A message from a COBB engineer
#16
The problem with that is Tephra is overseas. Not to mention, that is the complete opposite of Open Source. Tephra is in an awkward position. IMO, he's the greatest thing to happen to this community, and isn't shown enough respect.
It's admirable that Cobb contacted Tephra. It sucks in the long run, cause Tephra is getting the shaft sort of speak.
For all of you using ECUFlash with Tephramods, and haven't donated, you need to contact Tephra and do so.
Thanks for being up front about this Sean, I'm sure it will help Cobb's reputation.
It's admirable that Cobb contacted Tephra. It sucks in the long run, cause Tephra is getting the shaft sort of speak.
For all of you using ECUFlash with Tephramods, and haven't donated, you need to contact Tephra and do so.
Thanks for being up front about this Sean, I'm sure it will help Cobb's reputation.
If the fact is that tephra is faster and smarter and Cobb is falling behind, I say let them fall, or... Cobb... hire him on, the ball is in tephra's court tho, he may not want the community to have to pay for a solution that is REQUIRED (since there's only 1 solution right?) in order for proper operation of (your product?) / the Evo X.
The initial post seems good well intended, but everyone, especially in the business world, is a politician. I'm not a fan.
#17
In some aspects, you guys are comparing Apples and Oranges.
Cobb sells a piece of Hardware used to flash an ECU. Tactrix sell a very similar piece of Hardware to do the same thing. One is $600 the other is $170. Yes the AP brings enough to the table to warrant the 3x more cost difference.
Now, the Software end of the deal is another story. EcuFlash is free. Cobb's stuff comes with very similar software to compliment their tuning hardware. With EcuFlash, anyone can find new tables and post a simple definition so that everybody in the world can use and change that table.
So when someone like Tephra finds a new patch for something important and post is for the world to use, he helps the entire Evo Community out. A company like Cobb may come along and edit their Software to do the same thing. Now 90% of the tuning software can use the newest and greatest finding of Tephra.
How do we thank Tephra? We give him donations. So I feel the Cobb AP users that want to use a feature that was found by Tephra should toss him some love, a pat on the back and a gracious thank you.
And to end my thread, I thank Cobb for making a tuning solution that is almost idiot proof and is a nice, self contained package that you can purchase, flash and drive away, even if you live in the middle of nowhere.
And I thank Tephra, who has done more for the Evo tuning community than anyone could ever imagine or ask of a single human to do. Tephra, I thank you for all your hard work.
Cobb sells a piece of Hardware used to flash an ECU. Tactrix sell a very similar piece of Hardware to do the same thing. One is $600 the other is $170. Yes the AP brings enough to the table to warrant the 3x more cost difference.
Now, the Software end of the deal is another story. EcuFlash is free. Cobb's stuff comes with very similar software to compliment their tuning hardware. With EcuFlash, anyone can find new tables and post a simple definition so that everybody in the world can use and change that table.
So when someone like Tephra finds a new patch for something important and post is for the world to use, he helps the entire Evo Community out. A company like Cobb may come along and edit their Software to do the same thing. Now 90% of the tuning software can use the newest and greatest finding of Tephra.
How do we thank Tephra? We give him donations. So I feel the Cobb AP users that want to use a feature that was found by Tephra should toss him some love, a pat on the back and a gracious thank you.
And to end my thread, I thank Cobb for making a tuning solution that is almost idiot proof and is a nice, self contained package that you can purchase, flash and drive away, even if you live in the middle of nowhere.
And I thank Tephra, who has done more for the Evo tuning community than anyone could ever imagine or ask of a single human to do. Tephra, I thank you for all your hard work.
#18
Cobb does not charge for the access tuner Race software.
Open ECU does not charge for ECUflash.
How exactly can adding tables, if necessary, that are PUBLICLY available, to a software be unethical or unreasonable? The customers demand parity between the 2 products. Tell me then, what COBB or Tephra are supposed to do if the other software has something that the other doesn't? Cobb, Colby, Hamish nor Tephra are not making money off software (it is after all free, well Hammy charges $25) they make the money off the hardware used to flash the ECU......... AP / OP2.0 / Evoscan NAV.
Open ECU does not charge for ECUflash.
How exactly can adding tables, if necessary, that are PUBLICLY available, to a software be unethical or unreasonable? The customers demand parity between the 2 products. Tell me then, what COBB or Tephra are supposed to do if the other software has something that the other doesn't? Cobb, Colby, Hamish nor Tephra are not making money off software (it is after all free, well Hammy charges $25) they make the money off the hardware used to flash the ECU......... AP / OP2.0 / Evoscan NAV.
#19
Tephra's work is open source, he stands by that and always has. And as such Cobb would be free to implement his tables/strategies in their software.
But i do think that Tephra should be recognised by Cobb for his work that they implement. Even if it's just a thank you in the fine print somewhere. some sort of acknowledgement.
When it comes to financial recognition - it's hard to say whether Cobb themselves should feel obligated to send a "commission" of sorts for the solutions they have used, or whether the onus should be on AP users to send some love.
I think with the outlay of $600 or whatever it is, it should be Cobb.
I mean, without Tephra's initial work, would there even *be* an AP unit? Or could the Cobb guys have reverse engineered everything from scratch if they had to??
But i do think that Tephra should be recognised by Cobb for his work that they implement. Even if it's just a thank you in the fine print somewhere. some sort of acknowledgement.
When it comes to financial recognition - it's hard to say whether Cobb themselves should feel obligated to send a "commission" of sorts for the solutions they have used, or whether the onus should be on AP users to send some love.
I think with the outlay of $600 or whatever it is, it should be Cobb.
I mean, without Tephra's initial work, would there even *be* an AP unit? Or could the Cobb guys have reverse engineered everything from scratch if they had to??
#20
This thread isn't a CobbAP sux and isn't worth $600 (or whatever) thread.. This thread is about Cobb taking freely available information and using it in the commercial product..
I honestly think for a large percentage of people the CobbAP is a excellent solution.. And as Hollywood said on evoxforums the $600 isn't just for hardware+software, it's for service/support and a large base of well tested OTS maps..
Would I like a "piece of the Cobb pie"? Sure - wouldn't anyone?
Do I want to have restrictions about what I am allowed release to the community - Not really
#21
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,135
Likes: 6
From: chicago, michigan, arkansas
Without a doubt, YES there would be an AP, and yes they would have reverse engineered just as much as me...
This thread isn't a CobbAP sux and isn't worth $600 (or whatever) thread.. This thread is about Cobb taking freely available information and using it in the commercial product..
I honestly think for a large percentage of people the CobbAP is a excellent solution.. And as Hollywood said on evoxforums the $600 isn't just for hardware+software, it's for service/support and a large base of well tested OTS maps..
Would I like a "piece of the Cobb pie"? Sure - wouldn't anyone?
Do I want to have restrictions about what I am allowed release to the community - Not really
This thread isn't a CobbAP sux and isn't worth $600 (or whatever) thread.. This thread is about Cobb taking freely available information and using it in the commercial product..
I honestly think for a large percentage of people the CobbAP is a excellent solution.. And as Hollywood said on evoxforums the $600 isn't just for hardware+software, it's for service/support and a large base of well tested OTS maps..
Would I like a "piece of the Cobb pie"? Sure - wouldn't anyone?
Do I want to have restrictions about what I am allowed release to the community - Not really
#22
#23
Without a doubt, YES there would be an AP, and yes they would have reverse engineered just as much as me...
This thread isn't a CobbAP sux and isn't worth $600 (or whatever) thread.. This thread is about Cobb taking freely available information and using it in the commercial product..
I honestly think for a large percentage of people the CobbAP is a excellent solution.. And as Hollywood said on evoxforums the $600 isn't just for hardware+software, it's for service/support and a large base of well tested OTS maps..
Would I like a "piece of the Cobb pie"? Sure - wouldn't anyone?
Do I want to have restrictions about what I am allowed release to the community - Not really
This thread isn't a CobbAP sux and isn't worth $600 (or whatever) thread.. This thread is about Cobb taking freely available information and using it in the commercial product..
I honestly think for a large percentage of people the CobbAP is a excellent solution.. And as Hollywood said on evoxforums the $600 isn't just for hardware+software, it's for service/support and a large base of well tested OTS maps..
Would I like a "piece of the Cobb pie"? Sure - wouldn't anyone?
Do I want to have restrictions about what I am allowed release to the community - Not really
T maybe you also help me here to fill in some gaps as well, I think people have the common misconception that your sitting back just writing code all day making tables. Personally I am still fuzzy on the Mitsu ECU's and am glad I haven't had to figure them out I gladly pay to have a good tuning platform. Recently I acquired a BMW E36 and have started the tuning process on that car. It is a nightmare compared to what we have with the Evo's. No one shares anything over there, if you want a tune they mail you a locked chip for $500 and you have to use the parts they specify for you really.
He is where they are at with cars from the 90's at this point;
That is a BIN file from a Bosch ECU, it is where all the information comes from. Here is where I believe some of the misconception comes from with the magic and VooDoo of tuning. If you notice in the Red boxes that surround the matrix looking crap thats a table, the HEX at the bottom is the address for the table. What T and the engineers for Cobb have to do once they get to this point is build how they want the table to look in ECUflash or ATR by constructing the axis / rows and columns.
When Cobb first started doing theirs the axis were reversed from ECUflash, which wasn't wrong but it was annoying because sharing information was a pain in the ***. With enough *****ing from customers like myself and actual pro tuners they switched them to look alike. No big conspiracy theory just rearrange the furniture. As far as the formats all the platforms are one for nearly all tuning software;
Surprisingly they ALL look alike, and I can assure you the BMW - Nissan - SAAB - AUDI guys didn't steal any of this from our open source.
Now Tephra mods are a different story, those are T's own creative spins on address locations and take a lot of knowledge and diligence to create them. I am hoping he can be as clever helping me with the BMW stuff hint hint T
#24
Finding tables is EASY (even easier with a tool like WinOLS - which btw doesn't work for evo roms)
Working out what the tables do and under what conditions is a LOT harder. Sometimes downright impossible without LOTS of testing and maybe even inside help.
Working out what the tables do and under what conditions is a LOT harder. Sometimes downright impossible without LOTS of testing and maybe even inside help.
#25
I think fewer people would be butt-hurt over COBB implementing opensource solutions into a proprietary product if they also made available some of their proprietary solutions that the opensource community hasn't yet discovered. Not everything, but at least an amount equal to what they've gained from the community. I'm not suggesting releasing source code or anything, but stuff like table offsets and scaling algorithms, or flowcharts describing some reverse engineering efforts of an interesting routine. Granted, this already happens to some extent, but it's all out of public view. From a PR perspective, if some of the info that originated from COBB was clearly made available by then, it would really help with their image
#27
So, if COBB discovered some new bit of data tucked away in the ROM would they in turn share it with Tephra?
If COBB only wants to take from the open source community, but not actually contribute to the open source community, then I'd call that a one-sided relationship which could easily be perceived as unethical.
If COBB only wants to take from the open source community, but not actually contribute to the open source community, then I'd call that a one-sided relationship which could easily be perceived as unethical.
#28
So, if COBB discovered some new bit of data tucked away in the ROM would they in turn share it with Tephra?
If COBB only wants to take from the open source community, but not actually contribute to the open source community, then I'd call that a one-sided relationship which could easily be perceived as unethical.
If COBB only wants to take from the open source community, but not actually contribute to the open source community, then I'd call that a one-sided relationship which could easily be perceived as unethical.
Hi everyone,
My name is Sean Covey and I am an engineer and lead of the Mitsubishi development group at COBB Tuning. I would like to address some concerns and rumors that have been floating around for the past while regarding our company and our relationship with the open source community.
It is no secret to most people here that there is a strong open source development effort for the EVO X, spearheaded by Tephra. We do an incredible amount of in-house engineering for the AccessPORT and AccessTUNER products, but there have been times when a feature or table has been released to open source first, followed by our products. The reality is that when there is an existing solution to a problem to which there is really only one answer, we do not have a choice but to implement the same solution if we wish to give our customers the features they require. This has led to the perception that we simply copy the work of open source developers and resell it, which is not true.
We have been in communication with Tephra for some time regarding this situation. His official stance on the situation is that if something is "open" then it is available for anyone to use. We have reached this understanding together, the relationship is amiable, and the door is open for future collaboration should it benefit both parties. Please rest assured that we are not trying to copy or rip anybody off. We simply want to provide a quality product to our customers.
Recently we re-upped our efforts on the Mitsubishi platform and we are making a push for new stuff beyond what is available today. We want COBB products to be the best end-to-end tuning solution available and we are committed to providing new, innovative features and information for the EVO and Ralliarts in order to make that happen.
In conclusion, I would like to personally apologize for any misunderstandings or perceptions of COBB as the "evil empire". We are simply a bunch of enthusiasts like the rest of you who are trying to provide the best products and customer service we can. I know there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there, and I hope that this helps to clear some of it up. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks very much,
Sean Covey
sean.covey@cobbtuning.com
My name is Sean Covey and I am an engineer and lead of the Mitsubishi development group at COBB Tuning. I would like to address some concerns and rumors that have been floating around for the past while regarding our company and our relationship with the open source community.
It is no secret to most people here that there is a strong open source development effort for the EVO X, spearheaded by Tephra. We do an incredible amount of in-house engineering for the AccessPORT and AccessTUNER products, but there have been times when a feature or table has been released to open source first, followed by our products. The reality is that when there is an existing solution to a problem to which there is really only one answer, we do not have a choice but to implement the same solution if we wish to give our customers the features they require. This has led to the perception that we simply copy the work of open source developers and resell it, which is not true.
We have been in communication with Tephra for some time regarding this situation. His official stance on the situation is that if something is "open" then it is available for anyone to use. We have reached this understanding together, the relationship is amiable, and the door is open for future collaboration should it benefit both parties. Please rest assured that we are not trying to copy or rip anybody off. We simply want to provide a quality product to our customers.
Recently we re-upped our efforts on the Mitsubishi platform and we are making a push for new stuff beyond what is available today. We want COBB products to be the best end-to-end tuning solution available and we are committed to providing new, innovative features and information for the EVO and Ralliarts in order to make that happen.
In conclusion, I would like to personally apologize for any misunderstandings or perceptions of COBB as the "evil empire". We are simply a bunch of enthusiasts like the rest of you who are trying to provide the best products and customer service we can. I know there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there, and I hope that this helps to clear some of it up. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks very much,
Sean Covey
sean.covey@cobbtuning.com
Items like knock tables there is only one set of them that work and yes T found them first. Then the rest us self and pro tuners contacted Cobb and said WTF, time to get back in the code and find us some correct tables.
Now from what some of you are saying is Cobb stealing from open source the same logic can be applied in reverse. Cobb had the ability to turn off the rear O2 first, and the ability to log MIVEC advance and retard long before as well, should open source not be allowed to use them just because Cobb found them first? Is it "Stealing" because it popped up in ECUflash just after? NO that would be retarded
#29
Not to stir the pot, but Cobb locks their software, so even if Opensource wanted to it would be way way more difficult to steal anything. Tephra figured out the rear o2 disable on his own I believe, even if Cobb had it first.
I know you were simply trying to make a point and not really focus on that one instance, but I am just saying
I know you were simply trying to make a point and not really focus on that one instance, but I am just saying
#30
There are a few misconceptions as I read through about half the posts.
Open Source most certainly does NOT mean free. It means ... wait for it ... OPEN. Now what does that openess mean ... it generally means someone can freely read, use and modify the code, they can even re-distribute it. That is called free as in speech and usually the only restrictions that exist, if at all, are requirements to include the source code, along with modifications, when redistributing. That would be the GPU General Purpose License. The BSD license has other terms but the basics of Open Source are there. In almost all OS licenses there is certainly a requirement to at least provide clear attribution where it is due.
We'll ignore for now the fact that there is a legal gray area here as to the legality of claiming IP, under any license, for code, owned by Mitsu; even modified code. that ambiguity applies both the "ROM" as we have called it and the tuning values.
Now what about charging money? That speaks to "free as in beer" and Open Source does not automatically mean free as in beer, it can, but that would have to be part of a license agreement for which two parties agree to. See the above comment about the legal gray area and consider what it might mean for someone like Tephra trying to assert any form of legally binding agreement.
So the question is, why would anyone pay for information that is also given out for free? Clearly they would pay if they find value in what the company is providing. So what might COBB be providing? I have never used their product but I've read their marketing pitch and thought about it in the past and here is what I concluded: Hardware, expertise in tuning, and customer support. Those all seem like they might have value to someone.
This is exactly how the software Open Source OS business works. Anyone can download it, anyone can mod it, and generally anyone can distribute it. They can also attempt to sell it based on custom modifications they did, deployment services they provide, on-going IT support agreements, etc. That stuff all has value. Very few of the typical OS licenses I know of actually prohibit redistribution for commercial gain.
Personally I do not see the value in COBB's product to because I'm willing to wade through all the info in these forums, purchase a cable, use my own laptop, use information that is occasionally incomplete and/or incorrect (read: table names / purpose), and deal with problems I run into by asking a question to a group of enthusiasts who have no motivation to help me beyond their own good will and bare no liability for their bad advice.
But there are people who are not willing to do all that and thus they spend their money to purchase a service such as what COBB provides.
Open Source most certainly does NOT mean free. It means ... wait for it ... OPEN. Now what does that openess mean ... it generally means someone can freely read, use and modify the code, they can even re-distribute it. That is called free as in speech and usually the only restrictions that exist, if at all, are requirements to include the source code, along with modifications, when redistributing. That would be the GPU General Purpose License. The BSD license has other terms but the basics of Open Source are there. In almost all OS licenses there is certainly a requirement to at least provide clear attribution where it is due.
We'll ignore for now the fact that there is a legal gray area here as to the legality of claiming IP, under any license, for code, owned by Mitsu; even modified code. that ambiguity applies both the "ROM" as we have called it and the tuning values.
Now what about charging money? That speaks to "free as in beer" and Open Source does not automatically mean free as in beer, it can, but that would have to be part of a license agreement for which two parties agree to. See the above comment about the legal gray area and consider what it might mean for someone like Tephra trying to assert any form of legally binding agreement.
So the question is, why would anyone pay for information that is also given out for free? Clearly they would pay if they find value in what the company is providing. So what might COBB be providing? I have never used their product but I've read their marketing pitch and thought about it in the past and here is what I concluded: Hardware, expertise in tuning, and customer support. Those all seem like they might have value to someone.
This is exactly how the software Open Source OS business works. Anyone can download it, anyone can mod it, and generally anyone can distribute it. They can also attempt to sell it based on custom modifications they did, deployment services they provide, on-going IT support agreements, etc. That stuff all has value. Very few of the typical OS licenses I know of actually prohibit redistribution for commercial gain.
Personally I do not see the value in COBB's product to because I'm willing to wade through all the info in these forums, purchase a cable, use my own laptop, use information that is occasionally incomplete and/or incorrect (read: table names / purpose), and deal with problems I run into by asking a question to a group of enthusiasts who have no motivation to help me beyond their own good will and bare no liability for their bad advice.
But there are people who are not willing to do all that and thus they spend their money to purchase a service such as what COBB provides.