[rad doc]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Consider how many homes have lighting, HVAC, and a doorbell. Compare that with how many homes have anything more than their TV programmed to the cable provider's remote control. I would argue that for the vast majority of homeowners, it would be a mistake to pick a smart home solution based on how well it handles AV gear. For the people who it is appropriate (like the distributed video example we mentioned), then perhaps Savant, C4, RTi is a better tool for the job. Even then- there's something to be said for separating the home's critical systems (HVAC, lighting) from the main control system. Many of the highest-end integrators I know adhere to this concept, but their clients aren't as concerned about price as they are about performance and reliability.

Curious- Did you integrate your security components (alarm system arm and disarm functions, surveillance cameras) into your C4 system?

The "vast majority of homeowner" are not buying a home automation system. How many people are interested in lighting and hvac control automation but nothing else? Not many. And separating major systems is exactly what I argued was a disadvantage of Loxone. That is why we have Lutron lighting and C4 automation. I guess I could see homes with Loxone and a more traditional control system integrated.

[gtr2M3]

Originally Posted by rad doc

The "vast majority of homeowner" are not buying a home automation system. How many people are interested in lighting and hvac control automation but nothing else? Not many. And separating major systems is exactly what I argued was a disadvantage of Loxone. That is why we have Lutron lighting and C4 automation. I guess I could see homes with Loxone and a more traditional control system integrated.

This exactly, and the few people I’ve run into that were unaware that home automation can include a/v control are immediately impressed but also disappointed at what half baked system they have

A reliable one app solution is the ideal home automation goal but it is neither common nor inexpensive

Cost aside, I’ve also asked twice before what Loxone can do that Control4 cannot and have yet to receive an answer

I’ve also attached a pic from my iPads’s Control4 interface. With OS3 you can put whatever wallpaper you want per room, kinda cool

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by rad doc

The "vast majority of homeowner" are not buying a home automation system. How many people are interested in lighting and hvac control automation but nothing else? Not many.

I guess this belief is where your perspective derives from. It couldn't be more incorrect. I mean no disrespect, because I'd probably think the same way if I were in your position.

While I'm teased by the thought on including commercial projects to completely dominate this point, I don't have to. MDU (multi-dwelling unit), spec homes, and even design-build categories are mostly just using lighting control and maybe a connected thermostat and video doorbell. They can even do this with a "lick and stick" alarm system like 2GIG offers if they want to get down and dirty. Most people don't care about distributed audio, never mind demanding it be integrated into a central control system. Distributed video might legitimately make other solutions attractive, but they're really is going the way of the buggywhip anyway. As a trained audio engineer, self-confessed audiophile, video connoisseur, and hardware geek that would love nothing more than build an epic AV setup; believe me when I say, easily +80% don't care about AV at all. A simple TV with perhaps an Apple TV or Amazon streamer is all they want. Even if they do decide they want to build a theater or media room, a single room solution is all that's generally required. Again this is coming from a pro experienced in regularly building six-figure home theaters.

[Side note: this relative lack of AV is partially why I became highly proficient at building high-end LANs. Most people will prioritize a badass network over a badass AV setup.]

Loxone is perfect for exactly this majority of the market. We make a home truly smart, that why we call it a "Real Smart Home." People are striving to build the most technically advanced and efficient structures possible. I wholeheartedly believe Loxone addresses this desire better than any other solution available.

Originally Posted by rad doc

...separating major systems is exactly what I argued was a disadvantage of Loxone. That is why we have Lutron lighting and C4 automation. I guess I could see homes with Loxone and a more traditional control system integrated.

Consolidation is a topic in itself. How much do you integrate things? Sometimes I challenge designers as to if "the juice is worth the squeeze." Do we really improve things with the complexity and expense of consolidation? Did we just consolidate our problems? One system fails and I lose everything!?! To prove this point in an extreme way- I know of at least one very high-end Loxone Partner that runs separate Loxone hardware (same app and invisible to the end user) to run lighting and HVAC.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

I guess this belief is where your perspective derives from. It couldn't be more incorrect. I mean no disrespect, because I'd probably think the same way if I were in your position.

While I'm teased by the thought on including commercial projects to completely dominate this point, I don't have to. MDU (multi-dwelling unit), spec homes, and even design-build categories are mostly just using lighting control and maybe a connected thermostat and video doorbell. They can even do this with a "lick and stick" alarm system like 2GIG offers if they want to get down and dirty. Most people don't care about distributed audio, never mind demanding it be integrated into a central control system. Distributed video really is going the way of the buggywhip anyway. As a trained audio engineer, self-confessed audiophile, video connoisseur, and hardware geek that would love nothing more than build an epic AV setup; believe me when I say, easily +80% don't care about AV at all. A simple TV with perhaps an Apple TV or Amazon streamer is all they want. Even if they do decide they want to build a theater or media room, a single room solution is all that's generally required. Again this is coming from a pro experienced in regularly building six-figure home theaters.

Loxone is perfect for exactly this majority of the market. We make a home truly smart, that why we call it a "Real Smart Home." People are striving to build the most technically advanced and efficient structures possible. I wholeheartedly believe Loxone addresses this desire better than any other solution available.




Consolidation is a topic in itself. How much do you integrate things? Sometimes I challenge designers as to if "the juice is worth the squeeze." Do we really improve things with the complexity and expense of consolidation? Did we just consolidate our problems? One system fails and I lose everything!?! To prove this point in an extreme way- I know of at least one very high-end Loxone Partner that runs separate Loxone hardware (same app and invisible to the end user) to run lighting and HVAC.

I have to say the Loxone lack of "retrofit" capability even on pre-wired new construction is a serious downside. Basically, your system is only suitable for builders prepared to integrate it during the build, so your target market is really builders and architects, not end users.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by dinonz

I have to say the Loxone lack of "retrofit" capability even on pre-wired new construction is a serious downside. Basically, your system is only suitable for builders prepared to integrate it during the build, so your target market is really builders and architects, not end users.

First, end users are often the people hiring the architects. They're definitely not mutually exclusive.

Also the design-build category is a strong vertical for Loxone. Anyone serious about energy efficiency also is driven to Loxone partially because no one else really is even trying. The other value add Loxone delivers that is very relevant in my area of responsibility (NY-Metro), is the DIN rail chassis takes up literally zero floor space. Everyone else essentially demands 2 sq ft for a rack. Around here, this is very real.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

First, end users are often the people hiring the architects. They're definitely not mutually exclusive.

Also the design-build category is a strong vertical for Loxone. Anyone serious about energy efficiency also is driven to Loxone partially because no one else really is even trying. The other value add Loxone delivers that is very relevant in my area of responsibility (NY-Metro), is the DIN rail chassis takes up literally zero floor space. Everyone else essentially demands 2 sq ft for a rack. Around here, this is very real.

Not always. I'm the end user, but I'm building in an existing community, and that builder doesn't offer Loxone as an option, so it's counted out completely. I already have someone lined up who recommended Savant, helped me pre-wire for it although I could use anything and anyone, and they can "retrofit" after I settle on the home. And that's a considerable portion of the market in new homes in this region anyway - far more homes built in communities than directly with builders/architects.

[gtr2M3]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

What you're describing is a great control system. While I probably prefer Savant over C4, but they're both excellent systems that have different design goals than Loxone. Saying Loxone "is not on the same level" as those systems is akin to saying an M3 isn't on the same level as a Jeep Rubicon because the M3 can't go off road or cross a stream. Loxone isn't trying to aggregate third party devices into a single interface. Loxone is focused on bringing intelligence or "smarts" to the critical systems of the home. In this regard you might say C4 and Savant aren't "on the same level" as Loxone.

I should have foreseen people running competing systems in their home would trash everything else as being sub-par.

4th time asked, what makes Loxone better than Control4 or Crestron?

What is this “intelligence or smarts” that you say Loxone brings to the critical systems of a home that the above mentioned don’t?

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by gtr2M3

4th time asked, what makes Loxone better than Control4 or Crestron?

What is this “intelligence or smarts” that you say Loxone brings to the critical systems of a home that the above mentioned don’t?

Well, one thing mentioned is that it knows the orientation of your house, and which direction your windows face. So it could proactively lower shades on the sunny side of the house based on time of day and season, rather than just on a fixed schedule like others.

While subtle, it could lead to lower cooling costs etc. That's just one example of smarts that it has that the others don't - however, that's something that the others could develop (it's not rocket science). The ability to control air to individual rooms would take more to develop - however, that does require the hardware to be installed in the ducting to facilitate it, so that's not a simple solution (and probably one reason why Loxone isn't suitable for retrofits).

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by dinonz

I have to say the Loxone lack of "retrofit" capability even on pre-wired new construction is a serious downside. Basically, your system is only suitable for builders prepared to integrate it during the build, so your target market is really builders and architects, not end users.

First, end users are often the people hiring the architects. They're definitely not mutually exclusive.

Also the design-build category is a strong vertical for Loxone. Anyone serious about energy efficiency also is driven to Loxone partially because no one else really is even trying.

The other value add Loxone delivers that is very relevant in my area of responsibility (NY-Metro), is the DIN rail chassis takes up literally zero floor space. Everyone else essentially demands 2 sq ft for a rack. Around here, this is very real.

Loxone simply isn't a great retrofit solution for typical situations right now. Stay tuned. I have proven Loxone can work in some situations by designing a really cool Manhattan apartment solution that is completely retrofit, but admittedly it isn't relate-able to a typical single family home.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Loxone simply isn't a great retrofit solution for typical situations right now. Stay tuned. I have proven Loxone can work in some situations by designing a really cool Manhattan apartment solution that is completely retrofit, but admittedly it isn't relate-able to a typical single family home.

Can you clarify why it's not suitable for retrofit? I get the A/C duct control would require hardware, but your touch controls - are they not drop in replacements for light switches? Does it require specialized wiring or something? Just curious.

[gtr2M3]

Originally Posted by dinonz

Well, one thing mentioned is that it knows the orientation of your house, and which direction your windows face. So it could proactively lower shades on the sunny side of the house based on time of day and season, rather than just on a fixed schedule like others.

While subtle, it could lead to lower cooling costs etc. That's just one example of smarts that it has that the others don't - however, that's something that the others could develop (it's not rocket science). The ability to control air to individual rooms would take more to develop - however, that does require the hardware to be installed in the ducting to facilitate it, so that's not a simple solution (and probably one reason why Loxone isn't suitable for retrofits).

Both those examples already exists in Control4 land, not sure about Crestron or Savant. Hunter Douglas blinds can raise and lower based on schedules that can revolve around sunrise and sunset because the app knows where the system resides.

A friend of mine is building a house with 22 separate hydronic zones plus forced air all controlled by a Bryant Evolution system that then integrates with automation through a translator. This allows the highly specialized Bryant HVAC system to deal with heat zoning and precision pressure testing and balancing the ducts... the automation then just calls for cooling or heating. It also creates a clear line between the HVAC guys responsibilities and the automation guys responsibilities

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by gtr2M3

Both those examples already exists in Control4 land, not sure about Crestron or Savant. Hunter Douglas blinds can raise and lower based on schedules that can revolve around sunrise and sunset because the app knows where the system resides.

A friend of mine is building a house with 22 separate hydronic zones plus forced air all controlled by a Bryant Evolution system that then integrates with automation through a translator. This allows the highly specialized Bryant HVAC system to deal with heat zoning and precision pressure testing and balancing the ducts... the automation then just calls for cooling or heating. It also creates a clear line between the HVAC guys responsibilities and the automation guys responsibilities

No - you're not following. It's not about schedules. it's about knowing the orientation of a window, and Loxone knowing the angle of the sun, and controlling it based on that - NOT based on sunrise and sunset.

[gtr2M3]

Originally Posted by dinonz

No - you're not following. It's not about schedules. it's about knowing the orientation of a window, and Loxone knowing the angle of the sun, and controlling it based on that - NOT based on sunrise and sunset.

I actually am following, there is a Control4 driver in which you enter in your homes orientation and coordinates. That in conjunction with a schedule which incorporates conditionals along with a weather station that knows if it’s sunny or not would be quite powerful for controlling natural light with motorized shades

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by dinonz

No - you're not following. It's not about schedules. it's about knowing the orientation of a window, and Loxone knowing the angle of the sun, and controlling it based on that - NOT based on sunrise and sunset.

Last time I checked the sun is on a pretty accurate schedule.

How about tell us how you use Loxone everyday? What features do you find new and unique in your own system?

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by rad doc

Last time I checked the sun is on a pretty accurate schedule.

How about tell us how you use Loxone everyday? What features do you find new and unique in your own system?

Last time I checked the sun's schedule and angle in the sky changed daily.

I don't use Loxone - I don't have anything (yet). I'm just trying to show where it has smarts that other systems done as requested.

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by dinonz

Last time I checked the sun's schedule and angle in the sky changed daily.

I don't use Loxone - I don't have anything (yet). I'm just trying to show where it has smarts that other systems done as requested.

Your missing the point. The sun has an accurate and predictable schedule. Sure it may rise 750 am, then 751 am the next day but it is on schedule and predictable. Never heard a weather guy say, the sun was late today! Its schedule is not difficult to program and as mentioned is available outside of Loxone.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by rad doc

Your missing the point. The sun has an accurate and predictable schedule. Sure it may rise 750 am, then 751 am the next day but it is on schedule and predictable. Never heard a weather guy say, the sun was late today! Its schedule is not difficult to program and as mentioned is available outside of Loxone.

What you're missing is a Loxone system knows the orientation of each individual shade roller in relation to North. Using this unique piece of data, along with data other systems utilize (like longitude+latitude of the home) provides a capability to have each individual roller autonomously block the sun in a way no other system can... at least without somebody building this functionality from scratch. Further, in a Loxone home the shades gain knowledge of occupancy and can adjust themselves accordingly. An example is to achieve fabric protection by leaving the shades lowered if the sun is shining into the room and nobody is in it.

As mentioned in this thread... Control systems can almost do anything you heart desires, IF you're willing to pay someone to build the programming from scratch. Loxone provides a turn key solution that often requires only marking a checkbox if you want to enable or disable a function. Again, this is just one example of Loxone's clear superiority in regards to controlling the critical systems in a home.

To be fair, this superiority flips to favor the popular control systems when we discuss third party control of AV devices. Loxone can do it but your programmer would be building these interfaces himself. Additionally Loxone has no interest in making an AV-style programmable remote so that would be another example of why I'd probably just add a small RTi or URC setup for my AV control and have the two systems communicate with each other as needed.

No one tool is best for every application, but if we talk strictly about system intelligence/logic Loxone is clearly superior. No question.

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

What you're missing is a Loxone system knows the orientation of each individual shade roller in relation to North. Using this unique piece of data, along with data other systems utilize (like longitude+latitude of the home) provides a capability to have each individual roller autonomously block the sun in a way no other system can... at least without somebody building this functionality from scratch. Further, in a Loxone home the shades gain knowledge of occupancy and can adjust themselves accordingly. An example is to achieve fabric protection by leaving the shades lowered if the sun is shining into the room and nobody is in it.

As mentioned in this thread... Control systems can almost do anything you heart desires, IF you're willing to pay someone to build the programming from scratch. Loxone provides a turn key solution that often requires only marking a checkbox if you want to enable or disable a function. Again, this is just one example of Loxone's clear superiority in regards to controlling the critical systems in a home.

To be fair, this superiority flips to favor the popular control systems when we discuss third party control of AV devices. Loxone can do it but your programmer would be building these interfaces himself. Additionally Loxone has no interest in making an AV-style programmable remote so that would be another example of why I'd probably just add a small RTi or URC setup for my AV control and have the two systems communicate with each other as needed.

No one tool is best for every application, but if we talk strictly about system intelligence/logic Loxone is clearly superior. No question.

The blinds example is certainly interesting though somewhat of a novelty. I personally wouldn't be willing to accept the tradeoffs for that or to have a bit more granular hvac control. How long has Loxone been in the US market and how many systems have been installed? Not many dealers around.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by rad doc

How long has Loxone been in the US market and how many systems have been installed? Not many dealers around.

I have a dozen Loxone Partners in my area of responsibility (NY-Metro), but that is still too few. Luckily the demand to become a partner is so strong we just increased the frequency of these 4-day training events to every three weeks because we were selling out every class when they were 6 weeks apart.

Loxone "Basecamp" in Austria doesn't provide us with the number of active MiniServers by country.

BTW... I was the initial NY-Metro Rep for TomTom navigation devices when they entered the US. There were of course zero dealers at that point, with Garmin dominating the PND marketplace. I think I did a pretty damn good job with that brand. I'm very experienced in brand building. If I didn't believe Loxone would be successful I wouldn't be working for them.