FlyQ EFB supports Stratus 2

LDJones

LDJones

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
10,998
Location
Twin Cities, MN
Display Name
Display name:
Jonesy
I just got a App Store notification that FlyQ EFB now supports the Stratus 2. FlyQ is my second favorite product, although my subscription has lapsed. I'd be curious to check it out. They note right in the description that this is not with the blessing of Appereo so I'm guessing they just reverse engineered the communication protocol that it used. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe others will support it, too.
 
iFly was able to work with the Stratus 1 and as soon as Appereo found that out they changed the code used so it wouldn't work anymore.
 
tmyers said:
iFly was able to work with the Stratus 1 and as soon as Appereo found that out they changed the code used so it wouldn't work anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm curious if that will happen again here.
 
Why would they want to break it? It can only be good for Appereo if it works...
 
they have firmly aligned with ForeFlight and have no intention of working with anyone else.
 
tmyers said:
they have firmly aligned with ForeFlight and have no intention of working with anyone else.
Click to expand...

Hard to say what agreements could be in place. For all we know, ForeFlight paid for a large portion of the Stratus development, and as a result they're supposed to make all efforts to keep it Foreflight only.

No idea though.
 
Intriguing from both a software and industry perspective ... but note the caveat posted in many spots on Seattle Avionics' site.

Stratus and Stratus 2 are trademarks of Appareo Systems, LLC. Seattle Avionics and Appareo have no business agreement or relationship and Appareo has not endorsed or approved FlyQ's support of their products.
Click to expand...
Not certain I'd run out and buy a Stratus to use exclusively with FlyQ; an update by Appareo could (potentially) disable that connectivity.
 
Just received an email from Seattle about their ability to work with Stratus so maybe they have an agreement to woekr together.
 
If Seattle Avionics doesn't have an agreement with Appareo (and they deny that they do on their web site), I would think that would preclude them from offering firmware updates for Stratus, though infrequent as those may be. On the other hand, I don't see how Appareo could break any reverse engineering for the existing user base without updating the firmware in Stratus, which they can't do without the user performing the update.


JKG
 
JGoodish said:
If Seattle Avionics doesn't have an agreement with Appareo (and they deny that they do on their web site), I would think that would preclude them from offering firmware updates for Stratus, though infrequent as those may be. On the other hand, I don't see how Appareo could break any reverse engineering for the existing user base without updating the firmware in Stratus, which they can't do without the user performing the update.


JKG
Click to expand...

That's a good point. If it works today it will work forever as long as yo don't update the firmware via a different app.

To promote a fresh look at FlyQ they've reset all previous trials so you can try it again free for 30 days. When I'm back from sims in late April I plan to try it out again.
 
RickG said:
Not certain I'd run out and buy a Stratus to use exclusively with FlyQ; an update by Appareo could (potentially) disable that connectivity.
Click to expand...

As I said on the red board ...if FF/Appareo have finally abandoned their "Borg" business model and opened up Stratus to other, albeit, selected apps, that's a step forward.
 
I would agree with that. The Stratus is a good unit to have, but it won't work with my iFly software or hardware
 
JGoodish said:
If Seattle Avionics doesn't have an agreement with Appareo (and they deny that they do on their web site), I would think that would preclude them from offering firmware updates for Stratus, though infrequent as those may be. On the other hand, I don't see how Appareo could break any reverse engineering for the existing user base without updating the firmware in Stratus, which they can't do without the user performing the update.


JKG
Click to expand...
That might be accurate. but there's likely a bit more to it than that. For example, I doubt Seattle is recommending purchasing a Stratus: more likely it's to attract ForeFlight users who already have a Stratus to switch to them. "We support an old Stratus II" just doesn't gave the same ring. Of course, Seattle's philosophy might be to always reverse engineer Stratus (at least until they realize ForeFlight users are not switching in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile - I received the email and found the partial upgrade to a very good feature ForeFlight had 2 years ago not enought for me to even try it again YRMV).
 
midlifeflyer said:
That might be accurate. but there's likely a bit more to it than that. For example, I doubt Seattle is recommending purchasing a Stratus: more likely it's to attract ForeFlight users who already have a Stratus to switch to them. "We support an old Stratus II" just doesn't gave the same ring. Of course, Seattle's philosophy might be to always reverse engineer Stratus (at least until they realize ForeFlight users are not switching in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile - I received the email and found the partial upgrade to a very good feature ForeFlight had 2 years ago not enought for me to even try it again YRMV).
Click to expand...

Why would anyone purchase a Stratus to use with FlyQ? Seattle Avionics is clearly attempting to attract "switchers" by enabling users to use an existing hardware investment with their software. I suspect that the installed base of Stratus users is rather significant at this point.

I might give FlyQ a test drive, but I'm fairly happy with ForeFlight. I'd be interested to learn why others like FlyQ, but features like "split screen" that require compromises in other areas versus ForeFlight aren't likely to tempt me very much.


JKG
 
I dropped foreflight when the FLYQ EFB came out. I already had the Dual 170 and the Skyradar and could not justify purchasing the stratus. I did like the cell weather capability on the ground. I just did not like how the IFR charts were selected and their supporting hardware policy.
 
The ForeFlight notice does not mention Seattle Avionics or FlyQ EFB by name. That was wise since records indicate that no one using a ForeFlight email address has even downloaded the app. The response appears to be what marketing people call FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. In any event, please refer to our FAQ for more information about the testing and validation process that went in to our Stratus support.

http://seattleavionics.com/support/FlyQEFB.aspx

Thanks, Steve Podradchik
Seattle Avionics
 
CodeMonkey said:
ForeFlight has an FAQ item on the matter and will be issuing a safety bulletin shortly:

http://www.foreflight.com/support/stratus/#285

-tyson
Click to expand...
Tyson, can you answer this question: the other day, my friend and I were flying. I have a Stratus I. He normally uses an external GPS. to show him some Stratus features, I had him connect to my Stratus along with me. He received a pop-up message that a firmware update was required. I did not get that message (I have applied all firmware updates). We were it in a position to do the update via his ipad. On the flight we noticed a few anomalies, particularly with respect to depiction of traffic, on both of our iPads.

Related phenomenon?
 
tmyers said:
they have firmly aligned with ForeFlight and have no intention of working with anyone else.
Click to expand...

jesse said:
Hard to say what agreements could be in place. For all we know, ForeFlight paid for a large portion of the Stratus development, and as a result they're supposed to make all efforts to keep it Foreflight only.

No idea though.
Click to expand...

CodeMonkey said:
ForeFlight has an FAQ item on the matter and will be issuing a safety bulletin shortly:

http://www.foreflight.com/support/stratus/#285

-tyson
Click to expand...

The "safety bulletin" confirms my above guess.
They are not endorsed or supported by AFS, LLC (the joint venture that makes the product, of which ForeFlight is a member)
Click to expand...

stevepodradchik said:
The ForeFlight notice does not mention Seattle Avionics or FlyQ EFB by name. That was wise since records indicate that no one using a ForeFlight email address has even downloaded the app. The response appears to be what marketing people call FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. In any event, please refer to our FAQ for more information about the testing and validation process that went in to our Stratus support.

http://seattleavionics.com/support/FlyQEFB.aspx

Thanks, Steve Podradchik
Seattle Avionics
Click to expand...
Thank you for joining the discussion Steve. Always nice to hear from the people that develop this stuff. It appears your link is broken, but I suspect you meant to link to this:
http://seattleavionics.com/FlyQEFBFaq.aspx

Which states:
Seattle Avionics said:
Are there any compatibility issues with the Stratus receivers?

No, not with FlyQ EFB but we make no claims of how other apps will behave if used with a Stratus receiver at the same time as FlyQ EFB. We recommend that pilots use one aviation app at a time on an iPad.

FlyQ EFB’s Stratus support was thoroughly tested both internally and with external beta testers for several months before we released it. Seattle Avionics supports more than 15 different ADS-B receivers, including certified ADS-B In/Out systems that require accuracy beyond what is expected from a portable receiver like the Stratus.

Another app maker has claimed that there may be compatibility or even safety issues when using the Stratus with apps other than the one they make. We're saddened that see the resort to what marketing people call FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) rather than facts. Our app was tested for compatibility with the Stratus hardware, not for compatibility with someone else's app.

We believe very strongly in open standards and the freedom to choose, especially when something as vital as aviation safety is concerned. The FAA also believes in this so they make the over-the-air ADS-B data format public for the benefit of all pilots. We would like to see the makers of Stratus publically document their system so that all pilots, no matter which apps they prefer, can benefit from the safety of using an excellent ADS-B receiver like the Stratus.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm a Foreflight user and have a Stratus 2 and have no real plans to change anytime soon. That said, I always like the option to be on the table.

This "battle" is pretty interesting since Foreflight originally used Seattle Avionics data for their charts. I'm guessing this is no longer the case but perhaps it is:
https://www.seattleavionics.com/p_2011-02-09ForeFlight2.aspx
 
Last edited:
>> We believe very strongly in open standards and the freedom to choose

Here here !!!!
 
Thanks Jesse. You're quite right about the URL. Too much typing for one day, it seems. So perhaps I try some more?

http://www.seattleavionics.com/FlyQEFBFaq.aspx

The main point is that ADS-B is a public service paid for by our tax dollars. The over-the-air data format is public and ADS-B receivers, like the Stratus and Garmin, are essentially rebroadcasting that public data. ADS-B receivers should be open for all pilots to benefit from without regard to their choice of display device or app. With the exception of the Stratus and the Garmin GDL 39 (both excellent receivers, by the way), all portable ADS-B systems are highly interoperable and allow for this. As 2020 nears, it's simply time for ALL ADS-B receivers to be open. General Aviation is a relatively small and fragile part of America and the time for petty fiefdoms of proprietary devices is well past.
 
stevepodradchik said:
The ForeFlight notice does not mention Seattle Avionics or FlyQ EFB by name. That was wise since records indicate that no one using a ForeFlight email address has even downloaded the app. The response appears to be what marketing people call FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. In any event, please refer to our FAQ for more information about the testing and validation process that went in to our Stratus support.

http://seattleavionics.com/support/FlyQEFB.aspx

Thanks, Steve Podradchik
Seattle Avionics
Click to expand...


Welcome Steve.... Hope you stay awhile and join in this wonderful debate !!!
 
One quick note: Earlier in this thread, someone brought up the issue of future Stratus firmware updates potentially interfering with FlyQ EFB's ability to talk to the device. Unlike your PC or iPad, the Stratus has no Internet connectivity and cannot download or install updates by itself. You would have to intentionally update the firmware, apparently by using ForeFlight and quite specifically hitting a button to do an update to Stratus.

The solution is very simple -- don't accept a the Stratus firmware "update."
 
LDJones said:
That's a good point. If it works today it will work forever as long as yo don't update the firmware via a different app.

To promote a fresh look at FlyQ they've reset all previous trials so you can try it again free for 30 days. When I'm back from sims in late April I plan to try it out again.
Click to expand...

Got an email saying they'll give you a year free if you can prove you have a subscription with someone else. I'm curious how you prove that.
 
Anymouse said:
Got an email saying they'll give you a year free if you can prove you have a subscription with someone else. I'm curious how you prove that.
Click to expand...

A screenshot of your ForeFlight subscription page would likely work.
 
Scrabo said:
>> We believe very strongly in open standards and the freedom to choose

Here here !!!!
Click to expand...
Oh goody. We've managed to turn this into a socio-political thread - on the relative rights of two companies to determine the best way to make money on a closed-standard iPad!:goofy::mad2:

So, Steve, given Seattle's strong "right to choose hardware" philosophy and commitment, where are the Android and Win versions of FlyQ EFB? How about those FlightSoft users?

Just sayin...
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Oh goody. We've managed to turn this into a socio-political thread - on the relative rights of two companies to determine the best way to make money on a closed-standard iPad!:goofy::mad2:

So, Steve, given Seattle's strong "right to choose hardware" philosophy and commitment, where are the Android and Win versions of FlyQ EFB? How about those FlightSoft users?

Just sayin...
Click to expand...

There is a difference between an "open standard" and "open source" or "free." Nothing is really free. Companies need to protect intellectual property in order to continue to innovate and to stay in business. They also make investments based on anticipated return.

ADS-B is an open standard, but it is not open source. iOS is built on open-source software and provides published APIs, but it is justifiably not open source. Likewise, ADS-B is a standard which is open to developers, but it is not open source nor "free." Stratus was apparently developed with financing and intellectual property from multiple organizations who are free to choose how to obtain a return on that investment.

With that being said, short of a Stratus firmware update, I'm not sure that Appareo or ForeFlight or Sporty's (which I assume are the entities comprising AFS, LLC as referenced in ForeFlight's FAQ on the subject) can do anything to stop the use of their device with another software product, unless they can prove that their IP was compromised. While the ADS-B system and data may be "open" and "free," the Stratus is not, nor necessarily is the communication between Stratus and ForeFlight. I have no idea how the latter is accomplished or what IP, if any, may be involved in that communication.


JKG
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Oh goody. We've managed to turn this into a socio-political thread - on the relative rights of two companies to determine the best way to make money on a closed-standard iPad!:goofy::mad2:

So, Steve, given Seattle's strong "right to choose hardware" philosophy and commitment, where are the Android and Win versions of FlyQ EFB? How about those FlightSoft users?

Just sayin...
Click to expand...

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the note. Yes, we absolutely believe in open standards. That doesn't mean we won't develop for closed systems, like Apple's, however as well. We make an app for Android called FlyQ Pocket which is quite popular and we've made Windows apps for 13 years. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major vendor who supports as many platforms as we do other than Jeppesen.

In terms of Android, we are seriously looking into a FlyQ EFB for Android but please understand that while there are more Android tablets than iPads IN THE GENERAL POPULATION, when you slice the tablet market and look just at pilots, the market is dramatically skewed towards the iPad. This is probably because 3 of the top 4 aviation apps only work in the iPad (Garmin Pilot being the exception). In any event, Android is much more fragmented in terms of both OS versions and hardware variants than iOS so the porting and, more importantly, the testing on all the major Android tablets, makes it a tough business case to make considering the smaller Android/Pilot population.

For those who don't know, Flitesoft was a very early maker of Windows-based flight planning software. It was very popular for a while and but seemed to lose steam about 10 years ago. Voyager, our Windows app, competed directly with it. About 2 years ago, the folks who make Flitesoft decided to retire and they asked us to take care of their existing customers by giving all their customers with current subscriptions a free equivalent subscription to Voyager. We were happy to do so and we were not paid in any way by Fitesoft to take on their obligation. We also offered Flitesoft customers to renew w/ Voyager at a steep discount.

Hope that helps.

Steve
 
JGoodish said:
There is a difference between an "open standard" and "open source" or "free." Nothing is really free. Companies need to protect intellectual property in order to continue to innovate and to stay in business. They also make investments based on anticipated return.

ADS-B is an open standard, but it is not open source. iOS is built on open-source software and provides published APIs, but it is justifiably not open source. Likewise, ADS-B is a standard which is open to developers, but it is not open source nor "free." Stratus was apparently developed with financing and intellectual property from multiple organizations who are free to choose how to obtain a return on that investment.

With that being said, short of a Stratus firmware update, I'm not sure that Appareo or ForeFlight or Sporty's (which I assume are the entities comprising AFS, LLC as referenced in ForeFlight's FAQ on the subject) can do anything to stop the use of their device with another software product, unless they can prove that their IP was compromised. While the ADS-B system and data may be "open" and "free," the Stratus is not, nor necessarily is the communication between Stratus and ForeFlight. I have no idea how the latter is accomplished or what IP, if any, may be involved in that communication.


JKG
Click to expand...

You make excellent points and clearly know what you're talking about. You're certainly quite correct that companies are free to choose their own business models in most circumstances (exceptions for utilities, monopolies, and so on).

There are a few differences with ADS-B, however. The most obvious is that the FAA spent about $585 million in tax dollars developing and deploying ADS-B (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=8145). Of course the Internet was also developed on the government dime, too. A difference here is that FAA continues to spend quite a bit each year keeping the system operational. The data is transmitted in a public data format because the idea is clearly for all pilots to get the information. The ADS-B device manufactures are doing little more than rebroadcasting the data they get for free from the FAA. They get paid by people buying their receiver, recovering their investment. There is little to no additional cost for them to document their data format so all apps and devices can use the data. They are not legally obligated to do so but I personally feel there should be some moral obligation that if your business is based on tax dollars, you should at least put the effort into writing a few pages of documentation to try to make the system open as we've proven that there are no technical impediments. There are about two dozen ADS-B makers and all but two of them seem to feel that way.

Good discussion!

Steve
 
As a software developer I don't see any obligation on Foreflight or any other company's part to make their portable ADS-B box's api open to anyone. It has nothing to do with who paid for ADS-B.

If you don't want to use Foreflight/Stratus then don't. WingX and the Android compatible Flight Plan Pro are compatible with almost every portable ADS-B 'in' device but Stratus, and I'm pretty sure most of the other tablet products are as well.

If I only flew our club's Archer I would sell my Stratus in a heartbeat, because the Archer has the Freeflight Ranger, which is an in/out ADS-B box with a Wifi access point that works with WingX and Freeflight's own apps.

Fortunately (or sadly, depending on your POV) the two other airplanes I regularly fly are not yet blessed with ADS-B so I'm keeping my Stratus.

Since the cheap solution to 2020 is a TSO installed 'out' only box I'm pretty sure Foreflight/Stratus will continue to have a viable market for their portable 'in' Stratus the foreseeable future.
 
JimNtexas said:
As a software developer I don't see any obligation on Foreflight or any other company's part to make their portable ADS-B box's api open to anyone. It has nothing to do with who paid for ADS-B.

If you don't want to use Foreflight/Stratus then don't. WingX and the Android compatible Flight Plan Pro are compatible with almost every portable ADS-B 'in' device but Stratus, and I'm pretty sure most of the other tablet products are as well.

If I only flew our club's Archer I would sell my Stratus in a heartbeat, because the Archer has the Freeflight Ranger, which is an in/out ADS-B box with a Wifi access point that works with WingX and Freeflight's own apps.

Fortunately (or sadly, depending on your POV) the two other airplanes I regularly fly are not yet blessed with ADS-B so I'm keeping my Stratus.

Since the cheap solution to 2020 is a TSO installed 'out' only box I'm pretty sure Foreflight/Stratus will continue to have a viable market for their portable 'in' Stratus the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Quick note: FlyQ EFB 1.5 supports all the same ADS-B receivers that WingX does (to the best of my knowledge) plus the Stratus. That includes the excellent FreeFiight RANGR series. You can read more about FlyQ EFB from: http://seattleavionics.com/FlyQ
 
JGoodish said:
There is a difference between an "open standard" and "open source" or "free." Nothing is really free. Companies need to protect intellectual property in order to continue to innovate and to stay in business. They also make investments based on anticipated return.

ADS-B is an open standard, but it is not open source. iOS is built on open-source software and provides published APIs, but it is justifiably not open source. Likewise, ADS-B is a standard which is open to developers, but it is not open source nor "free." Stratus was apparently developed with financing and intellectual property from multiple organizations who are free to choose how to obtain a return on that investment.

With that being said, short of a Stratus firmware update, I'm not sure that Appareo or ForeFlight or Sporty's (which I assume are the entities comprising AFS, LLC as referenced in ForeFlight's FAQ on the subject) can do anything to stop the use of their device with another software product, unless they can prove that their IP was compromised. While the ADS-B system and data may be "open" and "free," the Stratus is not, nor necessarily is the communication between Stratus and ForeFlight. I have no idea how the latter is accomplished or what IP, if any, may be involved in that communication.


JKG
Click to expand...
Right. Unless the Stratus algorithm is patented or subject to software copyright there is likely nothing legally preventing reverse engineering to use the data stream for something else. I have my own issues with the Stratus model and my only point was the one I wrote.
 
stevepodradchik said:
Hi Mark,

Thanks for the note. Yes, we absolutely believe in open standards. That doesn't mean we won't develop for closed systems, like Apple's, however as well. We make an app for Android called FlyQ Pocket which is quite popular and we've made Windows apps for 13 years. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major vendor who supports as many platforms as we do other than Jeppesen.

In terms of Android, we are seriously looking into a FlyQ EFB for Android but please understand that while there are more Android tablets than iPads IN THE GENERAL POPULATION, when you slice the tablet market and look just at pilots, the market is dramatically skewed towards the iPad. This is probably because 3 of the top 4 aviation apps only work in the iPad (Garmin Pilot being the exception). In any event, Android is much more fragmented in terms of both OS versions and hardware variants than iOS so the porting and, more importantly, the testing on all the major Android tablets, makes it a tough business case to make considering the smaller Android/Pilot population.

For those who don't know, Flitesoft was a very early maker of Windows-based flight planning software. It was very popular for a while and but seemed to lose steam about 10 years ago. Voyager, our Windows app, competed directly with it. About 2 years ago, the folks who make Flitesoft decided to retire and they asked us to take care of their existing customers by giving all their customers with current subscriptions a free equivalent subscription to Voyager. We were happy to do so and we were not paid in any way by Fitesoft to take on their obligation. We also offered Flitesoft customers to renew w/ Voyager at a steep discount.

Hope that helps.

Steve
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anything you wrote and if you folks did a full Andoid EFB, I'd be the first in line to give it a try, even in beta (I have some experience with software testing).

And I have absolutely no issue with any company's marketing choices. My only point was the one I made - that is is interesting to be talking about a committment to open architecture when the only issue is, as you said, what the market will support as a business model.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
"They are not endorsed or supported by AFS, LLC (the joint venture that makes the product, of which ForeFlight is a member) "

That wasn't hard to decipher!

Appareo, ForeFlight, Sporty's
Click to expand...

When all is said and done, I can't believe Sporty's or Appareo will lose sleep over more unit sales for use with alternate EFBs.
 
I wonder what Sporty's brought to the table in this deal?
 
dans2992 said:
I wonder what Sporty's brought to the table in this deal?
Click to expand...

Maybe Sporty's brought cash to the table? Paid the other two parties for the exclusive right to sell the product?

Otherwise, I don't see any upside for the product manufacturer to limit the distribution.
 
NoHeat said:
Maybe Sporty's brought cash to the table? Paid the other two parties for the exclusive right to sell the product?
Click to expand...

I purchased from Appareo...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top