Aren't we all being a little harsh here? I work in a lot of
community theatre venues, and a great many of them have NO intercom, or at best, a
half duplex wireless mess that is used for emergency only. A *lot* of
theatre is done with nothing but visual communication.
There IS a market for a product like is being described (yes, certainly IP based, and probably using commodity hardware platforms such as Raspberry Pi).
Not trying to be harsh but the information presented seems more typical of that for a product while what is apparently being discussed is a
system. Some rather specific 'product features' may be listed but I can't tell what "intercom/
headset system" is being proposed, how it functions or what it would actually cost. It's a little difficult to provide specific comments on the
system when there is such limited information provided regarding the
system while it's a little difficult to provide more general comments when the general goals and intent are not defined.
If you ask people what they want in a low cost production communications
system I seriously doubt that the ability to
plug in a backup battery without having to go offline or micro-USB charging would be mentioned, at least not until you got down to dealing with details for specific types of systems and products. From past experience, such specific and not clearly relevant details being
identified while basic information on the general
system concept and functionality is not sometimes reflects an incomplete or false impression of the more general needs for the
system overall. That may be a totally erroneous impression here but without information on the overall
system (what it does, how it works, what it involves,
etc.) then there is no way to tell.
Is what is being proposed a complete, functional
system with all related hardware devices? Or is it software with compatible hardware and any
system integration required to also be obtained in addition to the software? Or maybe a hybrid with some software and hardware provided but other items to be owner or user provided? Especially for some situations that may be looking for lower cost alternatives, it seems important to know what would actually be involved in terms of hardware, infrastructure, effort and expertise in order to have a fully functional
system, perhaps much more important than many specific features.
What does the $200 cost noted represent? Unless it is for a complete, functional
system with up to 255 stations then it is apparently not a "
system" cost. And if it is not a complete
system cost then it seems sort of pointless, and possibly misleading, to present without also identifying what it represents and what other costs may be entailed.
Does the
system concept assume existing accessible networks, users using their personal tablets and smartphones and so on? If this is intended for commerical and institutional use then in many situations those may not be
practical assumptions, especially if not supported for all common devices and operating systems. And if not only all of the equipment and any supporting infrastructure required but also any time and expertise required to create and support a working
system have a cost then what does that do to the real '
system' cost?
What support is planned? Is there going to be 24/7 phone support, a user forum, a Knowledge
Base or what? And if involving physical products, what is envisioned in terms of the related distribution, service and inventory? Just yesterday I dealt with someone who purchased a low cost solution but because it did not come with appropriate technical support (literally no
manual or user guide of any kind being available), there is no dealer involved to provide support and the manufacturer does not seem interested in offering any support has ended up with a product they can't use effectively. And thus whatever they paid for it was too much.
