IntrinsicGroup Posted February 23 Author Share Posted February 23 Jesse Smith's post on Facebook sums up this situation. There are significant legal implications should Snap block a driver (the way the driver works would mean they'd have to push software on every users controller without their consent = not legal and support call headache for dealers). Snap are fully aware that this contract with Chamberlain includes long terms support for the CI market, so we can only speculate there is something else behind the announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntrinsicGroup Posted February 23 Author Share Posted February 23 6 hours ago, Control4Savant said: @IntrinsicGroup I assume will be issuing refunds if thats the case. There are no issues with the driver or our relationship with Chamberlain. If Control4 forcibly block the driver we will issue refunds to those that have purchased it as a good will gesture and seek legal means to recover our losses. This is completely beyond our control, and beyond the control of Control4 dealers alike. This concerns us, and should concern all users, dealers and third party developers. As mentioned above, there are significant legal implications should Snap block a driver (the way the driver works would mean they'd have to push software on every users controller without their consent = not legal and support call headache for dealers). Which other brand/manufactuer will they choose to forcibly block next? It is a very slippery slope, will competing audio brands be next? Other brands that have publicly changed their API or have hardware that is flakey? Perhaps they are only singling out Chamberlain for now, but given Control4 in April 2021 stated "Good luck working with Chamberlain... I hope it works out for you" it seems unlikely Chamberlain will be the last victim. Neo1738 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unsocialtoaster Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 9 hours ago, msgreenf said: I was told this driver is being blocked by c4 Who by? It seems a big step, and not one I have ever known them to take in the 13 years I have been an installer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 I suspect some of it is liability. MyQ, or so I base on the posts earlier, ended up listing Control4 as an integration option: but it isn't CONTROL4 made or approved, let alone certified, the driver. Garage doors ARE dangerous, can indeed kill. So legally, if there is a claim that MyQ integrates with Control4 in any official capacity, it then potentially opens up liability. So if nothing else, they'll want to distance themselves from it. Now I'm no full legal expert, but I've dealt with plenty of corporate/government law offices and it wouldn't surprise me if C4's legal department told them just saying it isn't enough - they may well have said they HAVE to actively prevent a potentially dangerous driver from working. Now to be clear: I'm in no way SUPPORTING any decision to actively prevent a driver from functioning - just saying that (and with no disrespect meant to Intrinsic on this) we are speculating that this is a 'grudge' due to issues figuring this out with Clare - but there may be a lot more going on in the background concerning legal matters, safety concerns perhaps even copyright. I do know Control4 has actively blocked drivers in the past, though rarely, and only to my knowledge because they either caused bad memory leaks destroying functionality of the system, or were potentially even malware. Though those cases were nothing like what is being presented here. Again, I'm NOT supporting the shut-down of this driver -at least not based on what information we know- even if I have no intention of ever using it (but that is due to Chamberlain's attitude and refusing to reward them for it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntrinsicGroup Posted February 23 Author Share Posted February 23 3 minutes ago, Cyknight said: I suspect some of it is liability. MyQ, or so I base on the posts earlier, ended up listing Control4 as an integration option: but it isn't CONTROL4 made or approved, let alone certified, the driver. Garage doors ARE dangerous, can indeed kill. So legally, if there is a claim that MyQ integrates with Control4 in any official capacity, it then potentially opens up liability. So if nothing else, they'll want to distance themselves from it. Now I'm no full legal expert, but I've dealt with plenty of corporate/government law offices and it wouldn't surprise me if C4's legal department told them just saying it isn't enough - they may well have said they HAVE to actively prevent a potentially dangerous driver from working. Now to be clear: I'm in no way SUPPORTING any decision to actively prevent a driver from functioning - just saying that (and with no disrespect meant to Intrinsic on this) we are speculating that this is a 'grudge' due to issues figuring this out with Clare - but there may be a lot more going on in the background concerning legal matters, safety concerns perhaps even copyright. I do know Control4 has actively blocked drivers in the past, though rarely, and only to my knowledge because they either caused bad memory leaks destroying functionality of the system, or were potentially even malware. Though those cases were nothing like what is being presented here. Again, I'm NOT supporting the shut-down of this driver -at least not based on what information we know- even if I have no intention of ever using it (but that is due to Chamberlain's attitude and refusing to reward them for it). We can confirm that there's no legal basis for it, as if there was, that would stop all garage door openers (ratgdo, tailwind etc) from being able to integrate with the system. There's no copyright issues or safety concerns, and there's no memory leaks or malware either - Several Snap employees are even using it in their own houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 1 minute ago, IntrinsicGroup said: We can confirm that there's no legal basis for it, Devils advocate here: but you're only one side of the story and you certainly wouldn't be saying there is a reason. I even doubt this has anything to do with anything YOU did - this feels more like a SnapOne vs MyQ issue and you're caught in the middle. I suspect this is going waaaaay over your guy's head as far as copyright and legality is concerned: this is corporate level BS which is in it's own world altogether (that's not meant derogatory towards you - if anything it is towards enterprise/corporate level lawyers) To be clear I certainly don't expect there to be a driver issue with memory or malware, that was a separate comment on the fact that they have actively blocked drivers in the past. I see nothing wrong in what you guys did: I'm just being more careful in withholding judgment on SnapOne until there's clarity on what is -or will- happen and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntrinsicGroup Posted February 23 Author Share Posted February 23 2 minutes ago, Cyknight said: Devils advocate here: but you're only one side of the story and you certainly wouldn't be saying there is a reason. I even doubt this has anything to do with anything YOU did - this feels more like a SnapOne vs MyQ issue and you're caught in the middle. I suspect this is going waaaaay over your guy's head as far as copyright and legality is concerned: this is corporate level BS which is in it's own world altogether (that's not meant derogatory towards you - if anything it is towards enterprise/corporate level lawyers) To be clear I certainly don't expect there to be a driver issue with memory or malware, that was a separate comment on the fact that they have actively blocked drivers in the past. I see nothing wrong in what you guys did: I'm just being more careful in withholding judgment on SnapOne until there's clarity on what is -or will- happen and why. We appreciate the support. Our company ethos is to be very open - if there's a problem, we don't cover things up. (it's how you deal with the problem that is important!). Intrinsic is part of a larger company and our Group CEO (a former lawyer) is directly involved in this. All integrations go through our legal team before launch, so we're confident on the legalities of this integration. We can't comment on the specific relationship between myQ and Control4. We do believe the basis of the announcement to be fundamentally flawed: - Snap instructed us to get an agreement with myQ before they would let us launch this driver - The agreement covered longterm support - Snap are aware this driver covers longterm support - Chamberlain are committed to supporting the CI market and fully endorse this driver There's no problem with the driver, which is still functional, and has the support of the Control platforms who are also launching it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 16 minutes ago, IntrinsicGroup said: Chamberlain are committed to supporting the CI market HAH, that one I may have to have some doubts on Shoe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoe Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 Their commitment is to make money. In my opinion they are myopic and clearly don't understand the software world. Why would they? They make hardware. zaphod and msgreenf 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 4 hours ago, Cyknight said: I do know Control4 has actively blocked drivers in the past, though rarely, and only to my knowledge because they either caused bad memory leaks destroying functionality of the system, or were potentially even malware. Though those cases were nothing like what is being presented here. Haven't they blocked drivers in the past because the API was unsupported? I seem to remember a C4 Tesla driver that suffered this fate and I do know that the Tesla API is unsupported and unofficial, at least from Tesla's perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 4 minutes ago, zaphod said: Haven't they blocked drivers in the past because the API was unsupported? I seem to remember a C4 Tesla driver that suffered this fate and I do know that the Tesla API is unsupported and unofficial, at least from Tesla's perspective. Never looked for nor cared about a Tesla driver. You may well be right, wouldn't know. Numerous old drivers that were based on unsupported/unofficial (or no longer supported) API were not blocked that I'm aware off, they usually died simply because the API was changed. Dead driver does not equal C4/Snap blocked the driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Control4Savant Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 16 hours ago, IntrinsicGroup said: There are no issues with the driver or our relationship with Chamberlain. If Control4 forcibly block the driver we will issue refunds to those that have purchased it as a good will gesture and seek legal means to recover our losses. This is completely beyond our control, and beyond the control of Control4 dealers alike. This concerns us, and should concern all users, dealers and third party developers. As mentioned above, there are significant legal implications should Snap block a driver (the way the driver works would mean they'd have to push software on every users controller without their consent = not legal and support call headache for dealers). Which other brand/manufactuer will they choose to forcibly block next? It is a very slippery slope, will competing audio brands be next? Other brands that have publicly changed their API or have hardware that is flakey? Perhaps they are only singling out Chamberlain for now, but given Control4 in April 2021 stated "Good luck working with Chamberlain... I hope it works out for you" it seems unlikely Chamberlain will be the last victim. I dont care about your relationship with Chamberlin any more or less than Snap. If you are selling a driver it should be supported/backed/blessed or whatever you like by both parties. This is a Control4 system and everything that’s part of it is ultimately their liability. If this PAID driver didn’t have the backing of Control4 in all respects I put the responsibility on you the dev. Theres a reason why myself, most of the dealers I know and also apparently Jesse Smith do not support these type of drivers. Theres no slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntrinsicGroup Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 Control4 did give their blessing for this driver, they advised they weren't pursuing a relationship with Chamberlain, gave us email addresses for their contacts at Chamberlain and wished us luck with the integration. Our understanding is Jesse Smith doesn't use any cloud based drivers, he is not singling out this one specifically, but either way nobody has to install any of our drivers. They are there to provide an option and give dealer's/end-users choice. This is an official integration. If Control4 can provide us with the reason they object to it we'd be happy to attempt to alleviate their concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAV Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, IntrinsicGroup said: If Control4 can provide us with the reason they object to it we'd be happy to attempt to alleviate their concerns. My guess, because of Chamberlain's history of flakiness. At the end of the day, IF the keys did get revoked, SnapOne will be who everyone yells at. Not because Intrinsic was unwilling to stand up or did anything wrong or whatever, but because you sue the guy who can pay the settlement, you scream at the manager/owner, the one who has the most reputation to loose and from which you can extract your pound of flesh. This is also a breaking new ground driver. I can't think of another driver where the product company requires a tribute payment. (is there another?) And because of the tribute, it's one of the most expensive. And it's highly desirable. That makes it dangerous. Ultimately, perhaps a policy will be made where no tribute is permitted for a driver. I hypothesis that Clare's agreement with Chamberlain has been broken before terms end. Maybe for extortion. "See, others will pay, so now you must too." Highly co-incidental to the timing at least. Maybe even an off the record threat. What if there was an allusion to "If you don't pay for Clare, we'll hang you later with Control4". If you were they, you'd protect yourself and clients and nip it in the bud quick, before it could bite you later. All guesses of course, just from the postings I've seen. Sucks you went about it the right way, and are left holding an empty purse. Especially since you asked first, that does appear to be sometime ago, and before Clare's integration got discontinued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntrinsicGroup Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 We need to be a little careful what we say here. None of us were in the room when the Clare Controls discussion was undertaken. From our experience though if two publicly traded companies have a contract for services between them and one company suddenly stops providing a service there’s only really two options: 1) They are in breach of the contract, which normally leads to damages being paid; or 2) The contract period had already ended, so the services were shut off because there was no obligation to provide them. One point we can comment on (as it's publicly visible) is that on my last count there were over 40 drivers for Control4 on Driver Central that are $150 or more. Some are more than double our driver price and some do include a license fee/tribute for the manufacturer's API, they just don't necessarily declare that. It's becoming more and more common for cloud services to require some kind of financial compensation (indeed Control4 are introducing that policy themselves) so I believe we will see this happening more and more with drivers in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoe Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 There is also a larger market of consumers that are now being educated that local control is valuable. We may see a cross over and see local control options increasing in revenue. People aren't stupid. If a company needlessly designs a product to be cloud dependent simply to generate a revenue stream (no matter the cost) people recognize it. Of course there is a good chunk of the population that doesn't care one way or another. As the home control market expands we will see how people tolerate the death by a thousand cuts of recurring fees. Rob21 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Didn't Chamberlain also make it hard to use a simple relay on their openers. Older openers can be controlled with a relay, but didn't they change that on newer openers? What could be the motivation for that, other than trying to collect rents from third parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 26 minutes ago, zaphod said: Didn't Chamberlain also make it hard to use a simple relay on their openers. Older openers can be controlled with a relay, but didn't they change that on newer openers? What could be the motivation for that, other than trying to collect rents from third parties. It never was the right way of doing it on MyQ openers as it's causing a reset - those connections are NOT standard relay contacts, they're data connections. I think it stopped working fairly early on because it was damaging the units and/or properly wired buttons as many were 'doing it anyway' and using cheap buttons (this isn't even really relating to C4 or other control systems I think) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChzBurger Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 42 minutes ago, Shoe said: As the home control market expands we will see how people tolerate the death by a thousand cuts of recurring fees. Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered. I'm all for paying for value. But all the subscriptions take a toll. If C4 is going to make the annual fee higher and mandatory hopefully they will invest some $ in a couple developers for non-AV integrations. Relying on 3rd party developers is a double-edged sword. (This is not a criticism of those developers.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Control4Savant Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 28 minutes ago, zaphod said: Didn't Chamberlain also make it hard to use a simple relay on their openers. Older openers can be controlled with a relay, but didn't they change that on newer openers? What could be the motivation for that, other than trying to collect rents from third parties. A shorted keypad wire could open a garage door. Now they cant. It’s pretty simple and not at all about paid drivers that hardly ever exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Control4Savant Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 5 minutes ago, Cyknight said: It never was the right way of doing it on MyQ openers as it's causing a reset - those connections are NOT standard relay contacts, they're data connections. I think it stopped working fairly early on because it was damaging the units and/or properly wired buttons as many were 'doing it anyway' and using cheap buttons (this isn't even really relating to C4 or other control systems I think) No. Old openers supported being hard wired just fine..but soldering to a keypad/remote has been the “standard” for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, Control4Savant said: No. Old openers supported being hard wired just fine..but soldering to a keypad/remote has been the “standard” for a long time. I have a Chamberlain opener from 2011 and it can be opened by a dumb push button switch or by shorting the wires with a relay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, Cyknight said: It never was the right way of doing it on MyQ openers as it's causing a reset - those connections are NOT standard relay contacts, they're data connections. I think it stopped working fairly early on because it was damaging the units and/or properly wired buttons as many were 'doing it anyway' and using cheap buttons (this isn't even really relating to C4 or other control systems I think) But those connectors were standard relay contacts back in the day. My garage has a hard wired switch on my 2011 Chamberlain opener that just closes the connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAV Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, zaphod said: Didn't Chamberlain also make it hard to use a simple relay on their openers. Older openers can be controlled with a relay, but didn't they change that on newer openers? What could be the motivation for that, other than trying to collect rents from third parties. Correct, they switched to serial type commands. One side of the conspiracy says so they can charge $16 for a proprietary doorbell button (and $40 for a 'wall station') The other side says so they can do lights and door and more on the same existing 2 wires from previous installations, and it's secure. The MyQ service is where the rent comes into play. RATGDO was created because he was ticked off that his new openers couldn't be integrated with just a contact closure like his old ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 5 minutes ago, RAV said: RATGDO was created because he was ticked off that his new openers couldn't be integrated with just a contact closure like his old ones. It seemed to me that RATGDO really took off when Chamberlain integration was removed or disabled from Home Assistant late last year. See https://community.home-assistant.io/t/the-current-state-of-myq-from-the-codeowner/630623 Or https://www.home-assistant.io/blog/2023/11/06/removal-of-myq-integration/ neil12011 and RyanE 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.