I would guess that lots of people end up buying $100+ controllers that would otherwise buy a Cinema7 or 15-1995 (for $50 even) if they would a) improve the volume punch through so you can set it per device and b) add another 50 memory spots.

I don't want to have to use a Pronto to tune my electronics. I personally would pay $100 for a Cinema7 that would do everything I need it to.

And just in case I've missed it, there isn't any product available that is as light and easy to use as the Cinema7 that also has these features, is there? I'm sure I would have read about it by now.

Don

They don't make it perfect because...

- Each consumer has a different idea of what "perfect" is.

- It might price itself out of the target market's price range.

- Once a consumer ever gets his/her hands on the "perfect" remote, they'll never buy another one. Thus eventually putting ONEforALL out of business.

- It costs too much to provide technical support for "perfect" devices. It is apparently impossible to write a User Manual that everyone can understand and thoroughly explains EVERY feature and possibility within the remote.

- To irk us.

Dave

Hey Don,
Have you seen this...
[Link: hifi-remote.com]

Rob.
http://www.hifi-remote.com/

Don,

I agree. This remote works better than anything I've tried. Adding more memory isn't asking a whole lot and I don't think it would increase their support issues (might actually reduce them).

Yep, more memory would be nice. I suspect it would even be "easy", from a manufacturing point of view, but maybe not. I've been inside the Cinema remotes and there's not much to them. There is no socketed chip. Only one "bump", that must be the cpu and memory combined. If it's a single combined IC chip under that bump, the memory probably can't be changed without replacing the whole cpu too.

But I wouldn't mind if they did. If to add memory they had to put in a different CPU, maybe they could put in one that would handle larger macros, two-way communication, and a few other features. Then again, they probably already have that remote simply named something else.

Oh well. ;-(

Dave