CQC is now FREE/Open-Source

[IVB]

FYI, Dean just announced that CQC is going to be FREE/open-source. Long story short, the $$ just isn't there, so may as well get a fulltime job but leave it open-source to let others evolve it.

Huge game changer, this is easily the best and richest home automation package out there, no idea how the others will survive given this.

[stanger89]

Well, wow. I can't say I'm really surprised, he basically explained it perfectly in the first paragraph, the high end already has Crestron/AMX/etc and it would be hard to compete with that, and from my own selfish personal perspective, it was just way to expensive for my needs.

All that said, I really commend his decision to open source it. IMO it's a much better outcome than (for example) what Snapstream is doing with BTV. I will probably have to take a look again.

[IVB]

Originally Posted by stanger89

All that said, I really commend his decision to open source it. IMO it's a much better outcome than (for example) what Snapstream is doing with BTV. I will probably have to take a look again.

Yep. He's been promising this for years, whenever someone expressed concern about the single-developer model, glad to see he followed through on it.

[QueOnda]

Sad. The economy is bad. I always wanted to give it a try, now maybe I would. Wonder, if it would be possible to incorperate through SageTV though savey 3rd developers who make utilities and plugins.

[IVB]

it's already integrated, you have full visibility and control of Sage from within CQC.

You cannot see CQC from within SageTV as that requires Studio knowledge, and nobody had time to learn that in detail.

[Fonceur]

Originally Posted by IVB

You cannot see CQC from within SageTV as that requires Studio knowledge, and nobody had time to learn that in detail.

Technically, it requires more than that, as you'd need to interact through the XML Gateway and possibly the CQC web server in order to pull/push everything... Or alternatively build a full RIVA client in SageTV...

[jdamore]

I was VERY close to purchasing a few years ago. I was teetering back and forth but, I just couldn't put myself to spend that kind of money. It required a lot of money and a lot of my time.

Its very unfortunate that Dean had to make that choice but I am happy he is open sourcing it. I CANT WAIT to get to get into this again. From what I have seen and tried, CQC is more advanced for HA than any other PC based software. It felt like CQC was the top end software that I just couldn't afford.

This will be HUGE with the HTPC people! An outstanding foundation has been laid down for home automation and a whole home user interface at an incredibly affordable price.

This going to put a hurting on competitors for sure. Like Netremote, sooooo boring and no updates! BYE BYE Netremote!

[IVB]

yeah, i'm honestly not sure why any DIY'er would ever choose any other package again. The rolls royce of HA software is now free *and* open-source, which means any techie minded folks can evolve it themselves. The Premise folks are already looking at it, as well as the Elve/Johnny9 contingent.

[samgreco]

I too almost jumped on but the economy took it's toll at the Sam household. We pulled back on all unnecessary spending quite a while ago. So for me, this is a game changer.

I hate to see Dean going through this. He really is one of the good guys. But I have been having a lot of the same struggles, so I completely get it. With his talents, he should find something that will radically change his lifestyle. That's well worth it, I think. You can only go so long in life living on a shoestring and watching your savings disappear. That should help him catch his breathe, as it were.

I applaud (and am amazed by) him for making it Open-Source.

As for us Premise folk, I can tell you that I am seriously going to look at changing. And there are some very talented people there that would add a whole bunch to the effort I'm sure.

[bjkiller]

I run CQC for 2 years. With 25 years expirience in software development, from kernel mode drivers to complex BI systems, i want to say the base of CQC (drivers, etc) is very complex to take it's from the ground, i wanted to write driver for simple serial device, it's crazy things - need to learn it, read documentation, special languages, there even couple of languages. from other side the event and ui managers it's very restricted, very basic functionality(no arrays, no loops). after open sourced i hope people will enchance it to much simple, like one language as jscript everywhere (drivers, events, etc), everything should be simple.

[matt91]

Very timely for me. We'll be moving to a new house in a few weeks, and one of the projects that I've always wanted to do was setup a security/HA system. Guess I know which software to pick now!

[jsonnabend]

CQC is going open source . . . or not. http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/TryBuy/TryBuy.htm

- Jeff

[Fonceur]

Originally Posted by jsonnabend

CQC is going open source . . . or not.

They just haven't released the free/open source version yet...

[jsonnabend]

I'm pretty sure that page changed. Last week it said it was going open source. Now it says they don't know what they're going to do. That was my only point.

- Jeff

[IVB]

Yeah, Dean talks about it here. On the CQC forums he talks about only having enough $$ to keep him alive for a few weeks/2 months, so I can't really fault him for looking at all possible options before making a final decision.

In his words:

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

The 'we will see part' came about because in the various attempts we'd made before to find some new home for the product no one really was interested. So we had no reason to believe anyone would be interested now, and that the open source model was the only way forward. But, suddenly some folks have popped up and expressed a possible interest in it, after we indicated we were going to open source it.

Obviously we are going to explore those before we commit to the open source scheme. Preparation for both is kind of the same, which is getting the code more packagable and the build setup and build process and provided functionality documented and so forth. So, if none of them work out, we just continue forward with the open source model.

The open source model might happen either way, it would depend on what the new owners are looking to achieve. For them, the software may just be a better way to sell hardware, in which case they don't really want to try to be in the software selling business. Or, they may want to keep it a proprietary product. It would be up to them.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. It won't be a hugely long time before these things are either going to come to fruition or not.

[SHS]

Originally Posted by IVB

Yeah, Dean talks about it here. On the CQC forums he talks about only having enough $$ to keep him alive for a few weeks/2 months, so I can't really fault him for looking at all possible options before making a final decision.

In his words:

That the thing the avg joe are not willing to pay high cost for his software and the problem is not the economy but more like very small niche market he was in.

[IVB]

Originally Posted by SHS

That the thing the avg joe are not willing to pay high cost for his software and the problem is not the economy but more like very small niche market he was in.

Honestly, that's the part I don't get. People think nothing of spending $10K or more on hardware, and yet look to chintz a few hundred $$ on software. This isn't just limited to HA, it seems in general that software manufacturing isn't respected as much as hardware, even though it's usually just as hard (or harder) to do the software design than hardware.

IE, people think nothing of getting pirated software (or exchanging MP3 libraries), but wouldn't dream of buying stolen stereos, when in fact it's the same exact thing.

[bcjenkins]

For me, HA has always been about the cost of the hardware to convert the house. I would gladly pay out for software that was easy to use and had a great interface.

B

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by IVB

Honestly, that's the part I don't get. People think nothing of spending $10K or more on hardware, and yet look to chintz a few hundred $$ on software.

Problem is CQC does maybe 1000x more than what most people need, and on top of that you have to "cobble together" your own hardware to actually do the interfacing. Where as for most people a simple Harmony will do everything they need.

Or heck, even for those a little more advanced like myself, a URC MX-880+MRF-350 does everything I need in my HT. Yeah, sure it would be nice to have a few more options available automation wise, but there's no way it's worth a few hundred dollars for software, plus the PC to run it, and the IR emitters/receivers to control equipment, touchscreens to be able to actually make use of all that power effectively.

That's the real problem for CQC IMO (and I think what SHS was getting at) functionality wise they're well into Crestron/AMX territory, but most people don't care about that much power. Most people just want a remote to control their equipment easily and Harmony works for most, or URC/RTI for those who want a bit more.

By the time you get to a market who really wants the sort of power/control/functionality CQC can offer over URC/RTI/etc most of the market will just hire an installer and go with a well known solution (AMX/Crestron/etc). It's an infinitessimally small market of people like you (no offense at all) who are willing to put in the time to research, buy hardware, and program an entire, substantial HA system from scratch.

That's a big part of why I never went down the CQC path. It did way, way more than I needed and would have been a ton of work just to get what I wanted done, and it would have cost probably more than my URC setup (at least close) to do it.

[jsonnabend]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Problem is CQC does maybe 1000x more than what most people need, and on top of that you have to "cobble together" your own hardware to actually do the interfacing. Where as for most people a simple Harmony will do everything they need.

Or heck, even for those a little more advanced like myself, a URC MX-880+MRF-350 does everything I need in my HT. Yeah, sure it would be nice to have a few more options available automation wise, but there's no way it's worth a few hundred dollars for software, plus the PC to run it, and the IR emitters/receivers to control equipment, touchscreens to be able to actually make use of all that power effectively.

That's the real problem for CQC IMO (and I think what SHS was getting at) functionality wise they're well into Crestron/AMX territory, but most people don't care about that much power. Most people just want a remote to control their equipment easily and Harmony works for most, or URC/RTI for those who want a bit more.

By the time you get to a market who really wants the sort of power/control/functionality CQC can offer over URC/RTI/etc most of the market will just hire an installer and go with a well known solution (AMX/Crestron/etc). It's an infinitessimally small market of people like you (no offense at all) who are willing to put in the time to research, buy hardware, and program an entire, substantial HA system from scratch.

That's a big part of why I never went down the CQC path. It did way, way more than I needed and would have been a ton of work just to get what I wanted done, and it would have cost probably more than my URC setup (at least close) to do it.

Heck, there's Girder and EventGhost as well in the cheap and free categories. Both are perfectly adequate to control an HTPC setup, plus a bit more.

- Jeff