I Apologize. I Made a Big Mistake.11572
Pages:
1
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I Apologize. I Made a Big Mistake. Hi All, While I posted my apology to this WGAN Forum discussion - Matterport Capture Services: Dan Smigrod Recommendations | Part 1 (above) ... Quote: Originally Posted by @DanSmigrod...I am starting this new WGAN Forum discussion to call attention my apology about my big mistake ... I apologize. I made a big mistake because I failed to shout-from-the-rooftops how onerous the likely Matterport non-complete agreement is to existing Matterport Service Providers. Read this WGAN Forum Forum post - slowly and carefully - from: Matterport Capture Services: Dan Smigrod Recommendations | Part 1: Quote: Originally Posted by @immersivespaces From the WGAN Forum discussion: Transcript: Matterport Capture Services Webinar | Thursday, 16 April 2020 ... Quote: Originally Posted by @pixelrayQuote: Originally Posted by @pixelray While I have not seen the Matterport Non-Compete language of the Matterport Capture Services program, @immersivespaces has given us a taste (above) of why you should (likely) not sign-up. From the WGAN Forum discussion - Question of the Day>Thoughts about the Matterport Capture Services Webinar?: Quote: Originally Posted by @MeshImages Quote: Originally Posted by @HomePlanNZ I urgent you to re-read the following from Part 1 of my WGAN Forum post on Friday (17 April 2020): Quote: Originally Posted by @DanSmigrod Your thoughts? Dan |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN FanClub Member Buffalo, New York |
GETMYVR private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Right now we all need is an angel from heaven to drop a brand new camera and brand new VR service that will crush everything else in existence so we can finally move on and do our jobs and do what we love to do. Make people happy. | ||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN FanCLUB Member Coeur d'Alene, Idaho |
lilnitsch private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Yeah, I didn't like the verbiage at all when I was sent the initial contract to review and sign. They actually seemed a little put off that I read & asked questions and didn't blindly sign this to get started right away. They actually have a client in my service area already but, since I have access to the MLS I was able to deduct how much Actual business this client would actually produce and I was looking at a grand total of $5,700 if I got 100% I politely bowed out and said thanks but, no thanks |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
Changesin3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Dan: No apology needed. The Matterport Service Partners have been seeing this go south for sometime, they know Matterport will do all they can to avoid answering basic questions. Wait for this Corona Vacation to end, and CCPA to kick in. My opinion REALTORS will run from Matterport if the hold this data. Anyone considering buying on of of their cameras or continuing to use this system should do what Mr. Buckley suggested. right here in this forum. Share all the contracts with an Attorney. After all that was the official advise from a Matterport employee. Their public relations department has a real job in front of them. Best of luck to you Dan. |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN BasicMember Denver |
pixelray private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Can you imagine Matterport trying to police if we continue to scan for OUR customers and then claim it's a breach of a non compete? Then, what would they do? Sue me??? I doubt it. If they start suing the very people they make money on, what would happen in that scenario??? Exactly....none of us would continue supporting them. I think they just tried to put as much as possible in that agreement to cover all their bases. I just highly doubt it will be enforced. That's my opinion for what it's worth | ||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
|
bryanhscott private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Any entity that goes to the extent Matterport has to protect their intellectual property, I gotta believe, will not turn their head to a direct infraction on their non-compete agreement. In fact, I would argue that for the first few, unfortunate providers that attempt this, they will make an example out of you to try and circumvent future infractions. And, while they have you tied up in court, my guess is that you will need a different solution to serve your customers, because they will also likely shut down your MP account till the issue is resolved. Challenge them with extreme caution. |
||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
immersivespaces private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @GETMYVR There was an angel called GeoCV, but they where killed off by Matterport before they even got off the ground. It was the most comparable service by far. | ||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
immersivespaces private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I've had a couple of conversations with some of my local brokers and agent friends about this and they were shocked by the whole thing. I would suggest talking to the brokers and agents in your area. Most of the ones I have talked to are ferociously "buy local" types and don't like the idea of big companies trying to take out their local guys. They already have a love/hate relationship with Zillow... it won't take much to sour them on Matterport, especially given the past track record with the TOS snafu and other privacy concerns that Matterport has yet to address. At the end of the day, Matterport appears to be setting themselves up to look like villains in this story... something many MSPs have felt for a while. |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
Houston |
briangreul private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I guess I read this differently, coming from IT where IP agreements are the norm. What it says to me is that if they introduce me to Bill Buyer at Big Co I can't sell to him or Big Co. for 24 months after I leave the program. The net of it is that MSP's lack the scale to provide enterprise services. That's not to say a few don't have employees, but if WalMart called you up and asked you to scan all of their stores in the next 14 days, nobody here could do that. You need a large network. You need redundancy and you need consistancy. Nobody here has global scale. My impression is that most MSP's are small companies with less than 5 employees. Even someone like the IFTI guy Dan interviewed a few weeks ago would have trouble handling a big enterprise operator. Enterprise clients want one throat to choke. Matterport sees that as an opportunity and has stepped up to be the "DroneBase" of this space. That's fine with me. It chokes off the opportunity for a platform to insert itself into the mix. Those enterprise clients are going to have different data and hosting ownership needs than anything MP has seen before. It will lead to an evolution that produces benefits for us as smaller MSP's. There are tools out there that do what MP does and don't have the hosting. Leica makes one for about $18K. Occipital has one for $30K or so. There is a scanning device from Occipital as well, but it's not really aimed at buildings per se. Same basic technology - photogrammetry with an infrared dot overlay for grid projection. MP just has a better integrated package and backend. I do see the potential for some price erosion. I'm willing to trade that if they can give me easy volume and no collections or payment headaches. I see this as a wholesale activity. At the end of the day it's about asset utilization. If the asset (matterport camera) is collecting Higgs Bosons in it's case it's not making me any money. It makes money when it's spinning around at the top of a tripod collecting data. |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN BasicMember Reading, United Kingdom |
mcuddy private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I read this the same way as Brian (also coming from IT and working extensively in the introduction of new products and services. What you see are standar non solicitation clauses that are pretty much in any IT services employee contract, they are there to protect the corporate client base. Matterport will not have agreements with individual agents, and those individual agents are not tied in their own contract to consume services of the big boys then they can get them wherever. If Dave from the agency is already on your linkedin, it's fairly clear to any court that an individual relationship existed before the MP contract and the "burden of proof" would be fairly straightforward. This as Brian says is all about large scale enterprise clients...and it's an absolutely predictable move. I actually don't think the rates are too bad for going, spinning a camera and transferring a model. And Matterport explicitly stated that they will not offer still photography, drone work etc. so there's plenty of opportunity for upsell. |
||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Fan Club Member Buffalo, New York |
GETMYVR private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I use a service called LegalShield which used to be called prepaid legal and for about 15 bucks a month I have access to a lawyer on an unlimited number of subject matters which include business and contract reviews etc. I just want to make sure everybody knows that for not a lot not a lot of money you also have a lawyer in your back pocket. | ||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
|
Houston |
briangreul private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I'm not so sure you can upsell / crossell under this agreement. I'd get that in writing from MP that they don't feel threatened by it. I'm not going to spend anytime losing sleep over this. If I get a shot at it I'll add it to the mix. There is lots of up-side to this. They are going to be confronted with 1MM+ s/f spaces that these enterprise folks run. I've done drone roof scans of 15 acre buildings. I'm pretty sure MP would choke on that. These same clients will want that sort of scan on the inside. It's going to push MP to think hard about how the software works. |
||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Changesin3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| This is a QUESTION FOR DAN: (of course as we all try and figure this out, I expect others may have opinions and would love to hear them.) So let me get this right Dan, I am wondering if this is correct? You have been providing a big brokerage with services and Matterport who has seen your hosting account has gone out to that same brokerage and said they will now provide them the services at a fixed rate and something less than you were charging. So there could be an allegation - assumption that they got the client information and volume of scans from your or all of the hosting accounts they maintain, establishing a more profitable business model for change in this system? Is that part of what you are saying? Is this the statement you are trying to make. It would be hard if not impossible for you to preserve the account and sell them hosting as Matterport will now do that, making it almost impossible for you to compete with Matterport for the scans business you have already built. You can only take the scans to MATTERPORT to host as part of the closed system. Also by this they will gain the COPYRIGHT you previously held to the content? Is that an issue for you? Are you trying to lead us to believe that because there is no WHITE LABEL and we can only sell our scans as Matterports there is no incentive you can give, that would allow you to compete with the pricing model that they have set up? Are they in so many words making you like a franchise holder, or an employee? Are you saying they can do things we can not do, that create an unfair playing field as they control camera and hosting. Are you saying it is unfair they make this change now MSP have established client bases, and you would not have got involved with them if you knew they were going to offer scanning services? What happened to the MSP PROGRAM is that totally dead along with all the leads they were supposed to give us? Do you have the new MSP logo? Is it fair they kill the free leads after advertising they were going to give them to us, after we built a business that promoted their scans. Are you saying that after you built a referral system that worked they just copied it, changing the playing field for everyone. What happened to Buckley and Bell, do you know if they planned this out? Would love to hear your opinions on this. Do you figure the CEO will do another Town Hall and get this all straight so at least the MSPs can come up with a plan to be profitable or just cancel their accounts. Or take other actions. As a question to the entire board does it seem odd there would be a "lay off" as this Virus thing created more demand for scans. Any ideas on what else could have created a massive lay off? |
||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
zebrajack private msg quote post Address this user | |
| who can tell me what specific IP that GeoCV violate? With the ipad pro 2020 release, I do think scanning firstly and panoramas shooting afterwards could be alternative. but does the combination showcase(dollhouse+panoramas)violate the IP? | ||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
realeshots private msg quote post Address this user | |
| This is obviously a document created out of fear and greed. Is it wise on their part? Yes. Does it exude a sense of fear of competition? Absolutely. They see the writing that technology is moving forward and getting cheaper. iPhones and iPads now have the same technology they have featured and boasted for years. If Apple comes out with their own app or tool to mimic their features, who do you think would win? Even if they just throw money to press MP, it will cripple them. | ||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
zebrajack private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @realeshots but even though ipad pro visual slam technology could help to scan a house, it looks like the rendering combination of dollhouse with panoramas is applied as its IP. If not, I personally want to give it a try to come up with an alternative solution. | ||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
 WGANFan Club Member Perth AUS |
schaferu private msg quote post Address this user | |
| hey team, seeing the varying angles of this conversation, it appears to me that MP is NOT really going after the massively large operators in the field to service bulk accounts. This is evident in the fact that they are openly running Google Adwords in Australian cities, see attached screenshot. In fact, the ad invites more operators to come on, maybe because the existing ones are complaining too much? (-: Happy churning. This was found searching for: 3D Virtual Tour [City Name].  Just sharing... |
||
| Post 17 • IP flag post | ||
|
Houston |
briangreul private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Schaferu The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I promise you that the MSP, MSS, and Marketing are siloed and not talking much. The marketing manager is trying to drive camera sales, a vital part of the business while the person responsible for MSP tries to drive that and there is probably a small team behind MSS (Matterport Scanning Service). It's just a guess based on years spent in corporate craziness. Cutting 90 people is probably a way of getting a reset of sorts done to the company culture. It will definitely cut some muscle but all the fat will be gone. Everyone else will be working harder for fear they are next. It will allow the management team to bring in folks that are tuned in with the new direction/vision that the company is implementing. Hopefully they don't try to recreate eBay which has become a much less effective platform for selling. |
||
| Post 18 • IP flag post | ||
|
fotoguy private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It has always been my understanding in all my years in business that non-competes are really hard to enforce, if not impossible and in most cases, are thrown out. I'm not sure about MP non-compete but as long as we are offering the customer a different service with a different camera, it sure seems like it would be hard for them to enforce. It's always the legal threat the is held over your head that scares most people not to proceed. If they did it to enough people, there might be a case for class-action. | ||
| Post 19 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by @zebrajack @zebrajack This WGAN Forum discussion may be helpful regarding what IP GeoCV allegedly violates: ✓ Lawsuit: Matterport, Inc. versus GeoCV, Inc. - All Legal Documents Dan |
||
| Post 20 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
realeshots private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by fotoguy They are hard for the party with the least financial resources. MP has no problem spending money to defend their business and making an example of an individual service provider. |
||
| Post 21 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by realeshots Example ✓ Lawsuit: Matterport, Inc. versus GeoCV, Inc. - All Legal Documents Dan |
||
| Post 22 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
realeshots private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DanSmigrod Exactly. |
||
| Post 23 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi All, Related WGAN Forum discussion: ✓ Matterport Capture Services: Dan Smigrod Recommendations | Part 1 Best, Dan |
||
| Post 24 • IP flag post | ||
|
johnwheatley private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I read this the same as Brian and Mcuddy. Non-competes are interpreted to what is reasonable. If MP introduces you to a client and you are servicing that client as an agent for MP, you are basically a business douche-bag if you try to steal that client, and MP is right to, and should go after you. If you find a potential client and go after them before MP introduces you, it's fair game. If you have a prior relationship with a client before MP tries to take it from you, it is fair and right for you to defend your relationship, regardless if the non-compete document can be interpreted to assert the contrary. If you can show MP that you were pursuing a client or had a client relationship before the introduction from MP, MP will not pursue the matter in court. If they do push it, and you can show the court that you approached the client first, or even that the client information is public knowledge in your market and a normal part of your core business in your market, a client that you would normally approach in your market, then the court will throw the case out and MP will be made to pay your defense costs (hence MP will not waste their time and money). I also agree with Fotoguy that non-competes are basically unenforceable, especially unreasonable clauses in them, at least in California. No way will you have to wait two years after contract termination to continue your business, not in California anyway. (You might wait a reasonable amount of time after termination to pursue clients that you wouldn't have otherwise attained without MP introduction, as a matter of ethics and good taste, and since you agreed to two years, you might think two years is reasonable, but what is reasonable might depend on how MP treated you under the agreement, or it might depend on what your need for survival is, but in any case, California, at least, won't enforce a 2-year waiting period, and MP won't likely try to enforce it, either, unless you nab a major client in a blatant way, and they have a strong case.) If you just act like an ethical business person in your relationship with MP as your client and business partner and with MP's clients (i.e. don't take advantage of the information MP gives you by using it to compete against them), I believe you will be safe. !Opinion Warning!: I am not a lawyer, and you should not take this as legal advise. I may be full of crap. |
||
| Post 25 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @johnwheatley Thanks for your insight. Hi All, Other thoughts? Dan |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
|
Joephoto114 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by immersivespaces Yeah, I thought they had a great product and I reached out to them to try to join but never received a response. Was wondering what happened to them. Did they not foresee Matterport trying to squash them?Matterport needs new competion! |
||
| Post 27 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Joephoto114 GeoCV Kit owners continue to publish to GeoCV. GeoCV Kit owners keep reaching out to me to see if there are any used GeoCV Kits. (They want to buy more! There are none today for sale, that I am aware of.) The Matterport lawsuit continues ... ✓ Lawsuit: Matterport, Inc. versus GeoCV, Inc. - All Legal Documents Dan |
||
| Post 28 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?