Updating 10.2 to 11.2

[hefaus]

update

This is how I see it. If YOU WANNA PLAY You gotta pay. Simple. Thats the way it works.Keep Smiling.

[kvr901]

I don't mind paying for complete and properly tested software. This software is basically equivalent to beta test software with the buyers having to pay a lot to be guinea pigs.

[hefaus]

update

Read above

[Crusty]

In a recent trade magazine they said that in a JD-Power survey of over 9,000 respondents, they all had vehicles that were between 4 and 12 years old.
There are holes in the SO software which SHOULD have been correct when issued years ago, and even though SO has been advised that there are problems, they don't seem to think that it's expedient to go back and make the necessary corrections so the scanners would function correctly, and completely, AND AS ADVERTISED-!
Things that were incorrect with the software for a 6 year old vehicle 5 years ago, are still incorrect and now that vehicle is 11 years old, and the software is still incorrect. There are many others, this is just one example.
These vehicles are in a prime age category for service, maintenance & repair as evidenced by the JD-Power survey. Professional technicians/mechanics see lots of these vehicles.

While the software developed by SO in the past few years has improved in that it is more complete, the software previously written leaves a lot to be desired and should be corrected to provide what should have been there in the first place.

Hefaus, it seems to me that you also had an issue with a vehicle where the SO software was incomplete for a vehicle that was a few years old. I agreed with you then that SO should make good, just as I agree now that SO should make good for the current poster. Just as I am of the opinion that faults in the software for ANY vehicle that is within the window of what SO claims their software supports, and particularly OBD-II vehicles from 1996 to current, should be corrected.

As for PAYING for the software, it's a little hard to swallow being forced into purchasing new application software in order to get corrections that have been done, (and not enough has been done AFAIC), which shouldn't have needed to be corrected if people were doing their jobs properly in the first place.

It isn't an unreasonable expectation, for someone who owns a 4 year old Ford, and a 6 year old Dodge and an 8 year old GM in their family, to purchase a tool today and have the software function properly.

Who is responsible for the software content? SnapOn in the SnapOn tools, regardless of when the software was written.

Sure, there is lots there. We also pay (have paid) a lot for the "professional" grade tools. It's not unreasonable to expect the software to be complete and accurate regardless of vehicle model year. We aren't purchasing "Game-Boys" and "Code-Readers".
As I said above, SO have improved what they release for current vehicles. That doesn't change their responsibility for previously written errors, omissions and inaccuracies.

[sbreland73]

Snap-on does not BUY that information. They reverse engineer it. If they were buying it you would have 100% coverage on all modules on all cars.

YOU are wrong. Have your facts before you make statements like that. Economics dictates that what you say is backwards. They pay for rights to software = high cost to end user. Reverse engineer means little investment, which in turn means the return does not have to be that high = lower cost to end user. A good example is Autel.

[rickc00]

YOU are wrong. Have your facts before you make statements like that. Economics dictates that what you say is backwards. They pay for rights to software = high cost to end user. Reverse engineer means little investment, which in turn means the return does not have to be that high = lower cost to end user. A good example is Autel.

How do you explain that coverage added to older cars as well with time? Is that because GM sells Engine PIDs first, then few years later they say "well, we gonna let you program ABSs now". Or because Snap-on does not have enough money and they wait for the info to become cheaper? Or Snap-on does not add all functionality on purpose so they can sell updates?
Hardware interface is known for every make and model. What is not known is what bytes to send, how many to receive and what to make of what you received. This is when reverse engineering comes into play. And it is perfectly legal.
If car companies would sell the info on how to talk to modules - full functionality would be implemented very easily and very fast.


>They pay for rights to software = high cost to end user
the price of the item is not some magic formula of 'cost + profit %'. The price of the item is whatever company's economist think will maximise the profit (maximum price to maximum people).

>Reverse engineer means little investment
Little compare to building from scratch. Normally it is very time consuming and expensive process. Most of the time it is easier to pay.


FYI a copy&paste of the part of the SO guideline regarding reverse engineering:
"Reverse engineering can be an acceptable business practice. Understanding how, and what our competitors have done is important business information. Learning, in a permitted way, from what others have done is both lawful and ethical..."

[rickc00]

Since I am no longer a professional mechanic I am looking for a single small feature. If I was still in the business I would be pissed if I had to purchase "updates" for a whole bunch of domestic and Japansese cars if I only worked on Fords.

This feature is built in the software but is not used.
Same with trials. When the big change to Atlas software (10.4?) was happening I asked for trial my dealer, SO directly and on the forum. The answer was - it is not technically possible. It turned out to be very possible and the feature exists in Atlas software since the beginning.

[Jay G.]

How do you explain that coverage added to older cars as well with time? Is that because GM sells Engine PIDs first, then few years later they say "well, we gonna let you program ABSs now". Or because Snap-on does not have enough money and they wait for the info to become cheaper? Or Snap-on does not add all functionality on purpose so they can sell updates?
Hardware interface is known for every make and model. What is not known is what bytes to send, how many to receive and what to make of what you received. This is when reverse engineering comes into play. And it is perfectly legal.
If car companies would sell the info on how to talk to modules - full functionality would be implemented very easily and very fast.


>They pay for rights to software = high cost to end user
the price of the item is not some magic formula of 'cost + profit %'. The price of the item is whatever company's economist think will maximise the profit (maximum price to maximum people).

>Reverse engineer means little investment
Little compare to building from scratch. Normally it is very time consuming and expensive process. Most of the time it is easier to pay.


FYI a copy&paste of the part of the SO guideline regarding reverse engineering:
"Reverse engineering can be an acceptable business practice. Understanding how, and what our competitors have done is important business information. Learning, in a permitted way, from what others have done is both lawful and ethical..."

Rick is correct, there is a higher cost to reverse engineering.

[sbreland73]

Rick is correct, there is a higher cost to reverse engineering.

OK, so I can't speak for everywhere or everyone, however, go to mainland China and snoop around. There are huge buildings full of people taking all kinds of things apart, learning their architecture, and then building similar devices. Much of this is done to circumvent licensing and other trademark infringement policies, both of which cost big. I know this to be true because I have been there and seen it with my own eyes. China does not always follow international law.

So is Rick correct that Snapon reverse engineers the software?

OK, I'm done here, this is way besides the point of the OP, and I have argued my weekly limit.

[Jay G.]

OK, so I can't speak for everywhere or everyone, however, go to mainland China and snoop around. There are huge buildings full of people taking all kinds of things apart, learning their architecture, and then building similar devices. Much of this is done to circumvent licensing and other trademark infringement policies, both of which cost big. I know this to be true because I have been there and seen it with my own eyes. China does not always follow international law.

"So is Rick correct that Snapon reverse engineers the software?"

OK, I'm done here, this is way besides the point of the OP, and I have argued my weekly limit.

Yes Rick is correct Snap-on does reverse engineer the software.

[kvr901]

It sure is interesting how quickly my thread has evaporated into a whole different topic that has the forum administrator whose profile indicates he is a "Product Development Manager Snap-on Diagnostics" commenting on reverse engineering, but not offering me any assistance in this matter. I certainly hope this, or another, "Product Development Manager" will offer me some help either here or privately.

As I wrote previously I was a cheerleader for Snap-On tools for over 30 years, but this experience thus far has me seriously disappointed with Snap-On tools.

[sbreland73]

Yes Rick is correct Snap-on does reverse engineer the software.

OK Rick, as I stand corrected, I apologize to you. I was under the impression Snapon used the method of buying the rights to the manufactures software. Then I guess I too would like to know why all the holes and missing and incomplete software? Autel seems to have figured it out better. Maybe Snappy should hire some Chinese Engineers.

[Snap-on_ULTRA]

Autel seems to have figured it out better. Maybe Snappy should hire some Chinese Engineers.

Autel is full of holes too

It sure is interesting how quickly my thread has evaporated into a whole different topic that has the forum administrator whose profile indicates he is a "Product Development Manager Snap-on Diagnostics" commenting on reverse engineering, but not offering me any assistance in this matter. I certainly hope this, or another, "Product Development Manager" will offer me some help either here or privately.

I answered your question. Snap on does not care, their sales are up, why would they spend more money on filling in holes if they still can sell their scanners without problems? Now if snap on was losing money on their diagnostic scanners, then trust me, they would make sure they correct the problem.

[rickc00]

kvr901, sorry for hijacking your thread. I think what we talk about here shows why Snap-on charges even for adding new features to the older cars. They also pretty open and specific about what is supported on any of the make and model

OK Rick, as I stand corrected, I apologize to you. I was under the impression Snapon used the method of buying the rights to the manufactures software. Then I guess I too would like to know why all the holes and missing and incomplete software? Autel seems to have figured it out better. Maybe Snappy should hire some Chinese Engineers.

Short: Apology accepted.

Long: To be completely specific Snap-on most likely does not reverse engineer software per se but the communication protocol. The ‘application layer’ of the protocol to be specific. Reversing (disassembly, debug…) actual software application can be illegal in some States and/or countries. Reverse engineering protocol and then re-implementing it in your own application is almost never illegal.
The reasons Chinese and Snap-on do reverse engineering are different. Snap-on would be glad to buy/license the information but they can’t. Some info is probably purchased. But most of it, especially related to programming and re-learns are kept secrets buy manufacturers.
The reason I know this is because back in the day when OBD II readers (just readers) were beginning to show up and were prices at over $300-$500. I had a lot of free time but not a lot of money. I borrowed Snap-on’s scanner. Connected it to my car and logic analyzer. I went through all the modes carefully recording what was sent and what was received over the OBD II. Since link protocol for my car was known (there are 5 different in OBDII) I then assembled a small board that was able to translate serial signal from my computer into OBDII. This way I got myself $30 cheap scanner. If I knew all the PIDs (parameter IDs) I could read/program any car that used that specific protocol.
That is what, I assume, Snap-on does. They of course have developed better techniques and perhaps automated the process more. But it is by no means trivial process.

[kvr901]

rickc00, I don't mind the hijaack; it is interesting.