I think you are a lot closer to on track here. The original statement sound like a whole article that said "If they won't give you all the code, don't do business with them," which is completely different. As anyone that has dealt with end users knows, most read just enough about something to be dangerous and ultimately read/hear what they want to hear about something.

Essentially I'm picturing two scenarios. The first is with the type of integrator that would hold the client hostage. Customer says "I want my code or I'm not doing business with you, not giving you final payment, etc." The integrator gives them the compiled files, the end user doesn't know the difference since they can't open it and wouldn't know what they were looking at even if they did. The customer is happy and thinks they took your advice until they actually need it.

The second customer insists that they have to have all the software used and now the integrator is in the position of having to choose whether to lose the job or potentially lose their dealership.

The reality is that even with good intentions, it would be impossible to educate consumers what to ask for in the case of every control system. The average consumer barely understands what we do, nevermind how we do it. Suggesting that the bring up the idea of control code ownership with the integrator as one aspect of evaluating an integrator is one thing. Suggesting that owning the uncompiled code and being free to do whatever you want with it is something completely different.

I'm all for educating consumers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the target market of EH isn't really the $50K worth of Crestron programming set, so this is kind of a moot point anyway, but I'd like to suggest a compromise here. What about bringing up this concept and educating customers about both sides of the issue in an article about "How to evaluate a qualified integrator" or "Partnering with a qualified integrator" or something to that effect, i.e. it's one piece of a much bigger puzzle that is really the issue here.

I often make the statement to customers that a custom system is only as good as the people that designed, installed, and programmed it. Two systems with exactly the same components can be completely different. One can work very well and the other not. One can be very serviceable and the other not. There are a whole bunch of factors to this. Control code and ownership thereof is a big one, but only one.

What about a system with no as-built drawings? No labelling, etc. They can be just a difficult to service and in a lot of take-overs the new integrator has to start there before they can even touch control code. What if the control programming was just poorly done to start with? Does the client now thing that it's only going to be an hour or two to fix since they "have the uncompiled code" when it needs to be started from scratch to work right regardless?

A lot of this is all in how you spin in, and please forgive me for generalizing and reading tone into your posts, but you are coming off as bitter. The last thing we need to be doing right now is to be scaring customers away that might otherwise be bringing revue into this industry. Let's try to focus on the good work that the industry does and the good companies in it as a model for what customers should be looking for rather than focusing on the negatives. I think that will give you the opportunity to educate consumers as is the goal wearing your EH hat while also showcasing the good parts of the industry as is the goal of your CE Pro hat. With that context I think a lot more of us would be behind this article.