Jump to content

terminaldisclaimer

c4Forums Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About terminaldisclaimer

  • Rank
    Control4 End User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well I guess not entirely When I first asked my question, I honestly couldn't remember what the issue was other than it had to do with some change in the 3.x app. But now that I do...I guess my question is this: Joel said that C4 was considering re-implementing the ability to manually add a controller IP address. Can you share what the current status of those discussions are? I'm not looking at specifics, but rather on a scale of no chance in hell to next release, what's the probability this will get re-added?
  2. In that thread another C4 employee, who said they were manager of mobile, stated they were aware of the issue, and said it had to do with removing the manual IP setting.
  3. Did you fix the issue of not being able to use a VPN (instead of 4sight) with the mobile client yet?
  4. I would strongly suspect a new remote, which will likely be Neeo based. My question to myself is whether I'm going to buy one. Neeo was well-known for having unstable software. Given the short time frame that has progressed since the acquisition, I question whether that issue has been resolved. But who am I kidding--I'm probably still going to buy one anyway!
  5. It's not based on a total lack of information. First, it's based on the idea that SnapAV bought Control4 to presumably increase its value. While I'll concede that is not a "fact"--I think we can all agree that it is true. A pretty obvious way to for SnapAV to increase the value of Control4 would be to expand the dealer base. It's also based on the fact that SnapAV has its own dealer constituency to deal with, many of which are likely going to want access to Control4 equipment. Finally, on a related note, it's based on the fact that SnapAV is by its nature a distributor. Don't you think it would be odd for a distributor to buy a product, and then not distribute it to its entire dealer base? Control4 is going to say whatever they need to say to (1) keep their dealers from jumping ship; and (2) not cause the deal to fall through. I don't follow your logic here. If the dealer base expands, then naturally all dealers will face increased competition. I think that is a basic economic concept. Even if you compete only in higher market segments, there will still be a domino effect. For example, say dealer A only does high-end installs. And Dealer B does high end installs and small installs. Enter dealer C who competes against Dealer B on small installs, and wins some of those deals. How is Dealer B to make up for that lost revenue? Well presumably, now that Dealer B has lost revenue from small jobs, he will try to make it up by competing harder on high-end installs? Result: Dealer A and B likely lose money. I'll concede it's a guess because I don't work for SnapAV or Control4, and thus I'm not privy to their internal thinking. But it's an educated guess. I wouldn't equate that to a fortune teller. Finally, and most importantly: I see you are not willing to take me up on my bet! Just kidding.
  6. I know they have. But if they had a plan to loosen the requirements, you think they would state that now? I think we can all agree they wouldn't. Now, it might happen slowly, something akin to how lutron works. But that won't change the fact that the dealers are going to face significantly increased competition. For example, they might allow certain smaller systems to be sold by any SnapAV dealer, and reserve the more complicated stuff for a higher level of registration. But it's going to happen. And even if I'm ultimately proven wrong, which I doubt, if I were a dealer I would have some contingencies in place because my prediction is at least a reasonable likelihood. But I'll make it interesting since I'm confident in my prediction. Bottle of Mac 18 to whichever dealer wants to wager with me that within 3 years the dealer requirements are loosened in some fashion by Snap. 😃
  7. Yes. As I've repeatedly said. Although Snap is dealer-only, it is way less stringent. If I were a dealer, I'd be looking into alternatives because you are about to be competing with every electrician, alarm company, and contractor on the planet.
  8. Hunter Douglas sucks. Worse decision I ever made. I have the platinum blinds, which are particularly bad. I would go Lutron. They are expensive, but I guess you get what you pay for. If I had to do it all over again, that's what I would do.
  9. I think you misunderstood my post or perhaps, more likely, I just wasn’t that clear. Becoming a dealer for SnapAV is way less stringent than Control4. They don’t have nearly the same requirements. My point about consumers having access was that there is increased likelihood they will know someone who has a SnapAV account because there are way way more Snap dealers. For example, I know several people that would easily give me access. Now am I making an assumption? Sure, but I don’t think it is a giant one. It’s simply that Snap will open up Control4 to its current dealer base. I think that is a pretty reasonable outcome here, and in my opinion, the most likely one. If I’m right, no matter how you specifically think that will affect Control4 dealers, it’s going to increase competition, which isn’t positive news for current dealers. And even if I’m ultimately wrong in my underlying assumption, I think my underlying point still stands—this isn’t good news for current dealers. My assumption about Snap opening up the dealer base is at least a potential outcome that dealers didn’t need to worry about yesterday. For that reason, I would say this is bad news for dealers
  10. This has got be generally bad news for dealers. Presumably, Snap didn’t just spend 600 million to keep Control4 limited to its current dealer base. I would assume they will expand it to their normal customer base. It’s pretty easy to become a snapav dealer. So that means two things: 1. Way more competition to current dealers; and 2. Much easier accessibility to your average consumer to Control4, including ComposerPro. Good luck dealers!
  11. Getting back to the topic at hand, I think this is a positive development. Control4's remotes are in serious need of a re-design. First, they aren't exactly the most robust hardware (I've personally had 2 die on me in 3 years). Second, they just don't look that nice, especially in today's environment (although I'm not sure they ever did). Moreover, I would imagine some dealers have been complaining that they are losing business to Savant and even Crestron, given how much nicer their remotes are. I can only hope that C4 doesn't overcharge for them like they do for their touchscreens! Those are a complete ripoff, and everyone knows it. It should be a learning lesson for C4 to hear how many dealers push Ipads instead of C4's native solution. When Apple's tablets are cheaper than your own--you are doing it wrong. Hopefully they don't do the same with these remotes.
  12. Title says it all. Don't need recharge station.
  13. Do you need to use the "channels" screen. Our typical use case is to just hit "watch tivo" on the remote, and then use the Tivo guide to navigate. Is there a way to assign out tuners based on selecting a source on the remote?
  14. Do you mean your video matrix needs to support the concept of pooling? Or will any video matrix work--and it's C4 that keeps track of the sources? I guess my question assumed that some sort of video matrix would be used as otherwise there would be no point to doing this.
  15. Hi, Can C4 create pools of tv tuners and assign them out dynamically as needed? For example, I have a Tivo and a couple of Tivo Minis. My preference would be to use the main Tivo as my TV tuner source as much as possible, because it is faster and has a slightly less clunky interface. Is there a way to make C4 automatically assign the main Tivo when it is the first source requested, and then assign minis out as needed?
×
×
  • Create New...