The responses to a post stating this industry needing decent reverse engineering tools and a proposed vision of where I believe the industry is going to be driven in terms of the urc product line away from proprietary technology that ties you to specific installers that are capable of disappearing due to market force was interesting.  The comment about my throwing my credentials around was particularly interesting when I just tried to defend that I have some knowledge in the area drove some particulary interesting remarks.

What you think of me or my comments are immaterial, the test of time will tell which is correct.  I will provide for you consideration one of the products that have arrived in the marketplace which support my position.  This is a first generation device that will have all the intersting challenges of first generation hardware but this device signals the capability to move away from th proprietary capabilities of devices such as the MSC400 and move them out to where developers can work to address some of the concerns I raised.

[Link: asihome.com]

I am sure anyone with any vision at all realizes the value in the MSC400 type of equipment isn't in its control lines and signalling capability but rather in the database of all the  discrete codes of the devices.  Handheld devices carrying GB of ram with access to incredible amounts of storage (cloud), will create the environment I spoke of.

Any competent engineer wlll tell you the best way to increase the reliability of any platform (multiple systems working together to avchieve a specific goal) is to remove as many devices as possible.  Simpler appliances, such as the one I provided the link for developers to use the capabilities of the real network stack to move capability to the place htat can best serve it.

The reason the MSC400 is forced to use its smart macros and triggers is because the RF and IR communications built into the remotes have ZERO communication reliability built into them.  You rely on shorter signal bursts that that have a higher probability of arriving uncorrupted to trigger complex actions to happen inside a device (MSC 400).

Any programmer worth a damn knows whether the receiving device received the reuqest and has numerous mechanisms to deal with errors unlike the remote configuration.  The cloud and wan capabiity is only required for configuration and lans configured correctly are incredibly reliable and becoming more so daily.

Here's another one...
 
Notice this isn't a fly by night(start up) company.  Key digital is a serious player in the corp space with deep pockets.

[Link: keydigital.com]

Yeah, I'd stay away from the Key Digital for a while. This is an AV switching company that makes a controller now.

Try www.crestron.com for the kind of platform development and support that you envision.

I have a pair of MX-5000/MS-400s and the remotes are exact clones of each other. I did this specifically so if a remote failed I could just grab another remote from another room.

Exactly!

Key Digitals Compass Control is no different then URC's Total Control (for those of you that want to reply WHAT!? hear me out) in terms of the way it goes to market.  It is a pro-only line so I don't really understand what you are saying?

You have a product line that, while still current (a remote I was using 6 years ago is still being sold by URC), it does not mean it is what they are doing and focusing on today.

Of course the industry is changing, that is clear... the world of Crestron-like systems is growing expoentially it seems..

• Crestron
• Compass Control
• Savant
• URC Total Control
• Control 4 
• Global Cache is attempting to break the DIY market but you are not even a real human if you think that would take off in the mainstream ... most people don't want to do it themselves... They do make a great product though so I added them
• CommandFusion
• eNado
• More...

I would say the shape of the control industry is changing drastically and companies such as the listed above all see it.  I don't think that any company has positioned themselves in the wrong place that I have seen above - there is only one company I'm not going to mention that I am worried about in the future in terms of being able to stay relevant - and that was almost just bad luck on developing their product line just before what I call the "paradigm shift" in control (when TCP/IP became a relevant player).

You have, for the most part, outdated technology and you are treating it as-if it is the newest product on the market...

The only thing that you will see change is more brands entering the market.  I could buy a Raspberry Pi and have a controller for $35 that is probably better in terms of hardware specs then every controller from the companies listed below under $2,000 then use GlobalCache to handle IR - yes... but it would require some serious programming on my side.. so new brands will come out, but URC or any other brand listed is not in trouble... they are doing exactly the right thing.

URC has the best database, you are right - and it makes programming these things simple.. they have MANY faults that I won't mention and they need to work on those things if they want to GROW in a more crowded market, yes...

I actually agree with Presenium.  I only used Key Digital as an example of major companies starting to put real $$ against the concept of whole house control and including audio/visual in the control.  I have an HAI OmniPro II that is getting a little long in the tooth.  The decision I am really mulling is whether I can wait to see if the Levitron/HAI combination will provide enough funding to let them expand the capabilities of their product line or whether to head in the direction of the Crestor style system.  Reprogramming the remote only buys me some time to see where the industry falls out.

When I built the house I was unsure which way the industry would move so I ran 6 RGU6 and 4 Cat 6 cables to every A/V panel in the wall.  Wiring is very cheap in a new/custom build relative to pulling wires if the standard moves against you. I thought the 2 cat6 cables would be able to run HDMI eventually through the use of plenums.  The industry seemed to be heading that way.  

The cat6 cables are all terminated at a Cat 6 patch panel and through the use of patch cables I connect them either to their dedicated device or the 2 1GB switches that run the house.  This house is not by any means standard due to the nature of the work I do so I have many options and am not hampered by most of the issues you folks would be dealing with retail clients.  I have very little internet or lan connectivity issues as I use both a land line (uVerse) circuit into the house and a Clear wireless connection,  multiplexed into the primary switchhes.

On the reverse engineering effort, I have everything on the switching side working.  This wasn't too bad as I was able to reuse everything previously done by using the same ports.  In its current config, I can select the uVerse  DVRs and control the volume through the MX900, then use my iPad to control the channels.  I am getting closer to resolunquiries. The installer didn't use any of the advanced capabilites such as the voltage sensing as it wasn't really required for the system.  The only thing left is to figure out if it would be easier to install the IR codes in the device pages left from the Mediacom configuration or adding 2 new device pages and going back and reprogramming all his macros in the MSC 400. 

I am getting closer to resolution, while I wait for the 3 companies I got off the URC locator to return my inquiries. The previous reply about how to clone the remotes is correct.  I requested they be made clones before the programming was accomplished for exactly the reason discussed.  I don't know about many of you but the ability of my wife to not have to keep track of which remote she is using based on room was definately worth the $$ I spent.  I had a very good relationship with vendor and we agreed to pay by the hour vs requiring him to eat the risk of a fixed proice job for the programming.  It worked very well, probably cost a little more but it did exactly what I wanted including the creation of clone remotes.

I will tackle that after I take my lovely wife and 4 grandchildren, (3 in the 3 year old range, and 1 almost a year) out to brunch.  

Relative to your Rasberry Pi comment, I thought of it, my son in law has one and thought it would be a pain in the butt to build in the 8+ IR ports and xx number of serial connections to replace the MSC 400.  A solution where I can let the hardware builders work the signalling out is worth the time, plus the MSC400 is doing a fine job of handling the switching to get proper devoce to route proer signals to the proper location and if I can buy time to see where industry is going that would be good. I would rather give this work to someone local to help keep my local installers in business and let me get on to what I do well, architecting large scale network based financial services platforms. Athough.... I am going to Europe for 2 weeks starting next week so I may pick one up and rethink the control issue for fun.  Sitting in a hotel for 2 weeks is incredibly boring and I may just see what I can do.

[Link: universalremote.com]

I find it interesting how you are a senior IT tech , yet you have so many Typo's and spelling errors in your post. or that you would let anyone tell you the charge is 10 k for something you know you could do for Much less! There are about 45 Home theater companies where I live, any one of them has a tech who knows how to program a old URC remote. any tech worth his weight can get what you need done. I know this is a OLD question, I hope you got it resolved by now but, I could have done it by now.

nickamex,

I can't exactly speak for conroyw, but typo's and spelling are probably the worst way to judge a senior IT. Why? Because we let the computers deal with that. All we have to do be be consistent. Aside from API calls or language lexicons, everything else is simply variable names or function names that we ourselves most likely wrote or designed, and as such, if I always spell something as "kat", it doesn't matter to the computer one way or another if in the english language it is actually spelled "cat", because to the computer it is simply 0x1B001A anyway....

And as to your second point, he didn't simply let Geek Squad tell him that it would be $10k. He essentially laughed and walked out the door and posted his experience here and started the discussion that this situation is completely unacceptable from a customer standpoint of a a business model that allows this type of thing to happen in the first place. And then started debating what can or could be done to correct it, or else the business model will go the way of the dodo.

So, what's up with the "professional" saying you cannot have a multizone install without having a different file installed on each remote! This seems like a labor intensive way to do things to say the least!

I too use duplicate MX-900's programmed with the SAME file. It makes a lot more sense to do things that way as my wife may carry a remote off from one room to the next. When this happens all she needs to do is go back to the main screen (I called it Home) and select whatever room she is in.

A system is much more manageable this way (provided you do not have over 40 devices as this is the limit of the MX-900). It would be stupid to program 7 remotes differently unless there was a distinct need (e.g. fear that two people would push a button at the same time, etc...). I guess if the customer pays for labor and you do not understand the technology, why not right?

I interface a home automation system with the MSC-400 (the MSC-400 is too dumb of a device for me to let it control things on its own). This thread has a lot of explanation and a great overview of my system:
[Link: cocoontech.com]

The FREE program I use is called Motorola Premise Home Control. It's completely free and many times more powerful and stable than any software URC has ever put out! I know as I've used both extensively.

I too believe in the long-term URC will have a problem existing if they don't change. For $120 or less anyone can buy a network based Global Cache controller and interface it with RS232 or IR devices large number of free PC applications and/or android apps to control all kinds of stuff. Folks are dreaming that the MSC-400 and other URC controllers aren't going to cost more than they are worth, resulting in the demise of URC. The GC-100 controller actually had two-way RS232 10 years ago!

URC can't even manage to release an SDK so integrators can write fully customizeable two-way RS232 or IP based interfaces either. This is stuff American companies were doing 10+ years ago! There really needs to be a simple way to do this in their URC Accelerator software.

So, what does URC do about this limitation? Instead of giving sytems integrators a great RF remote that has low power consumption and full two-way communications with something I can integrate with other main stream systems, they try to branch into areas like whole home automation when that market is already saturated with companies who do it a lot better than they do (and for much less money too)!

Seems kind of funny that a company who can't correctly fix a repeat command bug on the MSC-400 after almost 10 years (don't you love doing a work around each time due to URC's shoddy design work?), or even publish a Vista or Windows 7 driver for the MSC-400 which they still sale will ever survive. Based on my past experience with URC, I have to wonder if they could ever produce a reliable and well designed whole home automation line.

Don't get me wrong, URC makes great Korean made (not Chinese) remotes that feel great in the hand and are nice (but over priced). However, since they keep releasing touch screens, lighting, and multi-zone music systesm I have to wonder if they even realize what they are good at? Why not truly perfect what you are good at and try to lower costs in that arena to gain more market share?

Don't get me wrong, I hope fewer URC dealers throw in the towel this year than in previous years. I like having more competition in the market place. The last thing anyone wants is another controls company to go under as this would severely limit choice at this point.

Lol haha you guys are really that narrow minded? 99%+ of people that are interested in these solutions dont want to do it themselves and wouldnt be able to if they wanted to. If you can't afford a pro , buy harmony or buy windows 8 tablets and program your own systems from scratch ... Why sit around and cry By the way total control has a sdk so please check your facts before making claims ... uneducated insults at a company makes you look stupid... extra vegetables has a sonos app coming out and I am working on a xbmc module now.

You think you're a pro since you can program a remote?!?  I'm really being serious, not trying to be rude.  How valuable of a skill is that when I can figure out how to do the same thing as you in only a few hours or less?

I'd really like to know how a URC dealer can integrate a total control solution, while retaining full duplex asynchronous communication with other systems (unless URC builds the driver for you).

Is there an SDK that's really been released to all dealers?  Last I checked, there were only a few select beta testers that had the SDK. I'll admit I only read main sites and not URC's news letters since I'm not a dealer (and have no desire to be).  One can bet that if it has been officially released (which I don't think it has) it will have bugs at first anyways.

I do not know your qualifications, but I do know that a lot of folks doing work in your field aren't even licensed to do low voltage work, yet call their selves professionals. There are indeed a lot of fly by night "integrators" around, just read some of the horror stories on here.

Loud mouth "professionals" like yourself spouting insults about folks income and calling folks stupid (without any background information whatsoever) don't help either.  Didn't anyone ever tell you bad advertising is NOT good advertising?!?  

Besides, what kind of person goes around insulting folks online with their business information attached to their profile?  Yes, I'm sure you are very wise though.

PS: While it's really none of your business, those who have home automation as a hobby, have a high level of income and a very high technical competence. You'd have to make good money; even automating a home at dealer cost (yes, it's easy for us to get any product at dealer cost) is somewhat expensive.

I can easily afford to pay someone to program my remote if I wanted to. In a nut shell, it's just easier and more fun for me to do it myself. It's not a monetary issue at all.

It's easier because: who wants to hire someone to reprogram their remote everytime they buy a new peice of equipment?  Especially when there are plenty of dealers willing to share full versions of CCP?  Seems like your customers are misinformed if anything.  I kind of feel sorry for them dealing with a person such as yourself.

Folks with advanced degrees (masters level and above) in engineering and/or computer science really do know their stuff.  They are the same types of folks who actually design hardware and software used in real control systems.  Imagine that, systems designers might know more than you...

Besides, system's integration has always included automation, not just controls.  If you can't tackle the most demanding custom jobs, you aren't much of an integrator if you ask me.

PS: A windows 8 tablet is NOT the same as an MX-900 remote.  Some folks desire hard buttons as they can easily feel their finger's location without looking away from a movie.  Also, in a home theater with a projector, a bright screen annoys some folks.  

Seems like a "professional" should already know this, but I guess I'll have to state the obvious.  I have all kinds of tablets with my system, but I always prefer an actual remote for extended viewing.

^ you haven't been banned yet? Go back to avsforum.

Banned for what?!? Maybe you should read Presinium's post and the rude language used toward other users.  I suspect if I'm banned, so will he.

So what,  a user can't post a review of a product in a forum that specifically says it's for user reviews of products?!?  No wonder why Control4 grows in market share every year, even during a recession.

The users on remotecentral provide as much good advice as the pros.   RemoteCentral can ban me if they want, but I don't think I did anything wrong except honestly review how I felt about some of URC's products.  I own 2 MSC-400's, 2 MX-900's and an MXW-920.  Of course, I bought them from ebay on the used market far below dealer cost, but does that make me a bad person worth calling stupid, narrow minded or poor?

The only semi-useful thing Presinium said was that an SDK is available.  If so, how would my dealer obtain it and is it something that can truely offer two-way RS232 or not?  Last I heard it was in beta and the dealer I asked did not know how to obtain it.  Of course, Presinium says I'm stupid for not knowing information that's not on URC's public website at all and after talking to two dealers.

The only examples of two-way I've heard are via drivers URC has to write, publish and make available.  It seems this is the way URC has done business for many years.  I understand this may be changing, but how robust of a solution is it?

I had planned to spec out an RS232 two-way protocol and pay a local dealer hourly, but the dealers around me are not computer programmers and are clueless about this SDK.  If someone could provide more info I'm sure the place local to me will be willing to work with me.

I want an RF remote with full two-way communications.  I want it to do things similar to the following:

1. Allow paging a remote so it can be found.  This would invoke a short repetitive beep until the remote was found.  The action (page) would be triggerd by my HA system.

2. Turn the background red when my alarm system is disarmed or there's a weather alert.  

3. Display text of what's playing in Windows Media Center

4. Be able to send messages with custom text, including caller id information, etc...

I can easily implement these things on the HA side using a tcp socket (IP based) or RS232, but can URC Total Control really interface well or not?

I think I must have struck a nerve as several are quick to call me names instead of provide any real technical information.  Seems to me when this happens, I have valid technical points that folks can't easily refute.  

Especially when it comes to the two "professionals" in this thread saying you can't use the same program on multiple MX-900's.  Pretty funny if you ask me.