Shimano flexing their muscles

[JhnBssll]

Just seen the news that Shimano have pulled Di2 integration on Hammerhead computers, forcing Hammerhead to release a software update next week that will remove all Di2 functionality from their units. As a Hammerhead Karoo and Di2 user this is pretty upsetting news.

Presumably this is because SRAM bought Hammerhead recently but it seems like a pretty petulant move, can't imagine it will gain them much.

I'm disappointed but maybe not surprised... I've just turned software updates off so unless they're able to push the update on to the unit I should keep the features I have now but obviously won't be getting any new ones

 

[fossyant]

Just don't update, and maybe grab a copy of the current firmware for safe keeping.

You don't get this faff with steel cables

 

[Fab Foodie]

Just don't update, and maybe grab a copy of the current firmware for safe keeping.

You don't get this faff with steel cables

My 2004 Ultegra has never needed updating and is smoother than a baby's botty......
Progress eh?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The firmware on my friction shifters works a treat.

 

[the_mikey]

Just seen the news that Shimano have pulled Di2 integration on Hammerhead computers, forcing Hammerhead to release a software update next week that will remove all Di2 functionality from their units. As a Hammerhead Karoo and Di2 user this is pretty upsetting news.

Presumably this is because SRAM bought Hammerhead recently but it seems like a pretty petulant move, can't imagine it will gain them much.

I'm disappointed but maybe not surprised... I've just turned software updates off so unless they're able to push the update on to the unit I should keep the features I have now but obviously won't be getting any new ones

I'm guessing at this point it would mean Shimano sharing too much info with their rivals, which creates the argument for creating a common communications standard for electronic groupsets.

(my own feeling is this is very much a first world problem that probably won't matter to an awful lot of people, but it will matter quite a lot to a few people who really wanted that data)

 

[lazybloke]

What compensation are hammerhead offering you for their breach of contract?

 

[Milkfloat]

I'm guessing at this point it would mean Shimano sharing too much info with their rivals, which creates the argument for creating a common communications standard for electronic groupsets.

(my own feeling is this is very much a first world problem that probably won't matter to an awful lot of people, but it will matter quite a lot to a few people who really wanted that data)

There already is a common standard, Ant+, Shimano (and others) just decided to use a private version. There are enough silly standards in cycling already, so no need for Shimano to pull this stunt. Hammerhead (SRAM) already know the Shimano protocol very well, they are just not licenced to use it now, so this is not about protecting secrets. Shimano should have supports the public Ant+ standard before they pulled this move.

 

[fossyant]

It is Shimano and SRAM - constant standard changes making older stiffdifficult to keep running. Di2 is a prime example as the older stuff isn't compatible with the newer gear, and smash a mech or shifter, you are buggered.

 

[Sallar55]

Is Shimano going to do a Campagnolo, we have had the ergobrain, it was too early to the market. Wires and the little push switches a faff to fit, but it was good in its day. Will we see a Di2+ head unit version soon?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Shimano should have supports the public Ant+

Whilst ant+ is publicly published we should not forget it is proprietary Garmin and can be changed by them at any point. Ant+ also has a number of limitations that make it unsuitable as a radio system for wireless gear systems.

 

[IanSmithCSE]

Good evening,

I have a lot of sympathy with Shimano on this. :-)

For them Di2 is premium product in terms of price and I am presuming in profitability and also in performance.

If SRAM are allowed to own and produce the Hammerhead device it is pretty close to Shimano saying that they approve of the use of the Di2 communications protocols for anyone who wants to use them.

When Hammerhead were independent Shimano could say; yes we knew about them, but they were a niche supplier and we didn't care and didn't want to appear as bullies.

Shimano now need to close down the argument that as SRAM now produce a head unit that is integrated with Di2 and Shimano have not complained Shimano are implicitly saying that Di2 is now an unprotected public standard.

If that argument stood SRAM could freely make Di2 compatible levers or mechs.

I have used Stava in the past and don't like it, I used the iPhone app to record the ride and have lost too many rides for me to regard it highly. I am completely happy to accept that the iPhone performed up to spec as did the Strava app, but at the end of the day I didn't get a record of the ride.

If Shimano Di2 fails to perform because of integration problems with SRAM components then I will blame Di2 as a whole not SRAM or Shimano and I suspect that many others will also do so.

I love Di2 because it just works, but it is so very hard to justify the price increase over cabled gears especially with post COVID prices.

Of course there was always the risk that by going to court in the past Shimano could have hit a court ruling that the instruction of the rider to the gear system to change gear is his property and that he is entitled to use a third party device.

I certainly don't have a document from Shimano where I agreed that my use of Di2 was somehow special and restricted in anyway and I don't know of anyone who has.

Bye

Ian

 

[JhnBssll]

I don't disagree with your points Ian, my frustration lies with Shimano (and many other manufacturers) putting profit over all else. Hammerhead had an agreement with Shimano who provided them with full details of their communication protocol to allow the integration to be properly engineered. They have withdrawn that agreement seemingly due to the new SRAM ownership of Hammerhead alone, spiting their customers in the process. They have not prevented SRAM from possessing any of their knowledge as they already have it. If Hammerhead had reverse engineered the comms protocol and didn't initially have Shimano's permission to use it I would fully agree with you and side with Shimano as that would have been IP theft.

I do suspect Hammerhead (and SRAM) knew this was a likely outcome of the merger and made a strategic decision to go ahead anyway, so don't hold them blameless in the debacle, but the loser is still us the customers whomever is to blame.

 

[C R]

I don't disagree with your points Ian, my frustration lies with Shimano (and many other manufacturers) putting profit over all else. Hammerhead had an agreement with Shimano who provided them with full details of their communication protocol to allow the integration to be properly engineered. They have withdrawn that agreement seemingly due to the new SRAM ownership of Hammerhead alone, spiting their customers in the process. They have not prevented SRAM from possessing any of their knowledge as they already have it. If Hammerhead had reverse engineered the comms protocol and didn't initially have Shimano's permission to use it I would fully agree with you and side with Shimano as that would have been IP theft.

I do suspect Hammerhead (and SRAM) knew this was a likely outcome of the merger and made a strategic decision to go ahead anyway, so don't hold them blameless in the debacle, but the loser is still us the customers whomever is to blame.

Reverse engineering, if done clean, is perfectly legal and Shimano wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue on that basis. The problem for Hammerhead is that now they have seen the spec they will never be able to use a reverse engineered approach because they will never be able to prove that it was done cleanly.

 

[JhnBssll]

Reverse engineering, if done clean, is perfectly legal and Shimano wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue on that basis. The problem for Hammerhead is that now they have seen the spec they will never be able to use a reverse engineered approach because they will never be able to prove that it was done cleanly.

Only true if Shimano haven't patented it, which seems extremely unlikely.

 

[C R]

Only true if Shimano haven't patented it, which seems extremely unlikely.

They can’t patent the communication protocol, only the implementation, so a clean room reverse engineered solution would almost by definition be in the clear.