airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
One of the things that happens with new technology is that the early winners establish proprietary interfaces. Railroad track gauge is an 18th-century example. IBM's disk drive interface is a more recent one. Microsoft Office's ever-changing file formats are another.
The reason the leaders establish proprietary interfaces is that then, when a customer wants to add something, they are locked in. In my experience, this game goes on for a few years before the users finally force the vendors to standardize or, in the interesting case of the IBM drive interface, the government forces disclosure.
Until the interfaces are opened up, the vendors are able to command a price premium for their products because they have no competition.
When the game is finally over, independently managed specifications emerge. For example, the IEEE 802 ethernet specs.
NMEA was smart enough to standardize the GPS serial interface and look how many small and inexpensive GPSs we can choose from.
This game is presently being played in the EFB/GPS/ADS-B space. Garmin has designed Pilot so that users who want ADS-B must buy the GDL-39. Foreflight has designed their product so that anyone wanting ADS-B must buy the Stratus box. I am not sure where Aspen is going with their "Connected Panel" but it is also not a completely open specification.
EAA and AOPA may be able pre-empt or at least limit the life of these proprietary cockpit interfaces by creating and funding a standards development effort, possibly under the IEEE umbrella. There are certainly enough qualified electrical and computer engineers in the organizations to support such an effort. It might even be possible to attract GAMA and NBAA to participate in the project.
I would guess it to be a 1-2 year effort, depending on how much sand the incumbents throw into the gears of progress. (Yes, this is a routine part of standards-writing.)
If the standardization is successful, competition and innovation would flourish and costs would come down. This would not be an expensive undertaking compared to the benefits that would accrue to the community.
What do you think?
The reason the leaders establish proprietary interfaces is that then, when a customer wants to add something, they are locked in. In my experience, this game goes on for a few years before the users finally force the vendors to standardize or, in the interesting case of the IBM drive interface, the government forces disclosure.
Until the interfaces are opened up, the vendors are able to command a price premium for their products because they have no competition.
When the game is finally over, independently managed specifications emerge. For example, the IEEE 802 ethernet specs.
NMEA was smart enough to standardize the GPS serial interface and look how many small and inexpensive GPSs we can choose from.
This game is presently being played in the EFB/GPS/ADS-B space. Garmin has designed Pilot so that users who want ADS-B must buy the GDL-39. Foreflight has designed their product so that anyone wanting ADS-B must buy the Stratus box. I am not sure where Aspen is going with their "Connected Panel" but it is also not a completely open specification.
EAA and AOPA may be able pre-empt or at least limit the life of these proprietary cockpit interfaces by creating and funding a standards development effort, possibly under the IEEE umbrella. There are certainly enough qualified electrical and computer engineers in the organizations to support such an effort. It might even be possible to attract GAMA and NBAA to participate in the project.
I would guess it to be a 1-2 year effort, depending on how much sand the incumbents throw into the gears of progress. (Yes, this is a routine part of standards-writing.)
If the standardization is successful, competition and innovation would flourish and costs would come down. This would not be an expensive undertaking compared to the benefits that would accrue to the community.
What do you think?