GTN 750 install 97' Encore

[Marauder]

That sounds like a veiled, illegal commercial practice.

The scrambling doesn't provide any direct benefit to the Garmin does it?

Scrambling the signal that other boxes use, is a poor customer service attitude.

That could expose Garmin as a pretty poor competitor. If they haven't done that already.

That's all I have for a non-legal legal opinion.

It's good to have lawyers that fly Mooneys...as usual, I'm just an engineer. No legal background. YMMV.

Best regards,

-a-

It's actually a pretty common practice in propriety firmware. In my industry we charge money to allow access to our control codes. If it weren't for customer pressures, we probably wouldn't sell it. Falls under the intellectual property category. Garmin appears to be trying to protect their G500/G600 market by making it difficult for a competitor of that technology to get access to the code.

Aspen has consistently pitched their open hierarchy and the interface capability with multiple platforms. They are in active collaboration with current or future competitors of Garmin for the GPS business. I suspect this also may be behind some of this. It is a shame because Garmin makes decent products, but being a bully in the market doesn't make me want to run out and buy more of their stuff.

[fantom]

Garmin is a bully and the 750, while very nice, is a prime example of Garmin lack of forward compatibility or upward compatibility, even with their own products, and it's no accident.

I'd prefer to have a JPI 830 or 930 to the right of the 750 in the Encore, over any GPSS, and I'd put the 155 under the 750.

[Oscar Avalle]

So It seems no ADS B and no connected panel...what a shame. I hope garmin rethinks their approach soon...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Marauder]

So It seems no ADS B and no connected panel...what a shame. I hope garmin rethinks their approach soon...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm hoping that Aspen is correct and that more ADS-B players enter the market. Every time I hear about someone trying to corner the market, I think back to the Dan Akyroyd and Eddie Murphy movie Trading Places. "The Dukes (Garmin) are trying to corner the Oranges (Avionics) market". See where it got the Duke brothers

[flyboy0681]

It sounds to me as if some here believe that Garmin add-on products, such as the GDL-88, should be compatible with competing systems. At least that's what I get by reading some of the responses and Aspen's release - that Garmin isn't playing nice.

I have no experience in this area, but is it typical for a manufacturer to make a "box" generic to the point where it could be hooked up to a competitor's system? Does Avidyne's MLX770 weather unit work on a Garmin display such as 530W, or are these pretty much proprietary units?

As for Garmin's changing of the 400/500W software so that it doesn't crossfill, I would like to hear from Garmin of their official response. They know that there are thousands of Aspen installations out there using the 400/500 series and unless they believe that closing off the crossfill will result in people chucking their units in favor of a new G500/600, their marketing people are grossly mistaken. Then again, I'd be willing to bet that Garmin has a big staff of in-house suits just for an occasion like this.

[KSMooniac]

It seems like very muddy waters to me. There are some specs that are used to transfer data that seem to be widely accepted such as the good ol' RS232 or the newer ARINC 429. One trip thru a Garmin installation manual (or Sandel, Aspen, etc) and you'll see how to connect the various pins to each component so that they play nicely together. Garmin also has (or had) their own "Aviation In/Out" format that could be used to connect Garmin products together, such as I've done with my 530W/430W and 496 combo, and it works well. I enter my flight plan into my 530W, and in less than a second it shows up on the 430W and 496. Very handy. They created this format on their own, with no expectation of interfacing with other products using *that format.*

Fast forward a few years and companies like Aspen and Voice Flight Systems figured out that they could also use this data stream to add functionality to their products or enhance the functionality of the Garmin products. I don't believe either company worked with Garmin to develop their products...they simply figured out what the stream format was and coded their products to utilize it. I don't use either product, but I believe they filled a need in the market due to lack of features in the GNS series (like Victor airways in the case of Voice Flight) or provided a single-screen PFD solution in the case of the Aspen vs. Garmin's dual screen G500/600. Since those 3rd party products enhance the utility of the old GNS units, that reduces the "need" to upgrade to the GTN series or add a G500/G600, so IMO Garmin decided to scramble that data stream in this latest software update. It is their own format, and they're not contractually obligated to share it with other companies, but I'm furious over this tactic and it is a huge disincentive for me to ever purchase more of their products. It is similar IMO to Microsoft's behavior during the browser wars many years ago when they were found to be abusing their de facto monopoly position. I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if Garmin could be found to be abusing their power if such a case were to be made in the court system. (I'd hate to see all that money and energy wasted on lawyers though...)

[Marauder]

There are two things going on here. The communication protocol is industry standard and I don't believe that is the issue. The issue appears to be control code specific to the Garmin products. It is the actual set of instructions telling your box how to do its thing. I can't fault Garmin for trying to protect their proprietary codes. They spent the money to develop it. Most companies however who operate in an environment where you provide a part of the overall solution will share their code -- for a price. If you have competing products like Garmin does in the case of Aspen, the motivation isn't as strong to share.

I looked at the Garmin offering, bought the GTN because it was the only one I thought did a decent job of a GUI and passed on the G500/600 series because it was 1) not complete (would not work with all of my legacy hardware) and 2) one college tuition at a time is enough.

Competition is good in our market, it gives us choices and helps keep the prices down. I don't want Garmin to go away, just want them to play nice in the sandbox.

[M016576]

It seems like very muddy waters to me. There are some specs that are used to transfer data that seem to be widely accepted such as the good ol' RS232 or the newer ARINC 429. One trip thru a Garmin installation manual (or Sandel, Aspen, etc) and you'll see how to connect the various pins to each component so that they play nicely together. Garmin also has (or had) their own "Aviation In/Out" format that could be used to connect Garmin products together, such as I've done with my 530W/430W and 496 combo, and it works well. I enter my flight plan into my 530W, and in less than a second it shows up on the 430W and 496. Very handy. They created this format on their own, with no expectation of interfacing with other products using *that format.*

Fast forward a few years and companies like Aspen and Voice Flight Systems figured out that they could also use this data stream to add functionality to their products or enhance the functionality of the Garmin products. I don't believe either company worked with Garmin to develop their products...they simply figured out what the stream format was and coded their products to utilize it. I don't use either product, but I believe they filled a need in the market due to lack of features in the GNS series (like Victor airways in the case of Voice Flight) or provided a single-screen PFD solution in the case of the Aspen vs. Garmin's dual screen G500/600. Since those 3rd party products enhance the utility of the old GNS units, that reduces the "need" to upgrade to the GTN series or add a G500/G600, so IMO Garmin decided to scramble that data stream in this latest software update. It is their own format, and they're not contractually obligated to share it with other companies, but I'm furious over this tactic and it is a huge disincentive for me to ever purchase more of their products. It is similar IMO to Microsoft's behavior during the browser wars many years ago when they were found to be abusing their de facto monopoly position. I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if Garmin could be found to be abusing their power if such a case were to be made in the court system. (I'd hate to see all that money and energy wasted on lawyers though...)

Abusing their power? It's their (Garmin's) code. Clearly Aspen didn't sub-liscence that code and were merely exploiting the pin-out and reverse engineering Garmin's process. Garmin has every right to change or encrypt that code, and more over, to charge Aspen a liscencing fee to advertise/use their (most likely) patented product.

It sucks for aspen users, but it also sucks that ForeFlight discontinued support for their App after I payed 75 bucks for it as version 2.4... And started charging a yearly fee if I wanted to get the new version. It's the nature of the beast I'm afraid: aviation is an expensive hobby....

Disclaimer- no aspen, no foreflight, begrudged garmin 430w user (I think the cost of the NAV and obstical data is akin to highway robbery..., but I'm stuck. Same with xm wx- no adsb towers out here in my neck of the woods.... I digress...)

[flyboy0681]

It seems like very muddy waters to me. There are some specs that are used to transfer data that seem to be widely accepted such as the good ol' RS232 or the newer ARINC 429. One trip thru a Garmin installation manual (or Sandel, Aspen, etc) and you'll see how to connect the various pins to each component so that they play nicely together.

I'm glad you differentiated between the hardware and software aspects of the equipment.

So the question remains, should Aspen have a beef that the GDL-88 is not compatible with the architecture of their displays? To me that's a pure hardware play although the GDL does spit out ones and oh's.

Thinking more about the crossfill issue, I find it interesting that Garmin designed their units to accept a data stream in scrambled form and must have thought this out a long time ago. In other words, for a 500W to be able to crossfill to a 496 portable after the 5.0 software update implies that the 496 had the de-scrambling capability already built in.

[Piloto]

Although both arguments across the fence are valid keep in mind that Garmin does not has an obligation to maintain or support compatibility with other systems including their own. However a product compatible with most products in the market has a greater degree of success than one that is not. Garmin itself has benefited by having compatibility with other brands such as Bendix/King, Honeywell, Avidyne and others. On the other hand there is the marketing strategy were unique compatibility force the customer to buy equipment of the same brand only. This is one of the reasons why ARINC interface specifications exist. Products with ARINC interface are assured to be compatible with each other of different brands.

José

[flyboy0681]

Although both arguments across the fence are valid keep in mind that Garmin does not has an obligation to maintain or support compatibility with other systems including their own.

Excellent points, but you have to admit that suddenly taking away a pin output (in this case the crossfill) that has been offered since the unit was first introduced is pretty deplorable behavior.

[carusoam]

Open letter to the two people who began Garmin years ago...

Dear Gary and Min (Aka Garmin),

Hopefully the educated customers communicating their needs with each other, will get the flexibility that they desire.

Smart communicating devices from different manufacturers will be the future.

Aspen and WingX seem to embrace all customers. Garmin seems to embrace the customer with the most expendable cash.

I don't promote stealing someone else's designs or software. I just want my devices to share my flightplan, overlay my weather and traffic on my displays.

The devices sharing my data improves my level of comfort and my level of safety safety.

Please stop scrambling my data. Scrambling my data doesn't provide any service.

As long as i am flying, I will be primarily considering manufacturers that last, embrace flexibility, and bridge eons of time.

I assume that I could afford a new box every year or three or five. The electronics should strive to be able to communicate in the best possible way with each other over generations where possible...

Or,

Live by the sword....

That's my writing assignment for the day. Best regards,

-a-