As I understand it, C4 is on about the third revision of [some of] their hardware. Some of the features they've included are obviously based on real world situations and installer feedback. I think that's a very good thing. Some manufacturers just don't get it.
As far as the interface goes - it is what it is. When you design a C4 system, you design a C4 system. Until a few months ago I was not a fan of the interface at all; mainly because I had too much of an ego about how good of an interface I can design for a customer. Well in all reality I'm sure I'm not as good and I think I am and it still takes me a long time to put a custom interface together. 99% of the time I'm only tweaking the interface because I want to, not because the customer needs it or even wants it. With C4 I can hand the system over, say "this is how it works...", and be done. Hell, they even have a user's manual for the entire system that lays out the basics for them. I would have to sit down and finalize a "template" interface that would work for every job before I could even begin to write my own user's manual that I could hand to every customer. C4 already has it done... why do I need to reinvent the wheel?
Let me explain my position on this. I'm not talking about being lazy. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to be doing huge, elaborate jobs and writing my own code for Crestron/AMX systems. I love a challenge and get far more satisfaction out of figuring out some weird custom problem than I do from setting up yet another home theater system. "Yeah. Wow. Surround sound. Pretty cool. Anyway, do you want me to figure out how to adjust the temperature in the theater dependant on how many people are in the room, what genre of movie you're watching, what time of day it is, if someone is cooking in the kitchen, and if it's somebody's birthday??" Yeah, I'm a total tweaker. I get sidetracked trying to figure out how to do things that don't matter in the first place. I would love to work on big commercial jobs where they have truly custom requirements.
However, I don't work in that market. My customers don't need that. They also don't need the expense that would incur. They don't need the hardware required to do that stuff. They can figure out how to use the DirecTV menu and don't ask me to "improve" that [but if they did I would suggest TiVo :) ]. If they can learn that interface, they can learn the C4 interface that is already built and documented. It costs my time, my customers' money, my company's bottom line.
We're not 100% sure if we're moving forward with becoming a dealer yet, strictly because of the minimum opening order. Either way, we'll keep doing RTI for the truly "custom" jobs. RTI has by far the best programming environment in my opinion. It's just the hardware costs that are a killer. Take a look at this hardware comparison that I just made up and hope is accurate. :)
RTI ZRP-5 (replacement for the soon to be discontinued RP-1)
MSRP $299 -- requires an antenna module, either 433 or Zigbee, at $149 MSRP
Effective MSRP $450
Features:
- Best RF in the business - stores commands on processor instead of on the handheld control
- 5 IR emitter ports with adjustable gain for each, non-addressable
- 1 high output IR connection (for IR connecting block)
- 1 Power sense input
MSRP without handheld remote (for comparison) -- $399
Features:
- Zigbee RF server built in
- 4 IR emitter ports, 2 can be used for RS232 with $20 adapter
- Ethernet port for system control, internet connection, IP control of devices (which saves IR/RS232 ports)
- Astronomical timeclock
- Analog audio output (variable or fixed) for playback of digital, networked audio
- USB port for hard drive to store mp3s and photos
- Analog audio input to digitize external source and play through analog outs or stream through network to other controllers
- Video outputs (SD and HD) for system OSD, photos, IP cameras, etc.
- Remotely programmable through internet
Come on, is this even a fair fight? :)
