Hello Everyone,

I've been developing an application over the past year that allows a user/integrator to create a fully customized UI for the Windows desktop. The program also stores IP address/port information for system devices as well as command strings for those devices. The PC sends the commands to the designated devices when the buttons are clicked or pressed on the desktop. And buttons can be configured to flip to other pages. I've discovered that sending commands over a network is the easy part - developing a "panel" design interface has been a pain in the neck.

I would appreciate any feedback/suggestions you have to move forward with this. At this point, I'm much more interested in industry insights than sales.

1. Is such an application desirable in the current AV integration environment?
2. What features would be needed to make the application most useful?
3. While I don't see the application competing with current control systems, would this platform be more desirable long-term as more devices include Ethernet capabilities?

Any suggestions, information, and insights would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

I have written a similar app but it is driven by a Pronto PRO over wi fi. The PC does the heavy lifting and the Pronto just sends commands and receives responses it can display on its screen.

My entire thetaer operates in the manner you describe, but the UI is the Pronto PRO.

If you are trying to market this to integrators, I have a simple question. Where's the money? We will on ocasion do a X-Panel for Crestron, but would much rather have a real touchpanel for the client that does not require any bootup time. Also there is the chance of more support time due to what a client may load on to their computer. And then there is the problem that we are selling one less product....

X-Panel is a powerful product IMO. One thing it can do that a typical touchpanel can't is give the client access to his UI from anywhere in the world. While you lose the hardware sale i think there is profit to be made with them. Too often the CI throws the XPanel in vs treating it like an interface sale.

However i agree with Greg C that there isn't going to be a line forming outside with CI's who are ready to give up touchpanel sales. On the other hand.. the walls of the touchpanel market are about to be breached with low cost CE wannabe products like the iPad. If the key limitations/issues can be solved (some claim they have done it already) i think the iPad will find itself on a lot of proposals. I think your product needs to work on tablets and not just a PC for it to be valuable to integrators/DIY guys. Look at iridium and command fusion.

When you say "developing a "panel" design interface has been a pain in the neck" i assume you mean software like VTPro-e for Crestron or Integration Designer for RTI. IMO ID is very polished and easy to navigate. VTPro-e is something i have mixed feelings about. I always compared it with graphic editors like fireworks and assume it was archaic and klunky but after some recent experience with other control system ui software i can honestly say that Crestron has the best. I actually like navigating ID better but VTPro-e has a tool set like no other. Point of my rambling here is that you should closely model one or the other or both :).

Chris,
Just went to your website and checked out the features

1. you need more than 50 commands per device
2. it HAS to do 2-way
3. if I'm using a computer I want widgets ( traffic , weather, news ) Built in.

I'm not bashing your product. Just giving you some idea. Send me a rc email and I will be more detailed .

I am not bashing your product, but why not just develop and iphone/itouch/ipad app? I think the days of the PC being the catalyst for control is over. The ipad clearly seems like the best solution, and Apple's new innovation with multi-tasking is signalling an end to the PC for almost anything.

While I am sure they need to sell more than a million units to even make it respectable, people have been clearly iphoning everything. Besides being profitable I am not sure anyone would want to anchor themselves to a PC.

Thanks for all of the responses. The feedback has been insightful and helped me make a few technical and marketing decisions that I wouldn't have thought of without your help. Since I can't respond to individual posts as threads, brief responses are listed below.

Barry Gordon

Thanks, Barry. I need to get familiar with the Pronto line. I've tried to make my application "platform independent". That is, I'd like it to interface with any control system, or more preferably, with any controllable device that accepts ASCII or hex strings over a network.

Greg C

Marketing to integrators may be a tough sell. I fully understand that integrators profit from hardware sales as well as value-added services such as installation, programming, and support. An application that reduces hardware requirements is obviously not in a CI's best interest. I think the application is best suited for the do-it-yourselfer or a customer that is willing to trade boot-up time for less $$$. I agree about the support issue. For this app to be successful, I'll have to include a hefty amount of education and support.

39 Cent Stamp

Thanks, 39 Cent. I believe that X-Panel is loaded onto the Crestron controller and installs an Active-X control for the end-user's browser. You can eliminate the need for the touch panel, but you must purchase the controller for X-Panel to work. AMX serves the pages from the installed (and purchased) touch panel - pretty clever of them eh? My app eliminates the need for both the TP and the controller unless the controlled device is RS232, IR, relay, etc. And then, any network-enabled interface will work. For instance, a company by the name of Sena makes a WiFi to 232 converter. I can control a 232 device with my app through the interface and don't even need to run the cable.

I also like VTPro-e and will eventually strive to utilize its features. The "pain in the neck" I was referring to was the difficulty a software developer has in allowing the end-user the ability to create their own buttons and graphics. AMX, Crestron, and others have been doing this for years - my hat's off to them.

brucewayne

Thanks for the suggestions! I view most feedback (positive or negative) as good feedback.

Limiting the device commands to 50 was my way of eliminating memory problems. When the app is started, two data files are loaded into memory. The command file is small, but the UI file can be pretty large. I'll be looking to increase the command count in the future. 2-way is coming. The Window's .net framework is not world renowned for its string handling abilities. Reading incoming strings from other devices is even more of a challenge. As soon as I get the bugs worked out, 2-way will be there. I like the widget idea - the user can view important information without opening a browser or second application.

vbova27

Thanks for the insights....while I'm admittedly a PC person, I don't think PCs are going away soon. You do make an excellent point about portability though. For home/business control where a PC sits on-site, the application in its present state is ok. I've been kicking around the idea of creating a web server version (asp.net). This would allow any WiFi enabled interface with access to the network to control any controllable device on the network through a browser. This eliminates the need to create an app for any particular product line.

Thanks again everyone!