A message from a COBB engineer
Feb 24, 2011, 09:27 AM
#31
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Meridian, ID
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A very well put post with factual and relevant content, good show!
Feb 24, 2011, 10:44 AM
#32
Another point:
I was a binary coder and know how challenging it is to intercept code and write a new piece of code in limited space that works and not break some other routine. A lot of credit goes to Tephra and his energetic perusal of the tables and code. If you don't have access to the original design, flowcharts, source code etc it will take a lot of trial and error. That said, I gladly pay $600 for a brick and mortar operation knowing that we are not a heartbeat (sorry Tephra) away from disaster.
Feb 24, 2011, 11:20 AM
#33
Evolving Member
Ecuflash is not open source
THE SOURCE CODE OF ECUFlash IS LOCKED / NOT OPEN, just like Cobbs...
THE ECU DEFINITION FILES ARE OPEN, that is all that is "OPEN " about Ecuflash and Tactrix. Thier DONGLE is locked up etc.
THE SOURCE CODE OF ECUFlash IS LOCKED / NOT OPEN, just like Cobbs...
THE ECU DEFINITION FILES ARE OPEN, that is all that is "OPEN " about Ecuflash and Tactrix. Thier DONGLE is locked up etc.
Feb 24, 2011, 11:40 AM
#34
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I did not see a answer to this question in the other forum I will ask here. Didn't your shop get bought out by Cobb which could help explain why you are so quick to take up for Cobb?
Feb 24, 2011, 12:27 PM
#37
Evolved Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chitown
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without Tephra my car would not be where it is now!!
His world of not just tuning but world of knowledge he poured to the evo community is unmeasurable.
At the end of the day if Tephra recommended something and COBB recommended another aspect, I would choose Tephra hands down!
In this time and day with the economy and world as it is, a man to be humble enough and give as much as Tephra does/did and help individuals on their own tuning issues FOR NO CHARGE, is unheard of!
Tephra thanks for all your help!!
His world of not just tuning but world of knowledge he poured to the evo community is unmeasurable.
At the end of the day if Tephra recommended something and COBB recommended another aspect, I would choose Tephra hands down!
In this time and day with the economy and world as it is, a man to be humble enough and give as much as Tephra does/did and help individuals on their own tuning issues FOR NO CHARGE, is unheard of!
Tephra thanks for all your help!!
Feb 24, 2011, 12:27 PM
#38
Evolving Member
What i do see now is what huge effort goes into the engineering, maps, firmware to make an accessport work.
I have not changed my views on AP/OS i support both as should everyone else.
Different strokes for different folks right?
Feb 24, 2011, 12:43 PM
#40
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the work that Tephra does is what leads the evo tuning world right now, along with Merlin, these two open up and push the boundaries, even in competition, it is now acceptable to use their tune over a expensive Motec or Autronic etc, as we do now.
I think Im correct in saying if you go to Tephra or Merlin, they'll charge for the individual download of the new tune into your ECU, then do a quick fine tune depending on what your individual engine tune is, ie; Cams, turbo size etc. Your paying for this knowledge and ability.
Cobb is a business entity, like any business down here in Australia, but if they can take a flash in an ecu and run it at speed on a dyno and improve it sligthly more, the boundary has been moved again, in the end all these guys continue to push the development into new territories, and like the good guys over at Road Race Engineering, they all make it freely available as this moves development forward even more rapidly. If someone 'locks' up their tune (if they were even able) it would restrict and stall improvements, having an open and accessible Ecu Rom makes for better and quicker development across the board.
When we were at Pikes Peak with Merlin, we had Road Race Engineering do our E85 tune on our way through LA, and at CO, Merlin tweaked it even more and made it better, this was immediatley shared with RRE upon return to LA, this is what fast paced development is all about.
JD
I think Im correct in saying if you go to Tephra or Merlin, they'll charge for the individual download of the new tune into your ECU, then do a quick fine tune depending on what your individual engine tune is, ie; Cams, turbo size etc. Your paying for this knowledge and ability.
Cobb is a business entity, like any business down here in Australia, but if they can take a flash in an ecu and run it at speed on a dyno and improve it sligthly more, the boundary has been moved again, in the end all these guys continue to push the development into new territories, and like the good guys over at Road Race Engineering, they all make it freely available as this moves development forward even more rapidly. If someone 'locks' up their tune (if they were even able) it would restrict and stall improvements, having an open and accessible Ecu Rom makes for better and quicker development across the board.
When we were at Pikes Peak with Merlin, we had Road Race Engineering do our E85 tune on our way through LA, and at CO, Merlin tweaked it even more and made it better, this was immediatley shared with RRE upon return to LA, this is what fast paced development is all about.
JD
Feb 24, 2011, 01:09 PM
#41
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Meridian, ID
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The part I don't understand is the ANGER directed at Cobb, it's just senseless. If you don't like them and don't want one simply don't buy one. I bought mine for several reasons;
* Customer support (Which I have used several times)
* 100's of different base maps
* Hand held map switching device that can hold 20 or so maps
* Tuner software with all tables and DTC's I need and I don't have to hit up forum members for their XML definition files
* When something new is out I get it from Cobb in an auto update not a forum message
* If I want a feature I ask them to add it (Stuff like Droid and iPhone map switching capability)
* Dyno proven safe scalings and tunes for multiple fuels and parts
* mive knock monitor with saved min/max value (Also applies for various other parameters like boost, cam timing, ignition advance, etc)
* Built in gadgetry like 1/4 and 60' times, dyno app, and flashing rev warning shift light.
* Data logging without a laptop
There is probably more I can't think of right off hand but these are the features I use the most. Being a capitalist I am all for what Cobb does, its a business and employs people whom produce a solid product. Yes, you can get ECUflash to do some of this for 1/3 of the cost but you are going to be at the mercy of the forums when issues arise where as I just make a phone call. Again all PC vs Mac personal choice type stuff but certainly nothing to get angry about. For those you think Cobb is just sitting around waiting for Tephra to develop something so they can steal it your just kidding yourselves.
* Customer support (Which I have used several times)
* 100's of different base maps
* Hand held map switching device that can hold 20 or so maps
* Tuner software with all tables and DTC's I need and I don't have to hit up forum members for their XML definition files
* When something new is out I get it from Cobb in an auto update not a forum message
* If I want a feature I ask them to add it (Stuff like Droid and iPhone map switching capability)
* Dyno proven safe scalings and tunes for multiple fuels and parts
* mive knock monitor with saved min/max value (Also applies for various other parameters like boost, cam timing, ignition advance, etc)
* Built in gadgetry like 1/4 and 60' times, dyno app, and flashing rev warning shift light.
* Data logging without a laptop
There is probably more I can't think of right off hand but these are the features I use the most. Being a capitalist I am all for what Cobb does, its a business and employs people whom produce a solid product. Yes, you can get ECUflash to do some of this for 1/3 of the cost but you are going to be at the mercy of the forums when issues arise where as I just make a phone call. Again all PC vs Mac personal choice type stuff but certainly nothing to get angry about. For those you think Cobb is just sitting around waiting for Tephra to develop something so they can steal it your just kidding yourselves.
Feb 24, 2011, 01:29 PM
#42
It's funny that Tephra has nothing against Cobb but it's his supporters that are out for blood. If you want to truly support Tephra donate funds his way for the efforts like myself and many others already have.
Last edited by Kracka; Feb 24, 2011 at 01:35 PM.
Feb 24, 2011, 02:52 PM
#44
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
I can share some behind the scenes information that may change your point of view.
In early 2010 we came to the realization that we were overextended with the number of platforms we were trying to support without the staff resources to support them at the level we felt they deserved. In June of 2010, we made the difficult decision to stop development on several of the platforms in order to allow us to refocus our efforts on what we considered our core products, being Subaru turbos, EVO X and Ralliart, MAZDASPEED3 and Nissan GT-R.
At that time, the Nissan GT-R platform was the only market we felt we were supporting at an appropriate level. Not because we had more engineers working on it, but because of how that team operated. They had formed a tight team that included an ECU reverse engineer, a firmware engineer, a tuning software engineer and a calibrator. The entire team interacted with the GT-R community through forums and emails, listened to what their customers' likes and dislikes were and implemented solutions that met their needs.
We recently reorganized the engineering organization into Platform Groups that duplicate the Nissan GT-R team. In stating that I was the lead engineer on the EVO X, that really means that I am the EVO Expert Group Lead, and like the GT-R Expert Group, our team is made up of an ECU engineer, firmware engineer, tuning software engineer and calibrator. The performance of these new teams is starting to show real promise. A lot of progress has been made recently on all of the platforms we support, even if this progress is not yet visible. Several platforms, including EVO X, required cleaning-up and catching-up due to our resources being overextended for some time.
So while we at COBB are excited about the changes we have made and the plans we have for the platforms we support, and that many of you might share his "believe it when you see it" point of view. We don't expect this communication to change your minds at this point, but we do hope that it provides some insight into the efforts we have been making behind the scenes to better meet the EVO X community's needs as well as lets you know that we are listening, and working hard to execute the features and functionality that has been requested.
Thanks for reading
-EVO expert group
In early 2010 we came to the realization that we were overextended with the number of platforms we were trying to support without the staff resources to support them at the level we felt they deserved. In June of 2010, we made the difficult decision to stop development on several of the platforms in order to allow us to refocus our efforts on what we considered our core products, being Subaru turbos, EVO X and Ralliart, MAZDASPEED3 and Nissan GT-R.
At that time, the Nissan GT-R platform was the only market we felt we were supporting at an appropriate level. Not because we had more engineers working on it, but because of how that team operated. They had formed a tight team that included an ECU reverse engineer, a firmware engineer, a tuning software engineer and a calibrator. The entire team interacted with the GT-R community through forums and emails, listened to what their customers' likes and dislikes were and implemented solutions that met their needs.
We recently reorganized the engineering organization into Platform Groups that duplicate the Nissan GT-R team. In stating that I was the lead engineer on the EVO X, that really means that I am the EVO Expert Group Lead, and like the GT-R Expert Group, our team is made up of an ECU engineer, firmware engineer, tuning software engineer and calibrator. The performance of these new teams is starting to show real promise. A lot of progress has been made recently on all of the platforms we support, even if this progress is not yet visible. Several platforms, including EVO X, required cleaning-up and catching-up due to our resources being overextended for some time.
So while we at COBB are excited about the changes we have made and the plans we have for the platforms we support, and that many of you might share his "believe it when you see it" point of view. We don't expect this communication to change your minds at this point, but we do hope that it provides some insight into the efforts we have been making behind the scenes to better meet the EVO X community's needs as well as lets you know that we are listening, and working hard to execute the features and functionality that has been requested.
Thanks for reading
-EVO expert group
Feb 24, 2011, 03:17 PM
#45
Evolving Member
What's the point? HollywoodX pretty much hit the nail right on the head. People need to get it out of their head that ECUFlash is true open source and free, it is not...you're still paying ~$200 for the cable and needed software. The extra $400 for the AP includes a handheld device, true customer support with a real company to back up the product, and lots of OTS maps for those who choose to use them.
Of course what some people are screaming about is a commercial entity then using that info and charging for it. My earlier post explains my position on that well enough I believe.
It does also seem that some people are upset at the perceived imbalance between what COBB takes vs what they give. [shrug] I have no knowledge with which to judge, but its not really important anyway. If it were even enforceable (see my grey area comments above) nothing would stop Tephra from releasing the info under a license that forbade commerical use. But generally that ends up stifling the community rather than helping it and in both cases Tephra gets nothing in the form of payment. As for judging equitable sharing of info that would be unworkable. How do you judge it, how do you enforce it, WHO takes the time away from development to do all that, and who gets to be the final judge? Again stifling the community.
So to sum up: this has nothing to do with ECUFlash being open or not or how much you spend on the software, OpenPort, or your own laptop. It is about people's misunderstanding of Open Source as it pertains to what Tephra and people like Tephra are doing. And fortunately we know Tephra's opinions on the matter, he's already told us.
The rest of your point about what COBB provides is spot on, you sure as heck do get something for your $400, just don't make the mistake of thinking this is a hardware vs hardware or cost vs cost discussion.
Last edited by Jumperalex; Feb 24, 2011 at 03:20 PM.