The Cypres in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLqaMGIqWe4) was a standard version - anyways, also the standard version is not supposed to fire below 130ft. I think it is pretty clear, that the activation altitude seen was well below 130ft - so how much are you going to trust in the parameters set in the Cypres?
I work as an engineer and design safety systems for different machinery. To be clear - if the system I (or my company) design fails, people are very likely to die. And because of this there are very strict rules and standards to be satisified. For example a risk exceeding a certain level will require the whole control system to be built redundantly. That means two sensors, to measure a value, two control/logic units to process the values and two actor/output units to initiate a certain action/reaction. Failures in each of the subcomponents must not cause a dangerous failure and should be detected.
I looked up the patent that describes the functionality of the Cypres unit (http://www.google.com/patents/US5825667) and did not really like what I saw. While there are two sensors (acceleration and pressure) to calculate altitude and speed, differing values do not lead to a shutdown of the unit, but to the value beeing calculated as an average. That means one malfunctioning sensor will not directly be detected but distort the measured altitude, which can lead to a fire outside the set limits. Also as far as I have found out, there is only one CPU built inside, giving another single point of failure.
The Cypres unit was not constructed in compliance with any of the safety standards applicable to machinery or general safety systems - at least I was not able to find out anything. Nobody knows how the Cypres was constructed, how it was checked for failures and how it was tested. For comparison - certain types of machines (also the ones I work on) have to be checked by an external company in order to ensure proper safety and to eliminate design errors. No external company has ever reviewed Cypres (again - at least I was not able to find any reference on the Cypres homepage).
Of course you have to consider the history under real circumstances that shows that the Cypres works very well and a Cypres fire when it should not fire is quite rare. Also given all the AADs on the market, Cypres is definitely the safest unit as it is the only one to rely on two different types of sensors (pressure and acceleration as already mentioned before) - due to the patent Airtec is holding other manufacturers are not allowed to copy this principle. This eliminates the possibility for false fires due to pressure fluctuations and gives a huge advantage to overall safety. (I remember a few incidents when another type of AAD with only pressure sensors fired after the airplane door has been opened during climbing or car doors beeing closed with the rig inside).
After all I have to say everybody has to decide for themselfes if they want to use an AAD, but consider that there can be quite some margin on the activation limits set in the units. Not only you might cause a fire by exceeding the limits but also the unit might cause a fire by misinterpreting the measured values.
P.S.: Anonymous post because the skydiving world is too small (especially in this case) to leave such a controversial opinion somewhere, where it cannot really be removed forever. I will always stand my opinion in person but have learned to be cautious with what you post on the internet and hope you understand.