These packaged solutions sound great. I have tremendous respect for the work that the programmers have done creating them.
However, I would encourage any up and coming programmers that may be drooling over this that I believe that it should be your goal to create your own systems from your own code. Given the money you will pay for this stuff, you have a financial incentive to do so. Further, no matter how many features these systems have, you will run into a situation where you need to make a system do something with some piece of equipment that the packaged solution can't do. This is a particularly bad scenerio when you have already installed a system with an expensive pre-programmed software package then have to tell your customer you can't make their system do something that they want it to do because the software doesn't support it.
[Edited to try to say what I mean instead of what I said!]
I respect dedicated programmers. It's difficult, and it's unrealistic for most humans to ever become proficient programmers. Of those who choose that path, few spend the years it takes to develop the advanced functions offered in the best custom programming and in our solutions. Top programmers get great money for what they can accomplish. And there's the problem for new or small integrators who have the skills to design and execute the hardware but not the software. This is typical of companies that want to rise to AMX from the universal remote or other more limited brands of control hardware.
Taking a couple years and honing a programming practice is out of the question for many, and frankly most people just don't have the aptitude to be a programmer. But selling, installing, THAT they can do. So before packaged solutions, their only choice was to contract the programming out. And they spent MUCH MORE on that avenue and got limited future flexibility, tied to the original programmer and in fear of losing them.
Doing your own programming is posed by some as "getting it free". Well, only if your time isn't valuable. The cost is whatever you aren't doing because you are programming. And if you have a programmer on staff, they aren't fee either unless they work for nothing. Solutions like ours let you CHOOSE what you want to do custom, and what you want to do production.
I'd say your encouragement to do it yourself to save money is akin to saying it should be every homeowner's goal to do their own plumbing and roofing because it's expensive to have it done for you. Or maybe more on point, that every auto dealership should aspire to design and build their own cars because the big automakers charge so much and you can't get exactly what you want. Some can do that. Most don't intend to.
I'm just saying that this is a different business model, profitable and sustainable, not just a stopgap.
THAT IS NOT SAYING THAT CUSTOM PROGRAMMING IS A BAD MODEL. Just that it's not the only one to consider.
Adding your own new equipment is straightforward in CineTouch (and appears to be easy in GSLogic).
For one-way devices, it should take from minutes to a couple hours at most, and we show dealers how to do it, and do it with them. At this time, about half of our new device support comes from our dealers. If you can read a protocol document and type the commands into EXCEL, you can make a CineTouch driver. No code, no compiling.
Two way devices do take our central involvement for now. We're developing a way to let dealers define basic 2-way drivers entirely in external data files. That's probably 6 months away from release.
GSL Home was designed to have two communication outside the system modules, so dealers/programmers can write standard Netlinx include files using our template (with 2-way) , to control audio and video devices. Goes without saying... but I will, If it's an IR devices just upload the IR file to the master.
I'm gonna have to jump in on this one even though this was not directed at me, but was a generalization. There are several things that rub me the wrong way with what you said two posts ago. These are my observations, and do not speak for the majority that CineTouch appears to have made their target of destruction.
1)"I respect dedicated programmers, but it's unrealistic for most humans to ever become proficient enough in programming AMX to do the advanced functions offered in our solutions. A few can - the top programmers get great money for what they can accomplish." - While I'll agree that the top programmers get great money, I have to disagree with you that the implication that no-one but a few and your programmer can do it. We're talking about NetLinx - not Unlambda. Most new programmer do exactly what AMX has been doing for a long time - a weather module. Anyone can program anything to do what they want - it's all about efficiency, and that's what is improved on over the years. My first weather module was a few thousand lines long, with variables for each type of information I wanted to hold (Day 1 High, Day 1 Low, Day 2 High, Day 2 Low, etc.) Programming skills do play a heavy role in the jobs we deliver, but it's not the thing the client sees. The client could almost care less if you used a string array or a structure for some data, just as long as it works.
2) "Taking a couple years and honing a programming practice is out of the question for many, and frankly most just don't have that aptitude." - I'd like to know CineTouch's guess as to how many, percentage wise, do have the aptitude? I don't think the "aptitude" is the question as I know several who *could* program a system such as CineTouch or GSLogic, but don't because they have their own simple portable code that they can go from job-to-job.
3)"I'm just saying that this is a different business model, profitable and sustainable, not just a stopgap. This whole thing rubs me the wrong way. It seems that you are implying that any one of our "business models" are unprofitable and unsustainable. I would be willing to bet that most (if not all) of AMX's Top 10, or even Top 25 do not use a prepackaged solution by someone else, and would venture to guess they have their own programmer on staff. Selling AMX gear isn't like selling Niles speakers, or Integra components - it requires a solid reputation - and you only get that from offering a solid system, which includes a solid program. I'm curious as to how you feel about them - do they not have a profitable or sustainable business model?
To be completely frank, I can understand that you are passionate about your product. However, there is a line between "we have a great thing here" and "even if you tried, you can't do what we do." I thought that type of attitude is exactly what we were trying to avoid when we started this post. The tone is no longer sounding like "we have a great product" and is now sounding like we (as programmers) do not have the "aptitude" to code a solution like yours, because it is "unrealistic for most humans to ever become proficient enough" in programming AMX. It seems to continue on the FAQ answer regarding "Why do I need CineTouch if I'm already a programmer?": referring to quote from CineTouch’s FAQ: “CineTouch lets you sell better, bigger, more profitable AMX systems more quickly and reliably than you or your programmer can do alone.” I accept the "no apologies" for not making it programmer friendly, and that is fine with me - but the attitude of approach is in my humble opinion, slightly degrading. I hope I am misreading what you are saying and is instead a figment of my imagination.
You've taken me entirely wrong. I'm saying that package solutions are a viable business model IN ADDITION to traditional custom programming, nothing in my post says it DISPLACES it. Johnny's message theme was that packaged solutions are something you might use until you can do better. I'm saying it's not a stopgap. That says NOTHING against other solutions. Because I say ours is for real (after a message implying it's a lesser, temporary solution), why, why, why do you add - in your mind - that I'm saying anything to tear down other models? Chill.
As for programmer aptitude, I stand by my thesis that it's NOT something that just anyone can or wants to learn. If you witness the washouts at Programmer 1 and 2 at AMX, you'd have to agree. Your personal bent is PROGRAMMING... as is most readers in these forums. You aren't typical. If you were, programming would not be Achilles heel of AMX that it is.
If you believe everyone can program, and everyone should, well, you don't talk to the dealers we do. We ask a few hundred times at every show, "what's the one thing keeping you from using AMX more in your business?" The answer, a few hundred times, is PROGRAMMING. They don't have the skills, or they don't have the staff, or they don't have the time. And they're interested in what our solution can do for them as a long term business model. So that's what I am describing here.
To repeat. Good programmers ROCK. There aren't enough of them. We're ANOTHER solution.
..it's unrealistic for most humans to ever become proficient enough in programming AMX to do the advanced functions offered in our solutions. A few can..
Oy vey!!
High opinion of yourself?? Low opinion of other programmers?? Probably a combination of both.
Just to bring you up to date.... Before your product, there had been many very successful installations done by programmers who write their own stuff with long, fruitful and respectable relationships with their clients.
Doing your own programming is posed by some as "getting it free". Well, only if your time isn't valuable. The cost is whatever you aren't doing because you are programming. And if you have a programmer on staff, they aren't fee either unless they work for nothing. Solutions like ours let you CHOOSE what you want to do custom, and what you want to do production.
Let's say I am a medium-volume dealer that does 20 system a year. Not sure the exact price of your product, but I'll say $2,000 per system license. So that would be $40K per year. For that $40K a year, spending the time to learn to how to program systems that satisfy your end users would be a valuable investment of time, not time lost or thinking that you're getting something for free.
My first post was encouraging up and coming programmers to hone their skills to a point to not rely on packaged solutions, other programmers or the like. In my example, taking 40K off the table and putting all my eggs in your basket is a terrible business model. No matter how wonderful your product is and how great your intentions are, you will stop supporting it someday. Then what? If I didn't learn to program, I would be paying somebody else to upkeep my systems or having to buy into the next go 'round of your package.
Do you have Bill Gates posters hanging in your bedroom?
I'm amazed at how eager you guys are to look for an insult. There wasn't one in my message, intended nor actual.
Programmers are a minority of the employees in the integration business. How many programmers per company compared with other staff? Few. Why? It's a special skill. I'm saying it is special, and you guys want to say it's not. Yikes.
If it were an ordinary skill, why are good programmers always in demand? It's easier to find accountants, installers, receptionists, salesmen, janitors, warehouse clerks, fry chefs, lots of things.
I'm not a programmer. I did some years ago and determined it wasn't my calling.
CineTouch is over 60,000 lines of code that creates and runs an embedded relational database and empowers functionality beyond the ordinary. You seem to say "that's nothing, anyone could do that". I don't think so. I respect the programming that went into it just as I respect the programming that each of you do every day, and nothing, NOTHING I said should be twisted up into a make believe insult or denigration of conventional custom programming. I don't want to write even a SIMPLE program, and 99%+ of all people don't want to either. When I say programmers are a rare commodity in the world, why do you deny it and take offense? Most humans can't do what you do. Do really think that's an insult?
When I say something is good, why do think you hear me say something else is bad?
You seem quick to explain why dealers who don't want to program are "wrong" and imply that we're ripping them off to sell them something some seem very happy to buy. It's just a different business model. One validated by YEARS of custom programming-for-hire by independent programmers and contract programming houses. Your argument should be the same against them.
Dealers frequently tell us how they put their eggs in the basket of a trusted employee programmer, who left/died/got bored/hired away/whatever (no matter how great their intentions were), only to find themselves in the exact situation you describe - having to start a job over. So obviously having a staff programmer (paying somebody else to upkeep the systems) is, by your definition, a terrible business model. By this logic, ONLY a sole proprietor who does everything himself can meet your standard of the "right" business model.
I contend there is no need for argument. Each model has its upside and downside, and dealers have more choices than they used to.
and runs an embedded relational database and empowers functionality beyond the ordinary. You seem to say "that's nothing, anyone could do that". I don't think so.
Heck, I don't even know what that means!
John Nagy wrote:
ONLY a sole proprietor who does everything himself can meet your standard of the "right" business model.
That's basically my model & it sucks. Forget about raising kids or having a fun & exciting lifestyle. Work, work, work.
FYI, I neither support or reject ideas or statements in this thread. I do however take offense to people that write better programs than my own. It really pisses me off & forces me to try harder resulting in less time w/ the children & more time behind the PC. Damn you people!
Dealers frequently tell us how they put their eggs in the basket of a trusted employee programmer, who left/died/got bored/hired away/whatever (no matter how great their intentions were), only to find themselves in the exact situation you describe - having to start a job over.
How does Cinetouch address this problem? If Cinetouch or its main programmers aren't around in 2 years, what happens to all the customers installations?
Paul
I'm amazed at how eager you guys are to look for an insult. There wasn't one in my message, intended nor actual.
Perhaps you fail to understand your audience. I would wager that a good hunk of the people on this forum are on a par or perhaps even better than your programmer(s)
I've been dealing with this very issue now for about a year with several people I work iwth including my current employer. He has listened to the siren song of 'outsourcing' programming. He too has been stymeed by my skepticism and cynicism by the whole thing. We've tried a couple solutions here.
The Savant system we just put in our showroom took almost 4 weeks to get running. My boss was just flumoxed by the whole thing. I know why it took so long and why they/we had trouble because I already design systems just like it but on a much larger scale. I don't fault them for anything. It's a crazy world out here in stuff-land. And when your technical/programmer people are not standing right next to the offending gear, it slows things down quite a bit.
I had a small AMX control system running the same gear before and it took me two days to get it running and tweaked. My favorite moment was when we did have everything all up and running, our boss wanted us to now make it so the Savant interface worked more like the AMX one we and he designed. He hated the navigation scheme of the whole thing. When I explained that that wasn't going to be possible, he was even more frustrated.
The Jedi mind tricks don't work as well here because a good hunk of us already do the very thing your do. Ours are just set up for our shop alone and thus, to the outside world, it doesn't seem to be happening. I can assure you the exact same programming concepts are being done. It's just there is no intervening interface to create them. To us, that's a good thing. To those outside the design departments, it's a magic black box that just works somehow. Your interface gives them some contol over the black box. For a person like my boss, he probably would like it better since he doesn't have to argue with his designers/programmers/engineers about what he wants. It's far fewer opinions to deal with. In many cases, that's probably a good thing. Our company is a little larger than most. So, it's probably not a good thing.
Perhaps the forum isn't giving you a fair chance. But, I predicted this kind of reaction before the thread even started. Perhaps that says volumes about both the forum and the products being discussed.
My experience with this whole scenario over the year has been:
The whole having a high-end programmers/designers is just a pain in the butt, Let's try one of these system-in-a-box things.
Wow, the sales pitch was cool and it works great,
Wow, this was much harder than I thought.
wow, this doesn't work nearly as well as the things we've already designed and the clients are complaining that we cheaped out on them.
They've seen the other systesms and wonder what happened.
Oh crap, let's go back to what we were doing before.
>If Cinetouch or its main programmers aren't around in 2 years, what happens to all the customers installations?
CineTouch intends to solve this problem by not going away. We've been at it for 8 years as part of a company that's lasted 37 years so far, and we've had programmers come and go as we progressed. Like any good software company, we have well documented code, process, archive, business plan, roadmap, financial backing, committment, etc. I firmly believe CineTouch is in better long term standing than, say, General Motors or Chrysler.
But of course, as those corporations found, reality can change, as dealers who's programmers leave discover every day. Or those who buy custom work from contractors who go under, over to some other platforn, or in some other way, away.
The MAJOR UPSIDE with CineTouch is that a dealer can continue to make changes and update systems BY HIMSELF due to our open architecture... for years to come. In the worst of all cases, there's nothing proprietary about the system design; you are NEVER worse off after CineTouch than you are after ANY programming you can't salvage. Ask yourself how many jobs you have inherited (that you didn't program) that you actually build on code that some stranger did before you... probably NONE. You start over. Same here in the WORST CASE.
We've entertained acquisition discussions with corporates before, and it's possible that we will again, but in any case, it's far more likely that CIneTouch will survive and advance in SOMEONE'S hands than it is likely to just end. We have also discussed that if for some reason there is no successor in interest and we stop selling it, that we would at least release license-free code to existing dealers, and probably the source code too.
From what we have seen in the last year in growth and interest (and recognition, awards...), we'll be here quite a while.
Eric,
You are correct that this forum is a naturally hostile territory for packaged solutions, a fact obvious from before the start. I arrived to shed some facts in a sea of damaging presumption.
In this crowd, if our product is poor, it will be picked apart. If it's good, it will be dismissed as unnecessary. If it's great, it will called a fraud. If we're proud of it, we're arrogant. It's not -just- because of the audience being programmers who can't think of a product like ours as anything but a slap in their face, it's also always been the nature of online forums to provide a place for people to jump up and say things in print that they would NEVER say in person. And to project the worst construction into what someone else writes, no matter what they actually meant.
According to the message read counter, it looks like this thread has had 800 visitors since it started just a week ago. I can't vouch for how that is calculated, it appears to be unique counts... but whatever the count, there's a hundred or more reading quietly for each one commenting. So I'm going to address the direct questions and let the readers draw what they will from the whole discussion.... and avoid further defense or participation leading ultimately to flames.
The MAJOR UPSIDE with CineTouch is that a dealer can continue to make changes and update systems BY HIMSELF due to our open architecture... for years to come.
If the new Kaleidescape players come out next year and have a different command scheme, how would a dealer update legacy Cinetouch projects if Cinetouch isn't around?
Paul
My previous reply answered these questions as completely as is possible, including consequences and how it compares to the situation with anyone's code.
The CineTouch Kaleidescape code was developed with direct on-site cooperation with KSCAPE developers. It's using documented processes based on their AMX module, with modifications for more flexibility with our architecture and to enable 100% data=driven runtime reconfiguration (no compile-time configuration). Were the CineTouch source code to be released because we ceased operations, most anyone who could modify the AMX module could work with our implementation as well.
In this crowd, if our product is poor, it will be picked apart. If it's good, it will be dismissed as unnecessary. If it's great, it will called a fraud. If we're proud of it, we're arrogant. It's not -just- because of the audience being programmers who can't think of a product like ours as anything but a slap in their face, it's also always been the nature of online forums to provide a place for people to jump up and say things in print that they would NEVER say in person. And to project the worst construction into what someone else writes, no matter what they actually meant.
John Nagy
CineTouch.com
John,
It appears that the bias is on both sides. Any long-time denizen of this forum knows what you say is not true. We are a crabby bunch for sure but we're also very quick to praise when due. You mistake pragmatism for cynicism. Nothing I've seen on this post or the post that spawned it seems that off base. For the most part, they set 'em up and you knocked 'em down.
However, this post tells me much about your general philosophy. That being that any legitimate questioning of your product or design philosophy is perceived as a personal attack at some level. that kind of business model cannot stand the test of time. I have always followed the business rule (both in my 20+ years in the music industry and my 15+ in A/V Engineering) at "90% of the people out there don't care if you make it and the other 10% are actually hoping you don't."
Our company has also won many awards for our projects. (CEDIA, etc...) I can assure you that we are our own worst critics and that every idea is challenged vehemently before seeing the light of day. It's an extremely competitive environment with very high expectations.
I personally don't wish for you to fail because, quite frankly, if someone could do the stuff we do for way less, I'd be your most loving proponent. Creating projects at the level we do is damned hard work. I'm a programmer but I'm also helping to manage and design at our company. I wear many hats. It wouldn't bother me if I could provide our clients with the same level of product with me having to work much fewer hours getting it done.
If the product is good, then it should be able to withstand the criticism. I can also assure you that most here will get behind your product if it is indeed good. Nobody I've spoken to seems to be wanting more junk to play with.
And to your comments about the forum. I have a personal rule that I never type something I wouldn't say to someone's face. many here have spoken to me on the phone and in person. I'll leave the accuracy of my statement up to them. And though, there have been a couple dust ups by some people on this forum that I can remember, they've not gotten totally out of hand or overly personal. This forum is nothing like some of the other places I've been. We do a pretty good job of policing ourselves and even if we don't, the mighty hand of AMX can delete or knock us off.
We're a generally lovable bunch of programmers. We protect our tribe for sure. But, we're not capricious in helping each other out. I believe GSLogic would attest to this. The forum is what you make of it. We offer our advice and criticisms for free and we guaranty it's worth what you pay for it. I have found it to be a great place for me to hone my skills and have my thought processes challenged by people of equal sill and mindset. Not to mention, I've learned so much from this wealth of information. Others of your ilk are here and are/have been a value to the community.
I do hope you'll take the opportunity you have at hand. As a business owner, I'm sure you understand the value of free information and honest opinion. Trust me, it's here. I've been all over and haven't found a better place and I thank AMX daily for providing it for us.
I have abosolutely nothing against the product. The market will judge it.
Given that this is mostly a programmers' forum, my advice to newbies is not to drink the Kool-Aid of this kind of stuff. Pre-programmed solutions are no substitute for your own work. Design Express, Visual Architect, AMX Home, etc. have proven to be only somewhat useful out here in the real world.
By the way, how much money would a typical license to your product cost?
Eric,
You're right, my negativism in that post is largely due to the abuse I'm getting and trying to ignore in private messages from a tiny minority of the clearly hundreds of readers here. Your comments are well taken.
Turnip,
Pricing is completely described in messages back about 2 pages.
John
Although previously mentioned here, testing is now complete and release time is here for the R4 on CineTouch. And I want to thank AMX for the RADICAL improvement offered in the November 2009 ZIGBEE PRO firmware for the R4 handheld remote. It's not just reliable, it's FAST and reliable, and handles many many more commands without the gateway shutting down for overload. Even if that happens, it is back online in about 15 seconds, compared to 45 seconds before. And it "wakes" from "sleep" virtually instantly and no longer buffers up commands from the wand until they can get through to the NetLinx - which used to result in late volume ramps and such before. The new PRO firmware has made full G4 panel-like support possible for CineTouch on the R4.
For background, a standard G4 panel gets just over 900 commands upon coming online with CineTouch, as the personalization and system-specific rendering is done live on every panel. The R4 used to go offline when it got 75-100 commands at once... and then stayed gone a while. Now, the buffer threshold is 300 commands, the distribution to the R4's is much faster resulting in less backup (they are getting out nearly as fast as they are coming to the gateway), and recovery is quick in any case. We revised our online handling and reduced the User-Chosen custom panel option button locations from over 140 per panel in a normal G4 to just 26 buttons for the R4... so the biggest burst we give it is about 200 commands... and it is now a full citizen for use with CineTouch, ready for release to anyone, not just the dealers who have been testing so far.
In fact, the R4 can now do everything our G4 panels can do except dynamic images (it's not supported in the R4 hardware). It does 100% of the user personalization, and even does all 20 of our built-in appearance themes. Response time is satisfactory even on our most complex dynamic pages.
This is a game-changer for the low end where other brands have been a cost choice for many dealers. With one or several R4's (especially at their new price reductions), it's possible to be competitive with the cheap systems, and still have a future for growth and add-ons with AMX. Whether you consider CIneTouch or not, if you previously avoided the R4 (as we've been told by many dealers), it's time to try it again.
CineTouch has also revised our pricing effective December 1 to reduce small system software cost by as much as $1,000 as we try to help AMX dealers compete in small as well as large systems. A well equipped theater can cost the dealer under $1400 complete for CineTouch software, using an R4 as the full control UI. And rooms and features can be added anytime without reprogramming... so it's a path to future growth and revenue instead of a dead end like some of the cheap alternative hardware solutions.
Details on request. Thanks for reading.
John Nagy
CineTouch http://cinetouch.com
JUST ADD POWER is an affordable and practical solution to distribute high-def HDMI video and audio over an ordinary home IP network, mixed in with the normal traffic. Each source (or an output from your multiroom switch) goes in a $300 MSRP "transmitter" and each display uses a $250 MSRP "receiver". Switching is done by commands to a "managed network switch" (DELL has a 24 port unit suitable for this at $300).
Our testing shows great video without noticeable display delay that would make a mixed-audio (where your sound comes from a separate multiroom analog system) unwatchable. So you can mix this in no matter what your audio solution is, where you can't get component or HDMI cables to the TV - even if it's in another building. You can use it point-to-point on a regular network without the managed switch if you have only one run you can't hard wire. Any number of receivers can display the output of any transmitter. The receivers have automatic scalars to make the image right on any display resolution mix.
CineTouch now issues the network commands seamlessly, with no difference in how you set it up in your configuration than if it were an Autopatch or Extron or anything else. Since CineTouch manages up to eight AV switches at once if needed (operating automatically in layers if required for complex routing), you can add JUST ADD POWER to any existing CineTouch system in minutes. If you need to move COMPONENT instead of HDMI, adapters are availible from many sources starting at $100 per end.
We'll be writing up an illustrated test result and sharing on the web and perhaps in print very soon, contact us by email if you want a copy. But it works right now. Note that JUST ADD POWER's web site suggests waiting for an AMX module for integration. No need with CineTouch now, THANKS PAUL!
We didn't test that DELL (yet) but it meets the requirements JUST ADD POWER suggests. We used a CISCO CATALYST model that was about $800, and the exact model and more about our test results will be available in detail soon. Each stream uses less than 50mbt, and each VLAN carries only one stream, so the number of streams isn't limited in the network except perhaps by the total capacity of vlans of the managed switch itself. The customer system mentioned that Paul is installing uses 6 transmitters for 6 sources and I believe 5 receivers for 5 TV's.
Surely then you are not supporting the Just-Add-Power device, but your supporting the Cisco control protocol for switching ports between VLANs.
The Just-Add-Power system is great and has been discussed elsewhere on the forums.
Suggesting you run this on a $300 Dell switch is a bit daft as you haven't tested this, and presumably you haven't coded for the Dell either as you were using the Cisco.
Most programmers on here rarely wait for a module to arrive, normally we just get on with coding what we need to do the job... just as your dealer has...
Tech support at JUST ADD POWER said their customers were using Dells to good result, that's why I passed that info on. We'll be getting one to test further.
With CineTouch, you don't "code" to add support, you can just select (or create/edit) an EXCEL-type spreadsheet with the commands required for the hardware of choice, which is read and used by the unchanged CineTouch code in the NetLinx at runtime. As the Dell specs recite that it uses an "Industry-standard CLI accessible via Telnet or local serial port", we suspect the protocol will be similar to that which already is working, and we know we can adjust it if required. We'll soon see. ANY switch with a control protocol SHOULD work, and with CineTouch, just drop the command file in to change the hardware configuration anytime.
Before someone jumps on us about this being a discussion out of line with the topic - I'm really trying to keep this to being a report of the continuing progress of CineTouch, which IS a specifically stated point of this topic.
If you were, programming would not be Achilles heel of AMX that it is.
John Nagy
CineTouch.com
Why do you think this? From the jobs that I've been on the biggest problem I've seen is salespeople that don't understand what a system is capable of doing and don't know the meaning of the word "no". They promise everything and say yes to whatever the customer asks without even asking the engineer or programmer if it's even possible.
It still amazes me that there are dealers out there that claim not to know how to find an AMX programmer? HELLO? Have they not looked at the AMX website? The very company whose equipment they are selling? There is a list of companies all over the country that program AMX - they are called the VIPs.
I can see the use for a product like the ones both companies here are offering. But to claim that programming is the bane of AMX's existence is way off base.
We've been showing CIneTouch at CEDIA and EHX for 4 years and we talk to hundreds of AMX dealers each time. We ask them each "What is keeping you from installing more AMX than you do now?"
The overwhelming answer - more than 80% - is "programming". Difficulties in programming, difficulties with programmers, with costs of programming, costs of reprogramming.
Based on this continuing feedback, we've built a programming-free solution in CineTouch.
We're now starting to work with many of the AMX sales reps so that they understand our solution and can make dealers aware of us as an option.
The overwhelming answer - more than 80% - is "programming". Difficulties in programming, difficulties with programmers, with costs of programming, costs of reprogramming.
I would have to agree that programming is the achilles' heel of an AMX system but that's also the part that sets it apart from the rest and can make an AMX system better than anything else available.
Comments
However, I would encourage any up and coming programmers that may be drooling over this that I believe that it should be your goal to create your own systems from your own code. Given the money you will pay for this stuff, you have a financial incentive to do so. Further, no matter how many features these systems have, you will run into a situation where you need to make a system do something with some piece of equipment that the packaged solution can't do. This is a particularly bad scenerio when you have already installed a system with an expensive pre-programmed software package then have to tell your customer you can't make their system do something that they want it to do because the software doesn't support it.
[Edited to try to say what I mean instead of what I said!]
I respect dedicated programmers. It's difficult, and it's unrealistic for most humans to ever become proficient programmers. Of those who choose that path, few spend the years it takes to develop the advanced functions offered in the best custom programming and in our solutions. Top programmers get great money for what they can accomplish. And there's the problem for new or small integrators who have the skills to design and execute the hardware but not the software. This is typical of companies that want to rise to AMX from the universal remote or other more limited brands of control hardware.
Taking a couple years and honing a programming practice is out of the question for many, and frankly most people just don't have the aptitude to be a programmer. But selling, installing, THAT they can do. So before packaged solutions, their only choice was to contract the programming out. And they spent MUCH MORE on that avenue and got limited future flexibility, tied to the original programmer and in fear of losing them.
Doing your own programming is posed by some as "getting it free". Well, only if your time isn't valuable. The cost is whatever you aren't doing because you are programming. And if you have a programmer on staff, they aren't fee either unless they work for nothing. Solutions like ours let you CHOOSE what you want to do custom, and what you want to do production.
I'd say your encouragement to do it yourself to save money is akin to saying it should be every homeowner's goal to do their own plumbing and roofing because it's expensive to have it done for you. Or maybe more on point, that every auto dealership should aspire to design and build their own cars because the big automakers charge so much and you can't get exactly what you want. Some can do that. Most don't intend to.
I'm just saying that this is a different business model, profitable and sustainable, not just a stopgap.
THAT IS NOT SAYING THAT CUSTOM PROGRAMMING IS A BAD MODEL. Just that it's not the only one to consider.
John Nagy
Adding your own new equipment is straightforward in CineTouch (and appears to be easy in GSLogic).
For one-way devices, it should take from minutes to a couple hours at most, and we show dealers how to do it, and do it with them. At this time, about half of our new device support comes from our dealers. If you can read a protocol document and type the commands into EXCEL, you can make a CineTouch driver. No code, no compiling.
Two way devices do take our central involvement for now. We're developing a way to let dealers define basic 2-way drivers entirely in external data files. That's probably 6 months away from release.
John Nagy
CineTouch
I'm gonna have to jump in on this one even though this was not directed at me, but was a generalization. There are several things that rub me the wrong way with what you said two posts ago. These are my observations, and do not speak for the majority that CineTouch appears to have made their target of destruction.
1)"I respect dedicated programmers, but it's unrealistic for most humans to ever become proficient enough in programming AMX to do the advanced functions offered in our solutions. A few can - the top programmers get great money for what they can accomplish." - While I'll agree that the top programmers get great money, I have to disagree with you that the implication that no-one but a few and your programmer can do it. We're talking about NetLinx - not Unlambda. Most new programmer do exactly what AMX has been doing for a long time - a weather module. Anyone can program anything to do what they want - it's all about efficiency, and that's what is improved on over the years. My first weather module was a few thousand lines long, with variables for each type of information I wanted to hold (Day 1 High, Day 1 Low, Day 2 High, Day 2 Low, etc.) Programming skills do play a heavy role in the jobs we deliver, but it's not the thing the client sees. The client could almost care less if you used a string array or a structure for some data, just as long as it works.
2) "Taking a couple years and honing a programming practice is out of the question for many, and frankly most just don't have that aptitude." - I'd like to know CineTouch's guess as to how many, percentage wise, do have the aptitude? I don't think the "aptitude" is the question as I know several who *could* program a system such as CineTouch or GSLogic, but don't because they have their own simple portable code that they can go from job-to-job.
3)"I'm just saying that this is a different business model, profitable and sustainable, not just a stopgap. This whole thing rubs me the wrong way. It seems that you are implying that any one of our "business models" are unprofitable and unsustainable. I would be willing to bet that most (if not all) of AMX's Top 10, or even Top 25 do not use a prepackaged solution by someone else, and would venture to guess they have their own programmer on staff. Selling AMX gear isn't like selling Niles speakers, or Integra components - it requires a solid reputation - and you only get that from offering a solid system, which includes a solid program. I'm curious as to how you feel about them - do they not have a profitable or sustainable business model?
To be completely frank, I can understand that you are passionate about your product. However, there is a line between "we have a great thing here" and "even if you tried, you can't do what we do." I thought that type of attitude is exactly what we were trying to avoid when we started this post. The tone is no longer sounding like "we have a great product" and is now sounding like we (as programmers) do not have the "aptitude" to code a solution like yours, because it is "unrealistic for most humans to ever become proficient enough" in programming AMX. It seems to continue on the FAQ answer regarding "Why do I need CineTouch if I'm already a programmer?": referring to quote from CineTouch’s FAQ: “CineTouch lets you sell better, bigger, more profitable AMX systems more quickly and reliably than you or your programmer can do alone.” I accept the "no apologies" for not making it programmer friendly, and that is fine with me - but the attitude of approach is in my humble opinion, slightly degrading. I hope I am misreading what you are saying and is instead a figment of my imagination.
You've taken me entirely wrong. I'm saying that package solutions are a viable business model IN ADDITION to traditional custom programming, nothing in my post says it DISPLACES it. Johnny's message theme was that packaged solutions are something you might use until you can do better. I'm saying it's not a stopgap. That says NOTHING against other solutions. Because I say ours is for real (after a message implying it's a lesser, temporary solution), why, why, why do you add - in your mind - that I'm saying anything to tear down other models? Chill.
As for programmer aptitude, I stand by my thesis that it's NOT something that just anyone can or wants to learn. If you witness the washouts at Programmer 1 and 2 at AMX, you'd have to agree. Your personal bent is PROGRAMMING... as is most readers in these forums. You aren't typical. If you were, programming would not be Achilles heel of AMX that it is.
If you believe everyone can program, and everyone should, well, you don't talk to the dealers we do. We ask a few hundred times at every show, "what's the one thing keeping you from using AMX more in your business?" The answer, a few hundred times, is PROGRAMMING. They don't have the skills, or they don't have the staff, or they don't have the time. And they're interested in what our solution can do for them as a long term business model. So that's what I am describing here.
To repeat. Good programmers ROCK. There aren't enough of them. We're ANOTHER solution.
John Nagy
CineTouch.com
Oy vey!!
High opinion of yourself?? Low opinion of other programmers?? Probably a combination of both.
Just to bring you up to date.... Before your product, there had been many very successful installations done by programmers who write their own stuff with long, fruitful and respectable relationships with their clients.
Let's say I am a medium-volume dealer that does 20 system a year. Not sure the exact price of your product, but I'll say $2,000 per system license. So that would be $40K per year. For that $40K a year, spending the time to learn to how to program systems that satisfy your end users would be a valuable investment of time, not time lost or thinking that you're getting something for free.
My first post was encouraging up and coming programmers to hone their skills to a point to not rely on packaged solutions, other programmers or the like. In my example, taking 40K off the table and putting all my eggs in your basket is a terrible business model. No matter how wonderful your product is and how great your intentions are, you will stop supporting it someday. Then what? If I didn't learn to program, I would be paying somebody else to upkeep my systems or having to buy into the next go 'round of your package.
Do you have Bill Gates posters hanging in your bedroom?
I'm amazed at how eager you guys are to look for an insult. There wasn't one in my message, intended nor actual.
Programmers are a minority of the employees in the integration business. How many programmers per company compared with other staff? Few. Why? It's a special skill. I'm saying it is special, and you guys want to say it's not. Yikes.
If it were an ordinary skill, why are good programmers always in demand? It's easier to find accountants, installers, receptionists, salesmen, janitors, warehouse clerks, fry chefs, lots of things.
I'm not a programmer. I did some years ago and determined it wasn't my calling.
CineTouch is over 60,000 lines of code that creates and runs an embedded relational database and empowers functionality beyond the ordinary. You seem to say "that's nothing, anyone could do that". I don't think so. I respect the programming that went into it just as I respect the programming that each of you do every day, and nothing, NOTHING I said should be twisted up into a make believe insult or denigration of conventional custom programming. I don't want to write even a SIMPLE program, and 99%+ of all people don't want to either. When I say programmers are a rare commodity in the world, why do you deny it and take offense? Most humans can't do what you do. Do really think that's an insult?
When I say something is good, why do think you hear me say something else is bad?
You seem quick to explain why dealers who don't want to program are "wrong" and imply that we're ripping them off to sell them something some seem very happy to buy. It's just a different business model. One validated by YEARS of custom programming-for-hire by independent programmers and contract programming houses. Your argument should be the same against them.
Dealers frequently tell us how they put their eggs in the basket of a trusted employee programmer, who left/died/got bored/hired away/whatever (no matter how great their intentions were), only to find themselves in the exact situation you describe - having to start a job over. So obviously having a staff programmer (paying somebody else to upkeep the systems) is, by your definition, a terrible business model. By this logic, ONLY a sole proprietor who does everything himself can meet your standard of the "right" business model.
I contend there is no need for argument. Each model has its upside and downside, and dealers have more choices than they used to.
John Nagy
CineTouch
I'm really sorry you have read in such evil where it never was intended.
John Nagy wrote: That's basically my model & it sucks. Forget about raising kids or having a fun & exciting lifestyle. Work, work, work.
FYI, I neither support or reject ideas or statements in this thread. I do however take offense to people that write better programs than my own. It really pisses me off & forces me to try harder resulting in less time w/ the children & more time behind the PC. Damn you people!
How does Cinetouch address this problem? If Cinetouch or its main programmers aren't around in 2 years, what happens to all the customers installations?
Paul
Perhaps you fail to understand your audience. I would wager that a good hunk of the people on this forum are on a par or perhaps even better than your programmer(s)
I've been dealing with this very issue now for about a year with several people I work iwth including my current employer. He has listened to the siren song of 'outsourcing' programming. He too has been stymeed by my skepticism and cynicism by the whole thing. We've tried a couple solutions here.
The Savant system we just put in our showroom took almost 4 weeks to get running. My boss was just flumoxed by the whole thing. I know why it took so long and why they/we had trouble because I already design systems just like it but on a much larger scale. I don't fault them for anything. It's a crazy world out here in stuff-land. And when your technical/programmer people are not standing right next to the offending gear, it slows things down quite a bit.
I had a small AMX control system running the same gear before and it took me two days to get it running and tweaked. My favorite moment was when we did have everything all up and running, our boss wanted us to now make it so the Savant interface worked more like the AMX one we and he designed. He hated the navigation scheme of the whole thing. When I explained that that wasn't going to be possible, he was even more frustrated.
The Jedi mind tricks don't work as well here because a good hunk of us already do the very thing your do. Ours are just set up for our shop alone and thus, to the outside world, it doesn't seem to be happening. I can assure you the exact same programming concepts are being done. It's just there is no intervening interface to create them. To us, that's a good thing. To those outside the design departments, it's a magic black box that just works somehow. Your interface gives them some contol over the black box. For a person like my boss, he probably would like it better since he doesn't have to argue with his designers/programmers/engineers about what he wants. It's far fewer opinions to deal with. In many cases, that's probably a good thing. Our company is a little larger than most. So, it's probably not a good thing.
Perhaps the forum isn't giving you a fair chance. But, I predicted this kind of reaction before the thread even started. Perhaps that says volumes about both the forum and the products being discussed.
My experience with this whole scenario over the year has been:
The whole having a high-end programmers/designers is just a pain in the butt, Let's try one of these system-in-a-box things.
Wow, the sales pitch was cool and it works great,
Wow, this was much harder than I thought.
wow, this doesn't work nearly as well as the things we've already designed and the clients are complaining that we cheaped out on them.
They've seen the other systesms and wonder what happened.
Oh crap, let's go back to what we were doing before.
I'll go back to trolling this thread now.
Have fun everyone!
e
>If Cinetouch or its main programmers aren't around in 2 years, what happens to all the customers installations?
CineTouch intends to solve this problem by not going away. We've been at it for 8 years as part of a company that's lasted 37 years so far, and we've had programmers come and go as we progressed. Like any good software company, we have well documented code, process, archive, business plan, roadmap, financial backing, committment, etc. I firmly believe CineTouch is in better long term standing than, say, General Motors or Chrysler.
But of course, as those corporations found, reality can change, as dealers who's programmers leave discover every day. Or those who buy custom work from contractors who go under, over to some other platforn, or in some other way, away.
The MAJOR UPSIDE with CineTouch is that a dealer can continue to make changes and update systems BY HIMSELF due to our open architecture... for years to come. In the worst of all cases, there's nothing proprietary about the system design; you are NEVER worse off after CineTouch than you are after ANY programming you can't salvage. Ask yourself how many jobs you have inherited (that you didn't program) that you actually build on code that some stranger did before you... probably NONE. You start over. Same here in the WORST CASE.
We've entertained acquisition discussions with corporates before, and it's possible that we will again, but in any case, it's far more likely that CIneTouch will survive and advance in SOMEONE'S hands than it is likely to just end. We have also discussed that if for some reason there is no successor in interest and we stop selling it, that we would at least release license-free code to existing dealers, and probably the source code too.
From what we have seen in the last year in growth and interest (and recognition, awards...), we'll be here quite a while.
John Nagy
CineTouch.com
Eric,
You are correct that this forum is a naturally hostile territory for packaged solutions, a fact obvious from before the start. I arrived to shed some facts in a sea of damaging presumption.
In this crowd, if our product is poor, it will be picked apart. If it's good, it will be dismissed as unnecessary. If it's great, it will called a fraud. If we're proud of it, we're arrogant. It's not -just- because of the audience being programmers who can't think of a product like ours as anything but a slap in their face, it's also always been the nature of online forums to provide a place for people to jump up and say things in print that they would NEVER say in person. And to project the worst construction into what someone else writes, no matter what they actually meant.
According to the message read counter, it looks like this thread has had 800 visitors since it started just a week ago. I can't vouch for how that is calculated, it appears to be unique counts... but whatever the count, there's a hundred or more reading quietly for each one commenting. So I'm going to address the direct questions and let the readers draw what they will from the whole discussion.... and avoid further defense or participation leading ultimately to flames.
John Nagy
CineTouch.com
I think that is likely every company's intention, but I don't think anyone can guarantee that including Cinetouch.
If the new Kaleidescape players come out next year and have a different command scheme, how would a dealer update legacy Cinetouch projects if Cinetouch isn't around?
Paul
The CineTouch Kaleidescape code was developed with direct on-site cooperation with KSCAPE developers. It's using documented processes based on their AMX module, with modifications for more flexibility with our architecture and to enable 100% data=driven runtime reconfiguration (no compile-time configuration). Were the CineTouch source code to be released because we ceased operations, most anyone who could modify the AMX module could work with our implementation as well.
John Nagy
CineTouch
John,
It appears that the bias is on both sides. Any long-time denizen of this forum knows what you say is not true. We are a crabby bunch for sure but we're also very quick to praise when due. You mistake pragmatism for cynicism. Nothing I've seen on this post or the post that spawned it seems that off base. For the most part, they set 'em up and you knocked 'em down.
However, this post tells me much about your general philosophy. That being that any legitimate questioning of your product or design philosophy is perceived as a personal attack at some level. that kind of business model cannot stand the test of time. I have always followed the business rule (both in my 20+ years in the music industry and my 15+ in A/V Engineering) at "90% of the people out there don't care if you make it and the other 10% are actually hoping you don't."
Our company has also won many awards for our projects. (CEDIA, etc...) I can assure you that we are our own worst critics and that every idea is challenged vehemently before seeing the light of day. It's an extremely competitive environment with very high expectations.
I personally don't wish for you to fail because, quite frankly, if someone could do the stuff we do for way less, I'd be your most loving proponent. Creating projects at the level we do is damned hard work. I'm a programmer but I'm also helping to manage and design at our company. I wear many hats. It wouldn't bother me if I could provide our clients with the same level of product with me having to work much fewer hours getting it done.
If the product is good, then it should be able to withstand the criticism. I can also assure you that most here will get behind your product if it is indeed good. Nobody I've spoken to seems to be wanting more junk to play with.
And to your comments about the forum. I have a personal rule that I never type something I wouldn't say to someone's face. many here have spoken to me on the phone and in person. I'll leave the accuracy of my statement up to them. And though, there have been a couple dust ups by some people on this forum that I can remember, they've not gotten totally out of hand or overly personal. This forum is nothing like some of the other places I've been. We do a pretty good job of policing ourselves and even if we don't, the mighty hand of AMX can delete or knock us off.
We're a generally lovable bunch of programmers. We protect our tribe for sure. But, we're not capricious in helping each other out. I believe GSLogic would attest to this. The forum is what you make of it. We offer our advice and criticisms for free and we guaranty it's worth what you pay for it. I have found it to be a great place for me to hone my skills and have my thought processes challenged by people of equal sill and mindset. Not to mention, I've learned so much from this wealth of information. Others of your ilk are here and are/have been a value to the community.
I do hope you'll take the opportunity you have at hand. As a business owner, I'm sure you understand the value of free information and honest opinion. Trust me, it's here. I've been all over and haven't found a better place and I thank AMX daily for providing it for us.
-e-
Given that this is mostly a programmers' forum, my advice to newbies is not to drink the Kool-Aid of this kind of stuff. Pre-programmed solutions are no substitute for your own work. Design Express, Visual Architect, AMX Home, etc. have proven to be only somewhat useful out here in the real world.
By the way, how much money would a typical license to your product cost?
You're right, my negativism in that post is largely due to the abuse I'm getting and trying to ignore in private messages from a tiny minority of the clearly hundreds of readers here. Your comments are well taken.
Turnip,
Pricing is completely described in messages back about 2 pages.
John
Although previously mentioned here, testing is now complete and release time is here for the R4 on CineTouch. And I want to thank AMX for the RADICAL improvement offered in the November 2009 ZIGBEE PRO firmware for the R4 handheld remote. It's not just reliable, it's FAST and reliable, and handles many many more commands without the gateway shutting down for overload. Even if that happens, it is back online in about 15 seconds, compared to 45 seconds before. And it "wakes" from "sleep" virtually instantly and no longer buffers up commands from the wand until they can get through to the NetLinx - which used to result in late volume ramps and such before. The new PRO firmware has made full G4 panel-like support possible for CineTouch on the R4.
For background, a standard G4 panel gets just over 900 commands upon coming online with CineTouch, as the personalization and system-specific rendering is done live on every panel. The R4 used to go offline when it got 75-100 commands at once... and then stayed gone a while. Now, the buffer threshold is 300 commands, the distribution to the R4's is much faster resulting in less backup (they are getting out nearly as fast as they are coming to the gateway), and recovery is quick in any case. We revised our online handling and reduced the User-Chosen custom panel option button locations from over 140 per panel in a normal G4 to just 26 buttons for the R4... so the biggest burst we give it is about 200 commands... and it is now a full citizen for use with CineTouch, ready for release to anyone, not just the dealers who have been testing so far.
In fact, the R4 can now do everything our G4 panels can do except dynamic images (it's not supported in the R4 hardware). It does 100% of the user personalization, and even does all 20 of our built-in appearance themes. Response time is satisfactory even on our most complex dynamic pages.
This is a game-changer for the low end where other brands have been a cost choice for many dealers. With one or several R4's (especially at their new price reductions), it's possible to be competitive with the cheap systems, and still have a future for growth and add-ons with AMX. Whether you consider CIneTouch or not, if you previously avoided the R4 (as we've been told by many dealers), it's time to try it again.
CineTouch has also revised our pricing effective December 1 to reduce small system software cost by as much as $1,000 as we try to help AMX dealers compete in small as well as large systems. A well equipped theater can cost the dealer under $1400 complete for CineTouch software, using an R4 as the full control UI. And rooms and features can be added anytime without reprogramming... so it's a path to future growth and revenue instead of a dead end like some of the cheap alternative hardware solutions.
Details on request. Thanks for reading.
John Nagy
CineTouch
http://cinetouch.com
Now part of the family...
Better page images soon on the web site.
Or start another thread about the R4.
Thanks to cooperative development with Paul Foley at our dealer HERMARY'S (http://www.hermarys.com/), CineTouch now natively supports JUST ADD POWER HDMI over IP switching (their FAQ- http://www.justaddpower.com/vmchk/Home-Theater/View-all-products.html). Paul is installing it in a 6 source and 5 TV system this week now that testing at the showroom is complete.
JUST ADD POWER is an affordable and practical solution to distribute high-def HDMI video and audio over an ordinary home IP network, mixed in with the normal traffic. Each source (or an output from your multiroom switch) goes in a $300 MSRP "transmitter" and each display uses a $250 MSRP "receiver". Switching is done by commands to a "managed network switch" (DELL has a 24 port unit suitable for this at $300).
Our testing shows great video without noticeable display delay that would make a mixed-audio (where your sound comes from a separate multiroom analog system) unwatchable. So you can mix this in no matter what your audio solution is, where you can't get component or HDMI cables to the TV - even if it's in another building. You can use it point-to-point on a regular network without the managed switch if you have only one run you can't hard wire. Any number of receivers can display the output of any transmitter. The receivers have automatic scalars to make the image right on any display resolution mix.
CineTouch now issues the network commands seamlessly, with no difference in how you set it up in your configuration than if it were an Autopatch or Extron or anything else. Since CineTouch manages up to eight AV switches at once if needed (operating automatically in layers if required for complex routing), you can add JUST ADD POWER to any existing CineTouch system in minutes. If you need to move COMPONENT instead of HDMI, adapters are availible from many sources starting at $100 per end.
We'll be writing up an illustrated test result and sharing on the web and perhaps in print very soon, contact us by email if you want a copy. But it works right now. Note that JUST ADD POWER's web site suggests waiting for an AMX module for integration. No need with CineTouch now, THANKS PAUL!
John Nagy
CineTouch
support@cinetouch.com
http://cinetouch.com
The DELL I mentioned is the POWERCONNECT 3524, http://www.dell.com/us/en/business/networking/pwcnt_3524/pd.aspx?refid=pwcnt_3524&s=bsd&cs=04
We didn't test that DELL (yet) but it meets the requirements JUST ADD POWER suggests. We used a CISCO CATALYST model that was about $800, and the exact model and more about our test results will be available in detail soon. Each stream uses less than 50mbt, and each VLAN carries only one stream, so the number of streams isn't limited in the network except perhaps by the total capacity of vlans of the managed switch itself. The customer system mentioned that Paul is installing uses 6 transmitters for 6 sources and I believe 5 receivers for 5 TV's.
The JUST ADD POWER installation manual tells a lot and is at http://www.justaddpower.com/component/option,com_rokdownloads/Itemid,80/id,78/view,file
We expect to have more observations to share after it has been used a while in the customer site - real life opinions.
John
The Just-Add-Power system is great and has been discussed elsewhere on the forums.
Suggesting you run this on a $300 Dell switch is a bit daft as you haven't tested this, and presumably you haven't coded for the Dell either as you were using the Cisco.
Most programmers on here rarely wait for a module to arrive, normally we just get on with coding what we need to do the job... just as your dealer has...
Tech support at JUST ADD POWER said their customers were using Dells to good result, that's why I passed that info on. We'll be getting one to test further.
With CineTouch, you don't "code" to add support, you can just select (or create/edit) an EXCEL-type spreadsheet with the commands required for the hardware of choice, which is read and used by the unchanged CineTouch code in the NetLinx at runtime. As the Dell specs recite that it uses an "Industry-standard CLI accessible via Telnet or local serial port", we suspect the protocol will be similar to that which already is working, and we know we can adjust it if required. We'll soon see. ANY switch with a control protocol SHOULD work, and with CineTouch, just drop the command file in to change the hardware configuration anytime.
Before someone jumps on us about this being a discussion out of line with the topic - I'm really trying to keep this to being a report of the continuing progress of CineTouch, which IS a specifically stated point of this topic.
John
CineTouch.com
Why do you think this? From the jobs that I've been on the biggest problem I've seen is salespeople that don't understand what a system is capable of doing and don't know the meaning of the word "no". They promise everything and say yes to whatever the customer asks without even asking the engineer or programmer if it's even possible.
It still amazes me that there are dealers out there that claim not to know how to find an AMX programmer? HELLO? Have they not looked at the AMX website? The very company whose equipment they are selling? There is a list of companies all over the country that program AMX - they are called the VIPs.
I can see the use for a product like the ones both companies here are offering. But to claim that programming is the bane of AMX's existence is way off base.
Thanks for your input.
We've been showing CIneTouch at CEDIA and EHX for 4 years and we talk to hundreds of AMX dealers each time. We ask them each "What is keeping you from installing more AMX than you do now?"
The overwhelming answer - more than 80% - is "programming". Difficulties in programming, difficulties with programmers, with costs of programming, costs of reprogramming.
Based on this continuing feedback, we've built a programming-free solution in CineTouch.
We're now starting to work with many of the AMX sales reps so that they understand our solution and can make dealers aware of us as an option.
John Nagy