Author Topic: Testing RRC-Nano  (Read 12001 times)

SV1DH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
    • Email
Testing RRC-Nano
« on: 2014-12-14, 19:34:20 »
After some testing of RRC-Nano app with KENWOOD TS480 (with latest app auto! updates of Kenwood V104 and Server V110) on my SONY Xperia T3, have the following comments:
- Operation is FB via WiFi or LTE/4G, with good audio quality.
- SIP connection is seldomly succesfull on first attempt, need for some more tries.
- After SIP disconnection have always the unneccessary message: SIP error
- Android backspace is not working. Need to close app using CLOSE RECENT APPS icon, or is it a more efficient way?
- After disconnecting the app, the TS480 display is inactive for approx 1 minute and beeping if switched on in between.
  Wonder how to maybe overcome this dead period.
- As CW operator on 6m, I would like VERY MUCH to test also CW mode on TX, before buying a licence...
- The licence cover also any future app updates??
73 Costas
SV1DH 

Jan (Microbit)

  • Software Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #1 on: 2014-12-15, 10:31:37 »
Thank you for feedback!

We will change the back button behavior so it will exit the app(or rather put the app in background).

The SIP error you get when disconnecting is indicating that the app fails to close the SIP session and so the RRC will remain in its connected state until it times out due to lack of audio being streamed. That is why you cannot reconnect again due to the RRC still thinking it is connected.

Would it be possible for you to provide us with the information needed for us to try connecting to your RRC and see what happens from here? If so then PM me the info.

Also, I assume your RRC has firmware version 2.81?



Always include type of hard/software and version when asking for support.

sm2o

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
    • View Profile
    • sm2oan
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #2 on: 2014-12-15, 11:27:04 »
Regarding the "The licence cover also any future app updates?" we don't intend to charge for updates in general, though we cannot promise free upgrades "forever" if there will be new versions with significant feature changes etc. In such cases the upgrade fee will of course be lower than buying a new license."

73 de mike
« Last Edit: 2014-12-15, 11:31:40 by Jan (Microbit) »

SV1DH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #3 on: 2014-12-18, 19:10:39 »
Mike and Jan, many tnx for your reply and related info.
Jan, I upgraded RRCs firmware from 2.75 to 2.81, as you pointed out, but I still have same indication of "SIP error" on connect/disconnect operation.
I also observed that the "BAND" up/down buttons of NANO are very erratic and although beeping, the band is not changing accordingly and I have to repeat pushing the button several times. All other NANO buttons are working just fine...
I will PM soon to you info to check remotely my Radio RRC config, as you suggested.
73 Costas
SV1DH 

SV1DH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #4 on: 2014-12-23, 16:41:19 »
GA Jan.
After the automatic update of RRC NANO S to V111 and K to V105 on my SONY Xperia T3 V442, all my previous remarks are now cured:
- SIP connection is now succesfull on first attempt, either using WiFi or 3G-LTE/4G.
- After SIP disconnection I DONT have anymore the message: SIP error
- Android backspace is working OK.
- After disconnecting the NANO app, the TS480 display is now active immediately.
- The BAND switching buttons are working at once.
- Audio is present immediately, no need to slide volume bar.
Jan, many thanks for working on all these improvements and Im looking now forward for the transmit CW version on this amazing app.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2015.
Costas
SV1DH

Jan (Microbit)

  • Software Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #5 on: 2014-12-23, 20:11:16 »
Excellent!  ;D
We also wish you and everyone else a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Always include type of hard/software and version when asking for support.

dj0qn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2223
    • View Profile
    • DJ0QN / K7DX
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #6 on: 2014-12-23, 23:26:32 »
Glad to hear that the bugs are finally out. I wanted to test it again to see if it worked, but my server license period is up and I see now it costs 150 euros
for a license per rig, which I can't afford (especially for a software that is not finished).

73,
Mitch DJ0QN / K7DX

S53K

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #7 on: 2014-12-24, 00:29:07 »
hi,

I have the same problem :-)

MXMAS & HNY 2015 !

Simon


Jan (Microbit)

  • Software Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #8 on: 2014-12-24, 07:27:37 »
Glad to hear that the bugs are finally out. I wanted to test it again to see if it worked, but my server license period is up and I see now it costs 150 euros
for a license per rig, which I can't afford (especially for a software that is not finished).

73,
Mitch DJ0QN / K7DX
Is there a single software which is "bug free"?  and "finished"?  ;)

As for pricing of Apps, if one speaks in general terms, is something which is very very difficult. People seems to have become used to pay either nothing, or very little, not caring the least about the resources it takes to develop and maintain them. I have a weather app which has taken me a long time to develop and people do not even want to pay 7 SEK for it... (Of course it could be because the app is worthless, hehe, but there are users who really like it so I do not think that's the case  ;) ) One also has to balance between the estimated number of licenses sold and the price. The more specialized the app is, the lesser the estimated sold licenses will be, and so one would like a higher price per license. And yes, there is also a bigger picture of course. If one also sells other stuff, preferably hardware, which is needed for the App to work then that too has to be taken into account.
Always include type of hard/software and version when asking for support.

dj0qn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2223
    • View Profile
    • DJ0QN / K7DX
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #9 on: 2014-12-25, 05:42:29 »
Hi Jan,

my two points:

1) I agree with you about software never being finished, since I myself have been in the software business for 25 years. However,
there is a point where the software has the features that allows you to sell at value. To be quite honest, the Nano client has not
really passed the "toy" to the "useful" stage. Some key features are necessary to make it truly worthwhile to purchase, e.g. CW
support, split, profiles, etc. I really did not want to go into great details here, but I think you know what I mean.

2) I fully understand that the development costs need to be recouped, as with any software. However, you need to take into account
various economic factors, e.g. who is my customer (consumer, business) and what is the critical mass necessary. If you only sell a
handful at 150 euros, you will not break even or make a profit. But if you sell for example four times the licenses at one-third the current
price, you make a lot more money. That was just an example, it may even scale from there. That is why many companies have made a lot
of money selling cheap apps at high volumes, but of course that isn't your business model. I have used various methods to determining
pricing and don't know how you did it, but I personally do believe you will make a lot more revenue if the price is significantly dropped.
That is however just my opinion.

Thanks again for the Nano development and good luck!

73,
Mitch DJ0QN / k7DX

Jan (Microbit)

  • Software Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #10 on: 2014-12-25, 09:05:15 »
Note that I was not specifically speaking about the RRC-Nano app, but more in general about apps and their pricing since I am not directly involved in the economic/business part being a software developer.

What you say is true, but I wanted to emphasis on the very different opinions people has on things. A person might consider the same app being worthless and at the same time another person might think it is the "best". A person might consider it having enough features, another too little but acceptable and yet another thinks it lacks that special feature making it a deal-breaker.

And as for some companies making big money on their apps it is a fact, but it is also as the pop band Abba once sang "The winner takes it all" as the vast majority of companies offering apps do that as a service and not as something which by itself "gives a positive result on the last line".

All in all, it is (IMO) always good to discuss things like this and being honest and frank is as I like to have it too  ;)

BTW, we seem to have been in the SW business approx for the same time  8)
Always include type of hard/software and version when asking for support.

sm2o

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
    • View Profile
    • sm2oan
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #11 on: 2014-12-25, 11:26:28 »
Pricing is always difficult. One thing is for sure, we will never get the development cost back what ever price we set, the market is to limited, as you must have a RRC in the radio end. So the question is how much we are prepared to loose not earn. The price was set with the RRC-Micro as a starting point. From my own point of view, after using the Apps for 6 month now, I found the Apps much more useful than the RRC-Micro as you can use it everywhere, at your lunch break, when waiting for the bus or train, waiting at the dentist or for the wife outside the shopping centre, sometimes even on the bus or train etc. etc.... eg places when you never bring the Laptop or have the time to boot up a Laptop. And for me hamradio is 95% RX so it fit me perfect. My idea was that it was worth the about the same investment cost for the user as the RRC-Micro. If it had been pratical a montly charge of a few dollar for the RRC-Nano would probably have been a good solution if we compare with a service like Spotify which probably half of the Swedish population including me, pay USD 15/month with no doubt. I think we must start to see the APPs in general in a different way, and value the service they give and not just think they should be free or cost  one dollar just because they are Apps.

I will not say that our price policy is final, we may consider changing it, but so far we have focused on finishing the Apps for all the major brands at the same level. When going to next step of functionality we will give priority to the versions which have most licenced users and are most downloaded.

Happy New Year

/mike

dj0qn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2223
    • View Profile
    • DJ0QN / K7DX
    • Email
Re: Testing RRC-Nano
« Reply #12 on: 2014-12-26, 03:35:31 »
Thanks, Mike and Jan, this is an interesting discussion.

Pricing: note that my point is not that I think you are charging too much for profit reasons, but that the current price is too high
for your target users and I want you to at least break-even on the development costs. I have also been a ham for 46 years and
pretty much know how much (or little) hams are willing to spend for software only (i.e. without hardware, not like RRC-Micro),
especially an Android app. I firmly believe that you will sell significantly more licenses by targeting the price point more effectively.
Different than Jan, my 25 years in the software business has only been in the marketing and sales side. I have seen a lot of pricing
mistakes made over the years (including - or especially - my years at Microsoft) and I am just hoping you don't make a mistake. 

Features: One of the great things about ham radio is how broad the hobby is and how different interest are. The current feature set
certainly allows basic rag chewing or causal QSO's, no doubt. But in my case (as one example), 99% of my operating is DX pileups
and at least 50% CW. Without split operation or CW support, I can't really effectively use Nano as is. I have been using it a lot for
demos to illustrate how great the RemoteRig platform is, but that doesn't solve my operating use. Again, it it like pricing, one needs
to identify the target group or groups and prioritize the feature set to meet these first. Other features are for future updates.

I used to use a lot of focus groups for determining these things, which is not an option for Microbit. As a suggestion, perhaps a group
of trusted super-users can help you with these issue moving forward. If you need any support from my side, just let me know.

Happy holidays and happy New Year from my winter home in Florida.

73,
Mitch DJ0QN / K7DX