I'll forward your request on to URC. ;-)

The visibility of the color screens are so much better than the B/W ones...

No response received here!
Apparently, not all customers are created equal in Mr. Davis's eyes.

How amusing. :-)

Seems he did read my (?) messages about opening the source. Predictable response; no indication he understands the advantages. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

-=-

In other news, I wonder how much value my MX-1000 will have when (i.e., if) Mr. Davis finally releases software to support it? A few issues off the top of my head:

1. Deja vu. We've already waited for "new" software several times with great disappointment. Did Mr. Davis mention that this time would be any different? How would he know since HTM software standards are so below industry standard?

2. Let's be optimistic --- assume the new software will actually be serviceable. What good is it three years late (with questionable and unproven support)?

3. Will it be reliable? If not, open source would be much better.

4. Will it be featureful and flexible? If not, open source would be much better.

5. One of the most compelling reasons to buy my MX-1000 was to program once and copy to several remotes. Given the disappointment of the MX-1000 software, I never bought more MX-1000's. Would I ever buy another MX-1000 from a company with a record like that of HTM? (Not likely.)

And... the top reason for dismissing Mr. Davis's latest promise...

6. I don't even run a PC anymore! With luck it'll run under VPC 5.0 on a powerbook. Wow, three years late on deliverable sure can make a difference (I stopped using my PC almost a year ago). What a joke.

-=-

Maybe my missive is "in the email".

Thanks for posting about the note for those of us excluded from the missive.

= Joe =

To MikeSRC
Seriously, how about adding "bumps" to the touchscreen cover glass, like those used on keyboards and remotes to find the "home" keys? You know, for example, one finger-width left of the center "bump" could be MUTE? Then you could find the "buttons" in the dark!

I don't recall ever getting word straight from the URC execs before, so I think John Davis' e-mail is a very promising sign.


Better late than never, I think.


Yeah, but at least they're promising to do *something*. I was all but convinced that URC was going to ignore us completely on this. Actually getting a response from them is a huge breakthrough, in my opinion.


If they end up actually making a decent effort to restore the faith of their MX-1000 customers, I'd consider buying from them again. I hope they don't make us wait another 8-12 months (or more!), though. I don't think that would make anyone very happy.


Well, you can't exactly blame URC for your decision to change platforms...

This message was edited by John Corkery on 05/16/02 09:59.38.

That's an interesting idea, but it would severely restrict the user's button placement options. Then again, maybe a lot of people would be willing to make that trade-off.

Hmmm... I wonder how well it would work if they included a bunch of little, transparent, stick-on rubber bumps with the remote?

If I may add some comments to the idea

1) I think there is one problem with the idea, either the screen will be too sensitive and that will cause you to send commands you did not intend to send, or that the screen will need a push and not just a touch, and then you risk braking the glass plate

2) I remember a long time ago someone said he will try something like that (get a thicker plastic cover for his Pronto and then make some dimples in it for the buttons (it was in a thread on screen protectors), but I don't remember if he ever came back with the result

3) I don't use anything on the screen to find the position, but I already use a similar concept (I use the screen size and hard button placement) on my Pronto to determine the soft button placement. so if they do design a new remote, I would think a good idea might be more to add "markers" around the screen to use as reference points. (or maybe a grid floating over the screen (but the lines would need to be very thin)





This message was edited by Anthony on 05/16/02 13:46.56.

For the reasons expressed by John and Anthony, I don't think it would work very well. What I've done with my Pronto (when I actually use it) is make screens that have nothing but large buttons (or simulated touchpad) for Tivo and DVD controls. That way I can usually hit the right location by "feel", because the target's so big.

The big plus with the MX-1000 is the joystick and other hard buttons. If someday the touchscreen portion of an MX-1000 style remote becomes equal to a Pronto in flexibility, it's bye-bye Pronto for me! :-)

|

John:

FTR, I thought your points were reasonable and plausible, but I don't appreciate the rhetoric of your last point. I did not "exactly blame URC" for any such thing. Nor do I regret choosing (and being able to choose) my platform(s) myself as your innuendo implies I do.

But, despite your rhetoric, I think you do highlight an important point that I hope URC takes into account. Some people are very sensitive, even religious about their platform(s), usually Windows these days. I can tell from your (specious) logic that you prefer Windows.

Not everyone does.

I use a variety of platforms: Unix (incl. linux), Mac OS X (unix+), and Java. Those are all strong platforms.

Windows isn't in my extensive experience a very reliable platform. Some may enjoy it, but I find that the software quality standards are innately lower on Windows than elsewhere for reliability. Features seem to take precedence over 1. reliability and 2. orthogonal interoperability of those features.

Which brings me to an epiphany from your rhetoric. The misfeatures of Windows suit HTM's previous software attempts perfectly. Windows quality standards set a low enough standard that their software quality passed muster according to some. Advantage: windows.

If HTM wants to build quality software, I don't think their software would pass muster as easily on other platforms. They would probably build better software using different tools and software standards (not that they even recognize their own software standards). But I guess that brings this discussion back full circle.

The open market for development tools in open source would probably find a suitable platform to deliver applications to whomever wants to buy the remote.

-=-

John, if you were HTM trying to sell remotes to those who make decisions for themselves (rather than just lemming themselves along with the crowd), would *you* decide on a single platform solution? If so, why?

Interesting topic!

= Joe =

I see this has suddenly and inexplicably turned into an argument about computer platforms. I don't know how you were able to extract all that "speciousness" from a single, short sentence that I wrote! I don't possess any kind of allegiance to a particular OS--or ANY product, for that matter. The only point I was trying to make is that MX Designer has always been a Windows only program. The idea of having a multi-platform or open source MX Designer has always been wishful thinking. On the other hand, most MX-1000 owners *fully expected* URC to provide bug fixes and minor feature enhancements/additions to the software. This is where they didn't deliver, and that's why most of us have been frustrated.

I think most people view John Davis' response as a positive sign. To now complain that the software isn't going to work on your Powerbook (which is a fine computer, by the way) just seems extremely out of place. At least it does to me, anyway.

John:

Thank you for clarifying your message.

To clarify mine, I did not say the software would not work on my PowerBook. Rather, I mentioned how three years late on deliverables can be tantamount to not delivering at all, e.g., I do not even use the system with which I originally purchased Mr. Davis's product. The issue is late delivery, not high expectations for HTM (which I don't share either). As you suggest, noone has suggested HTM would deliver a multiplatform solution.

BTW, I mentioned VPC specifically to drive home the point that the software might very well work on my PowerBook. I actually (somewhat humorously) wonder whether it may actually work *better* on my PowerBook than on my (Micron) PC. (I just bought VPC5 but have yet to install it.) The world works in funny and mysterious ways. :-)

I do agree it's possibly (but not necessarily) a good sign that something has again been promised to be delivered at all. The software would have to be genuinely good, delivered in a timely fashion (i.e., relative to now :-), and supported well. Otherwise, HTM is just playing a delaying game again. I just believe the existing pattern is obvious, unlikely to be broken, and any new HTM published software is doubtful to make up the difference (e.g., being multiplatform) for being three years late.

Be nice to proved wrong on that one though.

I hope that clarifies the issue from my end.

= Joe =


This message was edited by occam on 05/16/02 22:58.21.