TateConcepts, just to elaborate on what you said, the only difference I can tell from the Pro and the S is that the Pro comes with two corny kegs where the S came with one Corny and one serving can. Also the Pro comes with a CO2 regulator that you can hook up to the ball lock so that you can use it for carbonation and serving. The S is only set up to use a CO2 regulator for carbonation and not serving. If you have the S (like me), then you can buy an ‘upgrade’ kit that has the missing materials (like future me haha).
Correct, the S is now the Pro - one must buy the same upgrade kit they would for C. As an additional note, I'm not confident in what PicoBrew's strategy is here except to flood the market with similar solutions they hope will compliment their existing customer base but are targeted to new owners. As confusing as that seems, the only business synergy I see is that of the PicoPak design from the unit and back to the PBN of brewers. Upon further business analysis (while enjoying Space Dust IPA they can't seem to get), is that there is a product development issue between the model C, S and Pro. This is highly apparent with the release of the C and the new micro still. This design approach was based on the smart brew keg included with the Pico C, where neither the S nor Pro users will own. I do admit that I like the more simplistic approach to that keg and it's much easier to clean and sanitize. To use it with Pro however, one must buy the adapters however to me, other than personal spirits or something to add to one's one Pico Pro FreeStyle brew, I'm not sure why a C owner would want the still. The still is more for the experienced brewer that likely owns a Zymatic and/or a Pro for testing, which again is a problem because now I would need to by a new keg for brewing. What if I already owned a Zymatic and Pro, or something else and a Pro? Why would I want to make an investment further into proprietary designs if one is not entirely sure of their business strategy?
PicoBrew also makes it a PITA for new microbreweries who have the Pro to get into their program. In turn, they are encouraging competition. There is a means to DIYB however I'd prefer to go about it in a more ethical and profitable manner. If they do not get their act together fast with their Pro base and PBN, the Pro (S and possibly C) users will soon be able to buy a generic step filter (like the Zymatic) that holds one's mash and hops and PicoBrew will have essentially lost a large market share to become nothing but a modern Mr Coffee. I would think that their current leadership coming from Microsoft would understand this. DRM alone is not an effective means (or security control) of long term revenue and experiences the law of diminishing returns. They have a comparative advantage to address the opportunity cost of getting their PBN out to those that deliver or will deliver, if they do not after a year - no problem, make the DRM (tech I'm not delving into here) a part of their subscription model to brew your own brew as many times as you'd like on your unit (to prevent bypassing the security model). I would think it wise that they include a second optional brew that permits a reasonable variation, and additional brews as needed.
I would think that anyone buying this knew going into it that, this was meant to be "pay to play" not "plan to prep" model, much like a TiVo but with an upgrade path. The specific Pro owners however, especially those with a Zymatic "expected to be able to plan to prep as part of their pay to play". That's where PicoBrew fails to its investors and its own client base. I hope we can remedy this within the next quarter of this year. As part of that subscription model and PBN, those should be the main consideration - retaining client base and then focusing on growing that base, ensuring priority (certainly timely, which it is not) shipping, continued warranty or discounted accessories/upgrades, etc. At the moment, none of this is available.
