The justification I referred to was solely for custom installers - which are Crestron's target audience. I don't think Crestron has much interest in developing much market presence for normal consumers, which is why they don't fit logically into the marketplace from a cost/feature set standpoint. I also doubt they see Outlaw as a threat, both because of the disparity in pricing and because of the disparity in target audiences.
I would say that a Crestron-based system that was properly assembled should offer a professional installer a much easier path to the sort of control functions that a commercial installation needs. The controls that an Outlaw customer would need will include audio switching, video switching, trigger(s) for power amps, and a decent universal remote to control multiple components without playing musical remote. Beyond that, we get into DSP functions like bass management and surround processing, which are important for home theater but not really what I was thinking about. If you want to control a projection screen or dim your lights, you're not going to ask your surround processor to be responsible for tying those things together. The functions involved in commercial work extend beyond that, sometimes far beyond it. Integration with a lighting control system (Lutron, Strand, etc.), integration with motorized projection screens, integration with motorized window shades, and multiple touch-screen control panels are just some of the pieces that come into play. That is where Crestron's roots trace back to. That's why I originally said "no thanks" to something like Crestron: it's including capabilities (or the ability to add capabilities) that have no place in my den.