A message from a COBB engineer
Feb 23, 2011, 01:28 PM
#1
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
A message from a COBB engineer
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
Feb 23, 2011, 01:55 PM
#4
It would only be a matter of time as Sean said that the features that are wanted/needed would be requested by the customers, so I don't personally see the big deal. If you are a diehard Cobb fan, you will see it their way, if not, then you won't. Hopefully people will be unbiased and make a decision based on the facts and on the reputation of Cobb who IMO has done some very good things for the Evo community as well as MANY other car owners who want an easy way to tune their cars.
Feb 23, 2011, 02:26 PM
#6
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that it's great that there are people out there constantly working on these cars and making them better! In my view, we are all converging to a great destination 
Feb 23, 2011, 02:27 PM
#7
It's nice to see this explanation from Cobb, it shows they have solid character.
I wouldn't consider you guys an evil empire at all, you are a business just trying to make money.
The only thing I find strange is that you chose the Evo Market at all in the first place with the strong Opensource community.
I know you have contributed to the community and I think you guys are a great shop and do fabulous work.
I just think with the advancements of ECUflash over the past year it essentially makes the AP worthless as hardware. I think you'd sell a lot more units at half the price personally, the price seems very high to compete with ECUflash. But obviously people still like it and still use it so you guys have obviously done your homework.
I think more updates would go a long long way with the AP and people getting their monies worth in my mind.
I am obviously pro ECUflash but thats because my tuner uses that...if he used the AP i would switch no questions. The other big thing (not sure if it still applies) is charging tuners the big license fee to use your software which makes it hard for them to justify it when so many people use opensource.
All in all, I am just happy you guys posted something, like I said it shows that you do pay attention to what people think and try and improve your product as best you can.
I wouldn't consider you guys an evil empire at all, you are a business just trying to make money.
The only thing I find strange is that you chose the Evo Market at all in the first place with the strong Opensource community.
I know you have contributed to the community and I think you guys are a great shop and do fabulous work.
I just think with the advancements of ECUflash over the past year it essentially makes the AP worthless as hardware. I think you'd sell a lot more units at half the price personally, the price seems very high to compete with ECUflash. But obviously people still like it and still use it so you guys have obviously done your homework.
I think more updates would go a long long way with the AP and people getting their monies worth in my mind.
I am obviously pro ECUflash but thats because my tuner uses that...if he used the AP i would switch no questions. The other big thing (not sure if it still applies) is charging tuners the big license fee to use your software which makes it hard for them to justify it when so many people use opensource.
All in all, I am just happy you guys posted something, like I said it shows that you do pay attention to what people think and try and improve your product as best you can.
Trending Topics
Feb 23, 2011, 02:51 PM
#9
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: loveland,ohio
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think the access port is perfect for someone like me with no local tuners in cincinnati. also i'm still learning so i can use the ots maps and custom tune in the future. i'm very happy with COBB's customer comunication
Feb 23, 2011, 07:47 PM
#10
First off let me say that I have no ill-will towards Cobb. I think without them, we as a community would be a lot futher behind where we currently are..
It is true that Trey@Cobb contacted me nearly six months ago to discuss a potential relationship however nothing really eventuated.
Obviously it is a difficult situation for both parties, me since I want to continue to support the community in an open source manner, however this conflicts a bit with Cobb since they are a commercial entity trying to maximise profits and marketshare.
Perhaps we will re-vist the relationship in the near future.
In our community (and world for that matter) I believe that most "inventions/thoughts" come out of demand for an idea. The MinimumIPW information+patch that I did is an example of this. So it is difficult for me to block Cobb from using or implementing it since others require it..
In regards to ANY commercial entity (not just Cobb) using open source I believe that credit should be given - in one form or another.
It is true that Trey@Cobb contacted me nearly six months ago to discuss a potential relationship however nothing really eventuated.
Obviously it is a difficult situation for both parties, me since I want to continue to support the community in an open source manner, however this conflicts a bit with Cobb since they are a commercial entity trying to maximise profits and marketshare.
Perhaps we will re-vist the relationship in the near future.
In our community (and world for that matter) I believe that most "inventions/thoughts" come out of demand for an idea. The MinimumIPW information+patch that I did is an example of this. So it is difficult for me to block Cobb from using or implementing it since others require it..
In regards to ANY commercial entity (not just Cobb) using open source I believe that credit should be given - in one form or another.
Feb 23, 2011, 07:56 PM
#11
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: chicago, michigan, arkansas
Posts: 3,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
First off let me say that I have no ill-will towards Cobb. I think without them, we as a community would be a lot futher behind where we currently are..
It is true that Trey@Cobb contacted me nearly six months ago to discuss a potential relationship however nothing really eventuated.
Obviously it is a difficult situation for both parties, me since I want to continue to support the community in an open source manner, however this conflicts a bit with Cobb since they are a commercial entity trying to maximise profits and marketshare.
Perhaps we will re-vist the relationship in the near future.
In our community (and world for that matter) I believe that most "inventions/thoughts" come out of demand for an idea. The MinimumIPW information+patch that I did is an example of this. So it is difficult for me to block Cobb from using or implementing it since others require it..
In regards to ANY commercial entity (not just Cobb) using open source I believe that credit should be given - in one form or another.
It is true that Trey@Cobb contacted me nearly six months ago to discuss a potential relationship however nothing really eventuated.
Obviously it is a difficult situation for both parties, me since I want to continue to support the community in an open source manner, however this conflicts a bit with Cobb since they are a commercial entity trying to maximise profits and marketshare.
Perhaps we will re-vist the relationship in the near future.
In our community (and world for that matter) I believe that most "inventions/thoughts" come out of demand for an idea. The MinimumIPW information+patch that I did is an example of this. So it is difficult for me to block Cobb from using or implementing it since others require it..
In regards to ANY commercial entity (not just Cobb) using open source I believe that credit should be given - in one form or another.
Feb 23, 2011, 08:09 PM
#12
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tephra I truly appreciate your help with the x. My opinion on this matter is that you should find some way to copyright your tuning inventions to only be used in opensource applications because as it stands now Cobb is making a profit off of your labor and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed.
I do have respect for Cobb making this post but in my opinion you are falling behind. One thing I see is that you contradict yourself by saying that you do not copy but you go on to say that there was only one solution. If there is only one solution and you are not the first to get that solution then you in fact are copying.
I do have respect for Cobb making this post but in my opinion you are falling behind. One thing I see is that you contradict yourself by saying that you do not copy but you go on to say that there was only one solution. If there is only one solution and you are not the first to get that solution then you in fact are copying.
Feb 23, 2011, 08:17 PM
#13
Tephra I truly appreciate your help with the x. My opinion on this matter is that you should find some way to copyright your tuning inventions to only be used in opensource applications because as it stands now Cobb is making a profit off of your labor and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed.
I do have respect for Cobb making this post but in my opinion you are falling behind. One thing I see is that you contradict yourself by saying that you do not copy but you go on to say that there was only one solution. If there is only one solution and you are not the first to get that solution then you in fact are copying.
I do have respect for Cobb making this post but in my opinion you are falling behind. One thing I see is that you contradict yourself by saying that you do not copy but you go on to say that there was only one solution. If there is only one solution and you are not the first to get that solution then you in fact are copying.
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.
Feb 23, 2011, 08:23 PM
#14
Evolved Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your mamy's bedroom
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 2 (or 3?) years waiting for the Mazdaspeed3 AP to finally come out I just changed to a Evo IX and had English tune it..... Then the MS3 AP came out to less than flattering results/gains.
If it takes more time to do something in-house through the limited resources of a small group of tuners than a full blown open source then the proof is in where the consumer puts their dollars. Doesnt make you an "evil empire" to want to be fairly compensated for your time and energies! But it may limit your sales further.
IMHO the market has moved alot faster than COBB has been able to produce tuning solutions.
Free Market economics in action.
If it takes more time to do something in-house through the limited resources of a small group of tuners than a full blown open source then the proof is in where the consumer puts their dollars. Doesnt make you an "evil empire" to want to be fairly compensated for your time and energies! But it may limit your sales further.
IMHO the market has moved alot faster than COBB has been able to produce tuning solutions.
Free Market economics in action.
Feb 23, 2011, 08:25 PM
#15
Evolving Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st response was classic, and hilarious.
Now, with respect to tephra, I don't know how you do what you do, but thanks. I've never had the pleasure of diving into using what you've done, but I hope to in the future and I'm glad your around.
This situation rubs me wrong. It's the same as open source development for Android. Open source means free. If Google takes a developers product, idea, or app, that is intended to be free, and they sell it for their own profit strictly out of demand, then that's unethical. It's like if Google were to take Angry Birds and sell it. Just because the demand for a quality game is high doesn't make it acceptable.
It's the same with this. If there is in fact only one solution to an issue, as Sean said, and someone else finds that solution first, it's completely unethical for Cobb to take that information and "sell" it just because it's the only solution. I don't know the whole situation at hand, whether this is simply something Cobb is including in their Accessport package or if they are selling the patch or whatever it is individually. If they are selling it individually to use with the accessport, then that is completely unethical.
...and to add, if you think that "If tephra is using Cobb's product to find these solutions so Cobb should be able to do so" you're wrong. Just because I wrote a computer program in windows, linux, or wherever, doesn't mean that windows has rights to my program.
This all doesn't jive well with me and I'm not choosing sides but I'll be paying close attention.
Now, with respect to tephra, I don't know how you do what you do, but thanks. I've never had the pleasure of diving into using what you've done, but I hope to in the future and I'm glad your around.
This situation rubs me wrong. It's the same as open source development for Android. Open source means free. If Google takes a developers product, idea, or app, that is intended to be free, and they sell it for their own profit strictly out of demand, then that's unethical. It's like if Google were to take Angry Birds and sell it. Just because the demand for a quality game is high doesn't make it acceptable.
It's the same with this. If there is in fact only one solution to an issue, as Sean said, and someone else finds that solution first, it's completely unethical for Cobb to take that information and "sell" it just because it's the only solution. I don't know the whole situation at hand, whether this is simply something Cobb is including in their Accessport package or if they are selling the patch or whatever it is individually. If they are selling it individually to use with the accessport, then that is completely unethical.
...and to add, if you think that "If tephra is using Cobb's product to find these solutions so Cobb should be able to do so" you're wrong. Just because I wrote a computer program in windows, linux, or wherever, doesn't mean that windows has rights to my program.
This all doesn't jive well with me and I'm not choosing sides but I'll be paying close attention.