[CONTRARlAN]

Which is only as secure as the door frame it goes into, which usually means: pretty insecure.

Still, I agree with the premise that it's about assumptions, and if people can be made to realize that their garage door openers are inherently pretty insecure, and feel that that presents a substantial, then there's a market there. But until it becomes a problem that's common enough for media outlets to scare people about it, there probably isn't a large market yet.

(Any marketing plan for an endeavor like that should have a PR budget from day one, since that's exactly how such stories tend to become news segments.)

[c22]

> Which is only as secure as the door frame it goes into, which usually means: pretty insecure.

But the door frame/deadbolt is still more secure than the remote controlled garage door because abusing the former mode of entry is more likely to draw concern from passers by and leaves a permanent record of your passage.

[CONTRARlAN]

I think that's one valid way of looking at it, and many technically-inclined people would be inclined to agree, I'd imagine.

But another way of looking at it, and one I suspect most non-technical people would, is that it just takes one motivated person of roughly-average strength to break a doorframe. It takes someone with fairly uncommon technical sophistication to make one of these devices.

Once someone mass-produces them and sells them in real volume that perception could flip, but right now I'm far more concerned about a flimsy doorframe–which leads to where I live and sleep–than I am about someone rigging up a way to open my garage door–which only gets them into a detached garage where insured stuff is kept. The odds of a break-in being by force (whether against a door frame or a window) are just vastly higher.