What ever happened to the Vertex Cerebra?
- Thread starter Cyricdark
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Blue Lip
Well-Known Member
I thought Vertex was a reputable company. I watched reviews from BRS. The product was advertised as being complete and stable with cloud function. Non of that is true.
Todd31
Active Member
i hear ya, if it ever comes in the mail ill be selling mine on principle.
Beta testing is also sometimes referred to as user acceptance testing (UAT) or end user testing. In this phase of development, applications are subjected to real world testing by the intended audience. The experiences of the early users are forwarded back to the developers who make final changes before releasing the product commercially.
I know that many reefers are not as patient as I am. I feel your pain. Vertex has a spent too much money and years in this product to simply walk away from it. They will see this through to the end. It's obvious that Vertex had issues with the first version of the Cerebra beta. The beta tests revealed that the hardware was not what was needed to support the changes that were needed prior to release. Vertex will replace the beta units when the new one is ready. But make no mistake, the Cerebra v2 that the beta testers will receive as a replacement is still a beta. It's a beta until they state that it is ready for commercial release. Did they think the product was stable prior to the original release? Of course they did. Were they wrong? Of course they were. Developmental delays are not new to tech products. It is what it is. If you don't want to be part of the beta program, put your cerebra up for sale. I know people who have sold their Cerebra as there are still people willing to gamble on this technology. If Cerebra V2 works perfectly, many will forget the beta issues.
I know that many reefers are not as patient as I am. I feel your pain. Vertex has a spent too much money and years in this product to simply walk away from it. They will see this through to the end. It's obvious that Vertex had issues with the first version of the Cerebra beta. The beta tests revealed that the hardware was not what was needed to support the changes that were needed prior to release. Vertex will replace the beta units when the new one is ready. But make no mistake, the Cerebra v2 that the beta testers will receive as a replacement is still a beta. It's a beta until they state that it is ready for commercial release. Did they think the product was stable prior to the original release? Of course they did. Were they wrong? Of course they were. Developmental delays are not new to tech products. It is what it is. If you don't want to be part of the beta program, put your cerebra up for sale. I know people who have sold their Cerebra as there are still people willing to gamble on this technology. If Cerebra V2 works perfectly, many will forget the beta issues.
rushbattle
Valuable Member
This is a classic example of biting off more than you can chew. Jason clearly wants to design and sell high quality equipment in the marine ornamental market. He’s been able to partner with some capable manufacturers that help him with the final implementations of his mechanical designs, like skimmers, sumps, housings, relatively simple designs.
I believe he wants to make some great controllers, but he and his team lack the real engineering knowledge and process to bring this to market efficiently in terms of both time and capital. The previous electromechanical designs were all done by the Austrian firm he contracted, so this is the first ground up project in this arena.
A good example is the latest issue where they describe the PCBA supplier changing the BNC connector without asking. That is a major screw up, no matter how it happened. I can think of a number of scenarios that might lead to this. They might have been asked and Jason approved without realizing the physical dimensions were different, which is a bad mistake. Or they weren’t asked about the sub and just swapped in whatever part they wanted. That’s grounds for switching suppliers, that’s a big breach of contract. Bottom line, the project is poorly managed and they appear to be in over their heads a bit.
That being said, it’s all a learning experience. So I think they will be much better equipped to handle these issues in the future. So even though I appear a bit negative in my conjecture above, I look forward to seeing what Vertex comes up with in the future. Along the same lines, I’m sure that they have done all of the learning with the Cerebra V2 project and they will get them out in the next few months or so.
I believe he wants to make some great controllers, but he and his team lack the real engineering knowledge and process to bring this to market efficiently in terms of both time and capital. The previous electromechanical designs were all done by the Austrian firm he contracted, so this is the first ground up project in this arena.
A good example is the latest issue where they describe the PCBA supplier changing the BNC connector without asking. That is a major screw up, no matter how it happened. I can think of a number of scenarios that might lead to this. They might have been asked and Jason approved without realizing the physical dimensions were different, which is a bad mistake. Or they weren’t asked about the sub and just swapped in whatever part they wanted. That’s grounds for switching suppliers, that’s a big breach of contract. Bottom line, the project is poorly managed and they appear to be in over their heads a bit.
That being said, it’s all a learning experience. So I think they will be much better equipped to handle these issues in the future. So even though I appear a bit negative in my conjecture above, I look forward to seeing what Vertex comes up with in the future. Along the same lines, I’m sure that they have done all of the learning with the Cerebra V2 project and they will get them out in the next few months or so.
An why this is a controller I would never buy. Dealing with a company that doesn't do their own manufacturing gets into issues of Drivers and chip issues that will cause all kinds of problems. Apex and GHL do most of their work in house. Having learned the hard way that this causes problems and also causes companies who copy their designs and resale cheap versions to the market.
rushbattle
Valuable Member
Ed,
Does GHL really fabricate their own PCBs? Do their own PCB assembly? Their own chips? They build their own housings on their own machines in their own facility? Where does it stop, do they build their own sockets for the power bars? Manufacture their own probes?
Apple doesn’t even make their own boards, displays, housings, chips etc.... and they are a $928 BILLION dollar company. One of the most valuable, best run and most successful companies in the world.
GHL are no different than Vertex, with the exception of having more experience and expertise, likely also a bigger engineering team. But also a legacy design that burdens them with backwards compatibility concerns. Please be fair to everyone and keep it even handed in your evaluation.
Yes they build a lot of their own after being ripped off by Asian manufactures. An Apple has slowly been building their own manufacturing system. Pulling away from Samsung after being ripped off by them too. I have posted in GHL threads pictures of GHL building their own circuit boards out that they have posted on Facebook and their forums in the past. An have talked to staff many times about it.
rushbattle
Valuable Member
Ed, can you site a source there? I would be very surprised if they fabricate their own pcbs, run a pick and place machine and do their own reflow. But I suppose they could if they don’t care at all about cost effectiveness and therefore profit margins. There are other much less expensive ways to safely manufacture PCB assemblies without resorting to bottom of the barrel Asian shops.
Also, Apple does almost zero manufacturing, excepting their tiny Texas and Arizona facilities. Can you link where they are doing any substantial manufacturing?
DarkSky
Well-Known Member
If you ever wonder why Jason and others don't respond as often as they used to, look at some of these commenters here for an idea.
Anytime they give us an update on the latest developments, some of the same users jump down their throats and nit pick every detail. The BNC connector issue is a great example - their supplier changed the connecter without discussing it with Vertex. They informed us about that development and that it'd delay production of the boards by a few weeks while they wanted for the correct connectors to come in.
Immediately after, several commenters assigned blame and made assumptions that it was Vertex's fault. The vitriol was off the charts. Is it any wonder why communication is so lacking?
I only wish those that seem to do nothing but complain had to experience one month of a typical product development life cycle.
Anytime they give us an update on the latest developments, some of the same users jump down their throats and nit pick every detail. The BNC connector issue is a great example - their supplier changed the connecter without discussing it with Vertex. They informed us about that development and that it'd delay production of the boards by a few weeks while they wanted for the correct connectors to come in.
Immediately after, several commenters assigned blame and made assumptions that it was Vertex's fault. The vitriol was off the charts. Is it any wonder why communication is so lacking?
I only wish those that seem to do nothing but complain had to experience one month of a typical product development life cycle.
rushbattle
Valuable Member
They aren’t changing the connectors, reworking PCBA is almost never done. They changed the housing, yet again. They already had issues with the housing before, and that is the only part that Vertex seems to be making on their own.If you ever wonder why Jason and others don't respond as often as they used to, look at some of these commenters here for an idea.
Anytime they give us an update on the latest developments, some of the same users jump down their throats and nit pick every detail. The BNC connector issue is a great example - their supplier changed the connecter without discussing it with Vertex. They informed us about that development and that it'd delay production of the boards by a few weeks while they wanted for the correct connectors to come in.
Immediately after, several commenters assigned blame and made assumptions that it was Vertex's fault. The vitriol was off the charts. Is it any wonder why communication is so lacking?
I only wish those that seem to do nothing but complain had to experience one month of a typical product development life cycle.
In terms of qualification for understanding a typical product development lifecycle, I own a company that is concerned primarily with product development. We develop and manufacture electronics, motors, pumps, housings and associated parts. I’d like to think I understand my own business. I can tell you that if a PCBA supplier changed a part without asking us, they would absolutely be sending us all new boards at their cost. We certainly wouldnt be considering changing our design to fit around Chinese knock off connectors!
So your point is that folks are critical? I can tell you that if we performed as poorly as Jason et al. at managing, engineering and manufacturing products, we certainly wouldn’t be still in business. So I should hold them to a different standard than the one that we have to abide by in my business?
That's sad to know that if you had a problem bringing to market one product of your vast product offerings, your business would fail. I think you need to reassess your business strategy.
Or are you stating that you would bring to market an unfinished product simply to appease a small number of critics? Which is it?
Cyricdark
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 216
You know I started this thread quite a while ago and it went on and on with everybody chiming in but nobody offering any real information because nobody actually has any. I think it's pretty clear that he's not stating either of the synopsis that you are suggesting he simply saying that this is all been very badly managed both in information dissemination to the public and the development in production of this controller, and that if he managed his own business that badly his business would fail, that's kind of a given. That being said everything I hear from vertex on the subject of this controller reminds me of a guy that I used to work with he would take custom jobs and either due to being lazy or being busy on other stuff he wouldn't get to them and when the customer would call and ask about him he would say "oh this is still being ordered and it hasn't showed up yet" or "this messed up and I've got to remake it" or "they sent me the wrong part", sound familiar? When what was really going on is he was working on things that made him more money quicker or just being lazy and I think that's exactly what's going on with vertex. This has been a money sink for them they know that they have obligations to the people that already bought the first gen units but they simply can't or won't dump any more resources into getting it out as quickly as they should. I'm sure if they could turn back time they would have never even attempted to make a controller but like someone previously said they've invested so much time and money in it now they really don't have a choice but to continue on. I would say if vertex was sharing real progress reports most of them would read something like this "no real progress has been made, been working on other projects" lol
rushbattle
Valuable Member
Greg, your conjecture is a bit aggressive. None of what you state, for example “vast product offerings,” or “you would bring to market an unfinished product...” are even close to anything that I stated. I am sorry that you are personally offended by my evaluation of the Vertex Cerebra project. I am not going to address your conjecture directly, as it is unrelated to what I was saying.
My business would certainly fail if we started development of a product in 2011 and still couldn’t ship today. That is a huge waste of cash. It certainly seems that Jason/Vertex is penny wise but pound foolish, IMO, at least based on what I’ve seen from what they have shared from the development of the second version.
Again, no offense meant by my evaluation, just sharing my perspective.
Edit: Just to reiterate what I’ve already stated in this thread, I think Jason has learned some valuable lessons and I am looking forward to seeing what he comes up with in the future. The Cerebra seems to be nearly done, and I hope it lives up to their expectations. If so, it should be a really nice option for folks in the controller market.
Last edited:
Not trying to be aggressive, just looking at it from a different lens. They can survive because Vertex is not primarily a controller company, they can certainly survive despite the problems with the development of a single product.
Sleepydoc
Valuable Member
You are completely correct in regards to beta testing. When Cerebra V1 came out, many people rushed in and completely forgot or ignored the fact that it was a beta release. Vertex did not hide that fact, so anyone expecting a fully working, bug free product has only their self to blame.
The concerns I have with Vertex and how they have handled this product echos what others have said. Many times over the past several years, Vertex's words have not matched what we see. When they released Cerebra V1, they repeatedly said that the hardware was final and not changing, then several months after its release they announce that they are rebuilding the system from the ground up. V1 had a large, boxy form factor with an out of date (or at least technologically old,) resistive touch screen. In their videos, they claimed the form factor was to allow for water channeling and the touchscreen was to allow for use with wet fingers, yet the reports I've seen regarding V2 are of a capacitive screen and a much reduced form factor, making me seriously question whether their previous statements were true or they were just marketing trying to portray old hardware as 'features.' The fact that when people who received the V1 units disassembled them they found components that were several years old, as well as a version of Android that was several years old also raises questions.
When they announced that they were completely re-designing the hardware, they gave a planned release time of 4-5 months. (I believe it was May, 2017.) Clearly, that was wrong, too. I appreciate the need to 'get things right,' and no one with any experience really thought their initial timeline was realistic, but the fact that we are now 18 months out with nothing but promises and excuses is troubling at best and raises other concerns.
First, as others have said, the overwhelming pattern from Vertex on the Cerebra is over-promising and under-delivering. The 4 year lag between their announcement at MACNA and the time they released V1 (as a beta) should be more than enough time to completely develop a system from scratch. The fact that it took that long either means they were not giving it resources for development, or they were having significant problems.
Many people (myself included) were highly skeptical of their 4-5 month timeframe. If it took them over 4 years to develop V1, how in the world could they develop V2 in 4 months? Either they had far more resources available that they suddenly decided to allocate to developing V2, they already had V2 in development, they knew it would take significantly longer than stated, or they honestly thought they would have it done in time. I think we can say the first option is pretty unlikely. If they already had V2 in development, then they were knowingly misleading people about the status of the V1 hardware. The same can be said for them knowing it would take longer than 4 months. That leaves us to the last option - if they honestly thought it would take 4-5 months to develop a new version from the ground up then they were either delusional or completely clueless about the process of developing such a product, especially after spending 3-4 years to get v1 out. None of these options speaks well of Vertex, their product development or their approach to communicating with their customers.
The cerebra had a lot of interesting and promising features, but Vertex's handling of the development and release make it very difficult for me to put much faith in V2. Maybe there is a rational explanation for everything, but I honestly can't see it. Am I missing something?
rushbattle
Valuable Member
I can’t speak for the over promise under deliver portion. But they contracted out the design and manufacturing of the Cerebra and other products. They had only limited input into design goals, then the Austrians took over. The Cerebra VII, which is clearly seven and not two, was/is designed in house. So Jason could have really thought it would be five months. They had nothing to base their timeline, they hadn’t done anything like this before.
Sleepydoc
Valuable Member
That may be true, but it doesn't really eliminate the concerns. Even if they had limited to no input on the design, they had their name on the system and represented it as their own. If you accept that they had no control and limited to no knowledge of the system and it's actual capabilities, then all of the claims were made in ignorance. Beyond that, it also means have a company with no experience in technical design and development creating a controller from scratch. If this is the case, it wouldn't be surprising that they would have no idea about the timeline, but why give a timeline at all? It would have been better to assemble a development team and then give a date after people with experience had had time to develop a timeline.
The main problem I have with all of this is it seems to be neither transparent nor honest on Vertex's part. Even if one accepts that another company was designing the controller and that there may have been some sort of non-disclosure agreement, when you objectively look at the history of the project and their claims it's hard to have a positive view of either the controller or Vertex's development of it, what ever their role may be.
Whatever my views, time will tell. For the sake of the people who put down there money a few years ago (and for the reefing community as a whole, to be honest,) I hope that Vertex does come out with a solid, viable controller soon.
On a different note, where did VII (7) come from? There's only one previous version that I'm aware of. Is there another meaning to it?
Edit - I think @gcarroll is right about Vertex; the issues/failure of the first Cerebra release may have tarnished their reputation a bit but assuming they haven't overextended themselves financially on its development they should be able to weather it. If they mess up the next release it will be very hard for them to convince people to buy any subsequent controller they may release.
Last edited:
Similar threads
