I dunno man, overseas or not, I don't think that constitutes anything for Cobb not being able to do something about it. If tephras work can reach us here in the states, then Cobb can reach him down under. It is admirable that Cobb contacted him, but is it to save face or are they genuine? It seems like the PSA is all politics and Cobb saving face IMHO. From the response tephra posted, it sounded like any sort of negotiations didn't go well. I was very hesitant of Cobb products at first, and I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of Cobb's accessport, this situation actually re-enforces my thoughts substantially.

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.

 

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 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.

 

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??

 

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

 

you're a humble man tephra, that is why the evom forums appreciate your contribution to the community when they made you evom guru. more power to you and the evo map that you make FWIW, I think mitsubishi should just hire you outright

 

Thanks - but that would be a bad idea.. coz then evo's would come with Manly rods+pistons and 300whp stock :wink:

 

Well said
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

 

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.

 

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

 

let's do it!

 

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.

 

Some of you guys aren't reading what has been written;

What he is trying to get across is the fact they aren't just cracking open ECUflash and grabbing table locations, when people such as myself communicate with the community and find that we aren't using the same information we contact the Cobb engineers and make them double check their work.

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

 

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

 

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.