. I'd prefer to trouble shoot using deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning.

Everyone does their own cost benefit and most of us farm out what is too expensive to do in house. In most CI cases, "farm out" means we spend time rather than capital, but it's still money only we tend to see time as less dear than actual greenbacks. Trust me, Audio Authority and Cisco both would want a FCC test facility in house. You don't have to have one to bring products to market. Most companies don't have one and send out to labs for testing and approval.

Crestron is also not the only company to use OEM as a basis for their product offerings. Considering the size of Crestron's product SKU it is a very reasonable business decision to partner with URC or Universal Electronics. Not everything needs to be invented in house. But Crestron has announced that it will be bringing much of this development in house. Big deal."

There is much that C4 has done which is clever but what is their "innovation?" Other then introducing new price points to automation, partly obtained by importing Chinese manufactured to specification products, what "innovation" has C4 introduced? Their remotes can be found in Niles Audio's SKU, their ability to natively steam mp3s from a hard drive can be matched by lots of other products, including CQC. There are any number of third party applications I can put on to a Crestron system to do the same thing. Autonomic Controls offers one solution, ControlWorks an other. Crestron has it's own AV steaming server coming to market as well. None of this is really innovative so much as offering new features.

However, the Crestron CHV-TSTAT is arguably the among the best thermostats made and probably the best controllable thermostat on the market. The PVID is among the more ingenioius solutions to component video distribution permitting inexpensive wire to perform the work of much more expensive RGB cabling without signal degridation. If we look at their products and software, not merely their remotes you get to see that Crestron has done quite a bit more "innovation" then you are giving them credit.

But they also want to increase the number of dealers and they want to introduce their brand into price points their traditional systems were too expensive to play in. The danger is that inexperienced or greedy dealers will attempt to do too much with the system and end up with unhappy clients. But a competant dealer using the system as intended may just end up with happy client and manufacturer.

C4 is the dominent player at the low end of the market. That is not to suggest that it's a bad system only that its intended market is not mega-custom jobs. They targeted the 7500-20k price range, but that doesn't mean you could not do a larger job. You just needed to use the graphics they came up with, the products they wrote drivers for and sell the feature set they offered. That is not all that different from what Crestron attempted with Systembuilder or I suspect what is being attempted with Prodegy.

Sorry for the misspellings. I'm on a machine without spellcheck

Alan

At the end of the day, I think all of us aspire to be Crestron or AMX dealers. In our business those are the only companies who have consistently proved through the years that they are the BEST PERIOD they have always …and probably always will set the standard for which we as well as the manufactures like Control 4 and RTI will be judged by. However, most of us are not Crestron or AMX dealers; because either we do not have the knowledge and ability to program these complex systems, we do not have the customer base to support the product, and cannot meet the yearly minimums. In some cases cannot …even if they have the knowledge meet the purchase requirements for the opening demo order to carry the line. I believe if given the choice to become an Crestron or AMX dealer was as simple as contacting A@#D, or any of the other Disty’s with the only qualifications for carrying the lines are having a Company name and breathing on your own… 100% of the members here would be Crestron or AMX dealers.

With respect to the Dealers who are currently Crestron or AMX dealers and choose to carry Control 4 as an alternative too meet the needs of the customers who can afford but choose not to spend… but need more control than what RTI, or URC can reliably provide just makes sense.

That’s why the other 90% of the dealers on this forum wait with baited breathe for companies like Control 4, RTI, URC, lifeware, Netstreams, Savant etc. to introduce products in there line that will allow us to offer some of the features that Crestron and AMX have had for the last 15 -20 years.

It is a smart move on Crestron part to introduce prodigy whether it was introduced to be a C4 killer or not I will be one of the first in line to carry the product when it become available and I suspect many of the control 4 dealers will too.

I think deep down the Control 4 guy’s whatever the reasoning would like to be Crestron or AMX dealers but maybe for some of the reasons are all of the reasons listed above are not and had to settle for Control 4 IMHO.

I have never heard anyone make the following statement:

“I wish I could be a Control 4 dealer”

Crestron has more industry partners than C4, RTI, URC and any of the other companies combined; thats proof positive that everyone wants to be associated with the leader and the best.

Here is a Control4 install that a Control dealer was proud to post. He posted this on a public forum, [Link: c4forums.com]. 

Here is a Control4 install that a Control dealer was proud to post. He posted this on a public forum, 

At the end of the day, I think all of us aspire to be Crestron or AMX dealers. In our business those are the only companies who have consistently proved through the years that they are the BEST PERIOD they have always …and probably always will set the standard for which we as well as the manufactures like Control 4 and RTI will be judged by. However, most of us are not Crestron or AMX dealers; because either we do not have the knowledge and ability to program these complex systems, we do not have the customer base to support the product, and cannot meet the yearly minimums. In some cases cannot …even if they have the knowledge meet the purchase requirements for the opening demo order to carry the line. I believe if given the choice to become an Crestron or AMX dealer was as simple as contacting A@#D, or any of the other Disty’s with the only qualifications for carrying the lines are having a Company name and breathing on your own… 100% of the members here would be Crestron or AMX dealers.

With respect to the Dealers who are currently Crestron or AMX dealers and choose to carry Control 4 as an alternative too meet the needs of the customers who can afford but choose not to spend… but need more control than what RTI, or URC can reliably provide just makes sense.

That’s why the other 90% of the dealers on this forum wait with baited breathe for companies like Control 4, RTI, URC, lifeware, Netstreams, Savant etc. to introduce products in there line that will allow us to offer some of the features that Crestron and AMX have had for the last 15 -20 years.

It is a smart move on Crestron part to introduce prodigy whether it was introduced to be a C4 killer or not I will be one of the first in line to carry the product when it become available and I suspect many of the control 4 dealers will too.

I think deep down the Control 4 guy’s whatever the reasoning would like to be Crestron or AMX dealers but maybe for some of the reasons are all of the reasons listed above are not and had to settle for Control 4 IMHO.

I have never heard anyone make the following statement:

“I wish I could be a Control 4 dealer”

Crestron has more industry partners than C4, RTI, URC and any of the other companies combined; thats proof positive that everyone wants to be associated with the leader and the best.

Also can you please provide exactly how many Partners Crestron has to give us some backing on your quote stating they have more industry partners than everyone else combined.

Thanks

With the S+ > SIMPL > System Builder > Composer software development model, I can take my kick-ass UI and package it in a format that can be deployed, configured, commissioned, and tested in the field by installers. This allows me to eliminate the costly per-job programming fees that you C4 guys use as your first sales pitch "Crestron is too expensive to program". Flash UIs will get you one step closer to this, but you're still going to be locked into the device driver paradigm, I forget what the specific name is. Essentially, you can provide different graphics, but no additional functionally which is where the real value is.

im confused... i never use the sales pitch "Crestron is too much to program" i charge a lot of money to program Control4 from the stand point of being a Control4 dealer.

There are 2 ways to work with the Control4 Flash UI. One is a dealer with little flash knowledge can make small changes and a dealer who knows flash very well can re-write the entire UI.

your last comment is confusing. how can you edit the UI on crestron and add more functionality? the box can only do what the box can do.

Don't you have to still play within the device silo sandbox? They have driver interfaces (someone who knows what I'm talking about here please chime in with the correct vernacular) tailored to the specific application - lighting control, av receiver, dvd player, etc. My understanding is that if the device driver template is a fixed resource, if it doesn't support that particular function, it can't be added.

This is similar to the AMX device discovery model, but in that sense, the AMX model is superior because device drivers are independent of compiled code, but that's a topic for a different thread...

See, with your product you have a box which you must remain in, I don't...

In Crestron-land you can design your UI from the ground up.

So, if I want a pop-up page to appear when the doorbell rings, I can. I can make that pop-up behave however I want. If I want to be able to parse a string from something somewhere (anything, anywhere) and put it on a page, I can. I can make those individual pieces of functionally independent from each other and add this feature or that feature to a project fairly quickly.

If the Prodigy processor can be programmed in SIMPL, then I can do whatever I want with it; more importantly, I can make that system a template and use it to start every other system with reducing the installation time substantially.

You nailed it...

I'd like to propose a very calm, detail-oriented, quantitative analysis of feature sets from line to line (Julie?).

I can already predict the winner, care to guess?

So, if I want a pop-up page to appear when the doorbell rings, I can. I can make that pop-up behave however I want. If I want to be able to parse a string from something somewhere (anything, anywhere) and put it on a page, I can. I can make those individual pieces of functionally independent from each other and add this feature or that feature to a project fairly quickly.

bisyb, man that is funny as hell.

vinny, we all know where you stand. you stated that a Crestron CNAMPX 12X60 has the same power and characteristics as a combo DA system from niles, russound etc. i dont think i need to say anything else about you.