Introducing the CastleHUB powered by CastleOS, now on Kickstarter!

[wkearney99]

'm not a big supporter of our dear Chris (surprise!).  If he wants to take on their legal team, I don't think I'll have time to make popcorn before the bout is over.

 
So why bother with being that way about it?  Honestly, the whole arrogance of the apple fanboys is really pathetic.  As if there was some benefit in being shafted paying  for products that aren't all that great, with choices arbitrarily limited by the vendor while they continuously lose their legal fights when they actually get in front of a jury/judge.  Really, what's the point?  Because there's some sort of warm-and-fuzzy feeling that goes along with the delusions?  

 

[ChrisCicc]

Man I think I need to hang a don't feed the trolls sign
 
kearney - I appreciate your comments and you are absolutely right. Pvrfan is seemingly motivated by jealousy and a strong affection for Apple. Not to fear, however, he's also dead wrong about the legal issues he raises. Should we decide to implement HomeKit functionality in that way, it is not illegal. Nor have any of the existing projects that currently use HomeBridge received takedown complaints. HomeKit runs in the user's home, which means legally speaking, the user owns it and can do whatever they'd like with it (among various other legal protections). If they'd like to download a free app that bridges HomeKit and CastleOS, they can do so. They could do that even without our participation if someone wanted to use our API (like that person did with Vera). If HomeKit had been cloud-based, this is a very different legal situation.
 
That being said, I'm not yet sure what we're going to do with HomeKit. We're taking a wait and see approach for now as we finish up Android and Windows Cortana voice interfaces (which have proper APIs). All HomeKit has thus far is promises, let's see what the market has to say...

I'm sure pvrfan will strongly disagree with me, but until he's paying my legal bills, I'm not sure what basis he has

 

[pvrfan]

So why bother with being that way about it?  Honestly, the whole arrogance of the apple fanboys is really pathetic.  As if there was some benefit in being shafted paying  for products that aren't all that great, with choices arbitrarily limited by the vendor while they continuously lose their legal fights when they actually get in front of a jury/judge.  Really, what's the point?  Because there's some sort of warm-and-fuzzy feeling that goes along with the delusions?  

 
Thank you so much for dismissing me as a 'arrogant, pathetic, deluded fanboy'.  Throughout this thread, all I've done ask questions about obvious disconnects between the facts and the 'information' that Chris has posted.  Rather than acknowledge that he told a whopper, he has repeatedly labelled myself and others as trolls.  Strangely enough, I don't feel inclined to let him off the hook after that behaviour.
 
I haven't advocated that anyone buy (or not buy) any products in this thread. I'm not going to try to convince you to buy anything.  I'd appreciate if you'd stop insulting me for my choices.
 
Craig

 

[pvrfan]

Man I think I need to hang a don't feed the trolls sign
 
kearney - I appreciate your comments and you are absolutely right. Pvrfan is seemingly motivated by jealousy and a strong affection for Apple. Not to fear, however, he's also dead wrong about the legal issues he raises. Should we decide to implement HomeKit functionality in that way, it is not illegal. Nor have any of the existing projects that currently use HomeBridge received takedown complaints. HomeKit runs in the user's home, which means legally speaking, the user owns it and can do whatever they'd like with it (among various other legal protections). If they'd like to download a free app that bridges HomeKit and CastleOS, they can do so. They could do that even without our participation if someone wanted to use our API (like that person did with Vera). If HomeKit had been cloud-based, this is a very different legal situation.
 
...

 
This is the depth of your understanding of intellectual property law?  Are you allowed to cross the road by yourself?
 
Craig

 

[az1324]

Just to point out I mentioned all the way back in post #3 that solutions like HomeBridge exist.  It only works because mFi signing is not currently enforced.  All it takes is an iOS update to disable that.  Intellectual property issues for non-commercial open source projects are very different than for commercial projects.

 

[ChrisCicc]

It only works because mFi signing is not currently enforced.  All it takes is an iOS update to disable that....Intellectual property issues for non-commercial open source projects are very different than for commercial projects.

 
Which is exactly one of the reasons why it's legal. If Apple's code accepts HomeBridge shims, that's up to Apple. This understanding beyond pvrfan's willingness to listen, however.

Regardless, as I've said several times, this is not a planned or preferred method of integration with CastleOS. If this happens, it's because someone is using our API. 

I'd also point out that Apple has not DMCA'd the relevant forum on Vera's website... 

 

[Frunple]

I'm pretty sure you do this all by yourself. It's been really apparent since you joined.
Just my opinion though.
 

Thank you so much for dismissing me as a 'arrogant, pathetic, deluded fanboy'. 

 

[wkearney99]

I'd appreciate if you'd stop insulting me for my choices.

 
Oh, so now it's the "play the victim" defense?  How dare anyone comment on my perspective!  How dare anyone call my beliefs into question!  You're just meanies!  
 
'Pathetic' quite aptly applies.

 

[pvrfan]

Oh, so now it's the "play the victim" defense?  How dare anyone comment on my perspective!  How dare anyone call my beliefs into question!  You're just meanies!  
 
'Pathetic' quite aptly applies.

 
Holy cow.  Despite repeated provocation from Chris, I haven't resorted to name-calling, insults or demeaning labels.  So far that is your ENTIRE contribution to this thread.
 
I'm not a victim here; I can take care of myself.  I have my own opinions.  Looking at your posting history, you have a blind hatred for Apple and take every opportunity to express it.  It seems to boil down to how you _feel_ about Apple more than anything else.  You're welcome to that opinion but you can't expect everyone to agree with you.  Or lie down and let you bulldoze over them.
 
BTW, if you go back and review this thread, you'll find that the ONLY point of contention is that Chris is (phrasing it politely) woefully under-informed about a technology that he initially said would be unconditionally supported.  Rather than admit that, he labelled anyone asking for clarification a "troll" and is now blowing smoke about adding support in the future.  You won't find any posts here extolling HomeKit or Apple in general.  That was never an issue in this thread until you arrived spewing hate.
 
So, maybe you could contribute something to a thread before tossing around insults.
 
Craig

 

[Deane Johnson]

pvrfan, unless you're a CastleOS user, what do you care what Chris does or says?

 

[ChrisCicc]

pvrfan, unless you're a CastleOS user, what do you care what Chris does or says?

 
I wasn't, but still

 

[nicholass817]

Jeeze this thread won't die.  Thanks for digging it up Bill.  

 

[wkearney99]

Holy cow.  Despite repeated provocation from Chris, I haven't resorted to name-calling, insults or demeaning labels.  So far that is your ENTIRE contribution to this thread.
 
I'm not a victim here; I can take care of myself.  I have my own opinions.  Looking at your posting history, you have a blind hatred for Apple and take every opportunity to express it.  It seems to boil down to how you _feel_ about Apple more than anything else.  You're welcome to that opinion but you can't expect everyone to agree with you.  Or lie down and let you bulldoze over them.
 
BTW, if you go back and review this thread, you'll find that the ONLY point of contention is that Chris is (phrasing it politely) woefully under-informed about a technology that he initially said would be unconditionally supported.  Rather than admit that, he labelled anyone asking for clarification a "troll" and is now blowing smoke about adding support in the future.  You won't find any posts here extolling HomeKit or Apple in general.  That was never an issue in this thread until you arrived spewing hate.
 
So, maybe you could contribute something to a thread before tossing around insults.

Yes, of course, why not toss in the 'hate' angle too.  Really, enough already.  Are you done?  And now just scraping the bottom of the hole you're digging?  Or are you planning on continuing?
 
As for 'contributions', gee, let's see, to turn your 'bulldoze' around on you, perhaps it's because of YOUR 'contributions' inviting it.  

 

[pvrfan]

Yes, of course, why not toss in the 'hate' angle too.  Really, enough already.  Are you done?  And now just scraping the bottom of the hole you're digging?  Or are you planning on continuing?
 
As for 'contributions', gee, let's see, to turn your 'bulldoze' around on you, perhaps it's because of YOUR 'contributions' inviting it.  

This thread was dead from April 15 to April 25 when you attacked me. [1]  Apparently you thought that Chris hadn't been sufficiently insulting and decided to pile on.  If you pick a fight with me, why are you surprised that I respond?
 
[1] http://cocoontech.com/forums/topic/27899-introducing-the-castlehub-powered-by-castleos-now-on-kickstarter/page-6#entry230183
 
On the topic of contributions, I've said that I don't believe Castle can provide a bridge to HomeKit.  I was reminded that others have looked into the issue and concluded the same.  For example, the following is from a developer of a Mac-based home automation program, Indigo.
 

Software-based bridges are not allowed by Apple. HomeKit Accessories (devices) and Bridges must conform to a strict set of hardware requirements. Requirements which, somewhat ironically, don't currently include the Mac, so it's just not possible for us to be a HomeKit bridge. Perhaps that will change in the future (it is up to Apple). 

http://forums.indigodomo.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13194
 
These folks are registered Mac and iOS developers and were getting lots of requests from their users.  Somehow, I find them more credible than Chris.  Especially since he thinks he can sell products that crack the hardware-assisted encryption in the Homekit Accessory Protocol without any ramifications.
 
Craig

 

[ChrisCicc]

 

Somehow, I find them more credible than Chris.  Especially since he thinks he can sell products that crack the hardware-assisted encryption in the Homekit Accessory Protocol without any ramifications.

 
There is so much wrong here it's almost funny. I reply to you only for SEO and legal clarification reasons.
 
1) I at no point claimed, nor do I intend, for CastleOS to crack any sort of encryption of Apple's. 
 
2) I'm curious why you think, considering Apple hasn't DMCA'd the various github repositories or Vera Bridge code, that they are going to so strongly come down on users implementing this on their own? Also since it's open source code, who will they sue?

3) I wonder why you have such disdain for me that you disregard everything I say as not credible. 

4) I think your avatar could use an update, so here's a gift: 

(yes, I actually just spent three minutes of my time making this just for you!)