After been reading all the comments on this subject I am really surprised to find we have around so many capable professionals on the topic and I wonder why nobody has came up yet with a more profitable and affordable solution to this issue to compite with companies that invest millions of dollars in research and development ?
May be the problem is no so simple, or the market is not as big, or there are more challenges that some may perceive. I completely understand and support that people may have different points of views and opinions but some of the comments published lately are offensive and misleading. If you have a better idea just do it. It is easy to criticise others for what the have already done or achieved. My two cents. Andres On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Mike Borgelt < mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote: > > Justin Couch , > > For most of the standards you talk about there are alternatives. Don't > like Android? Use Linux or Windows. Some of you examples seem obsolete too. > Firewire? Haven't seen that in quite a while. As I understand it the wi-fi > thing is a straight out patent fight. Not so with > > Flarm. > > The Flarm problem is that to be at all useful all such devices must > conform to the same standard in the rf scheme and the transmission > protocol. > > This was initially unencrypted and only when a credible competitor > appeared did Flarm institute the encryption. > > Now consider what would have happened had Flarm announced on first release > of their system that they intended to enforce an effective monopoly by > encrypting the transmissions? Or announced that they would do so in future? > Would the takeup have been as rapid? > > Would a competitor immediately have appeared or announced intention, > before the installed base of Flarms got large, to offer an unencrypted > transmission protocol? Maybe several competitors? Would the IGC or a > National gliding body (maybe a non Swiss one with > > a large number of pilots) have said - that's a good idea but we're not > paying those chocolate makers and yodellers a royalty* - here's our open > standard? > > The IGC publishes a standard for IGC certified Flight Recorders and > verifies that any manufacturer's product meets it. There were some > shenanigans with that too, though. As I said, people send me stuff. > > Another gliding comparison would be if one of the major manufacturers had > developed or now bought the rights to CS22 which gliders must be certified > to in most countries and had the ability to change it at will and demand a > licence fee. How many other manufacturer's > > would there be? From reading between the lines one non European > manufacturer already ran up against Germany Inc. when trying to certify a > glider. > > I really despise anti competitive behaviour and the people who indulge in > it. In the Flarm case encryption introduces unnecessary complexity and risk > to protect a market. The privacy argument is a mere fig leaf for anti > competitive behaviour. ADSB and mode S have > > unique codes for each aircraft and are easy to eavesdrop. What next, > flight plans and Sartimes are breaches of privacy? Who was it said around > 15 years ago: "Privacy, there isn't any. Get used to it."? > > I can't see what Flarm are worried about. If they don't encrypt and have > licence agreements those contracts still stand until one of the licencees > develops his own source code, circuit boards and hardware and uses that > instead of the Flarm equivalents. Given the market > > penetration of Flarm and the near saturation of the market this may not > even happen. The licencees didn't get the source code AFAIK anyway just the > hex. > > For the record I was offered a licence to manufacture Flarm in 2004- 2005. > I forget which and I'm too lazy to look it up. As it used a very similar > GPS to that we were designing into the B500 system, my German distributor > suggested I talk to them about it. I did so and > > they made the offer. I even did the research to find the correct frequency > to use in Australia. I wasn't really interested in manufacturing the > things here, nor selling them as I thought they would be useless unless > there was near universal adoption, I'm not fond of mandates > > and customer support was likely to be onerous. > > Adrian and I had scoped out the possibilities for a similar system in > 2000. Transmitting GPS positions for traffic awareness is an obvious thing > and not patentable. We actually decided how many bits in the message > (funny how we came to the same number as Flarm) > > and how often it needed to transmit. Consulted Adrian's son, Peter, a > graduate Electronic engineer about the rf side and he suggested we might > get 5 to 6km range on the 2.4Ghz band. Good enough for a demonstration we > thought. We had other things to do and getting > > decent range would likely involve the bureaucratic nightmare of getting a > specific frequency allocated. We were somewhat bemused by Flarm's severely > limited range when we heard about it. > > * I was told by Paul Raber of Aerograf fame, a Swiss, that the Swiss > thought that is the German attitude to technology originating in > Switzerland. May have changed. > > Mike > > > > > > *Borgelt Instruments* - > *design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 * > www.borgeltinstruments.com > tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 > mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 > P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > >
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
