| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 16.06.04 11:01l 708 Lines 29293 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3464-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 09, 4/8
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<DB0WUE<DK0WUE<HA3PG<7M3TJZ<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040616/0726Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:25926 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3464-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Tetroon collateral damage report, revision1
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:46:07 -0400
X-Message-Number: 55
>>>"Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com> 6/8/04 5:43:24 PM
>>>
>... APRS... [has] 5 different position... formats......
>OpenTrac removes all these choices and uses just one.
But it is NOT compatible with anything that can currently receive only
APRS!
Thus all KENWOOD users (4100 of them) that are using APRS in the field and
where their Kenwood is their only view of the tactical-real-time local
stuff going on around them will be DENIED the ability to see any OPENtrack
users. This is sure a recipe for disaster at a comms event.
>...but that does not mean that it can't interwork through
>transcoding or otherwise along an evolutionary path into
>future.
I SAY AGAIN, it will DENY all existing users of the kenwoods the ability to
see what is going on around them in their local real-time-tactical
situation. These are the users inthe field trying to get the job done. If
they cant see all of what is gooing on, then we no longer have a good local
real time tactical system for HAM radio on 144.39.
>The challenge is that Bob and others have control of
>parts of the APRS system that others don't. So, we
>will have a marketing and emotional exchange here,
>probably forever. It will just be a fact of life.
Yes, as long as you try to do it on the APRS channel at the expense of
existing users who will NEVER be able to use the data in fhe field with
what they already have.
I say again. If there is a specific need for the end user in the field
that cannot be met within the current spec, let me know. Ill work with you
to find a way to make it work. But I am not going to break APRS, the APRS
network, and ALL Kenwood users just for the sake of a few programmer egos...
>Scott, and others will continue their investigations,
>and knowing that there are people interested in
>packet radio technologies, they will post announcements
>and questions here.
That is great, but
1) I WELCOME innovation
2) But mixed protocols JAMMED ontot he same channel NEVER work in HAM
radio whether it is AM, CW, SSB SSTV, PSK-31, BBS's, APRS, DXclusters,
or OPENtrack.
3) I'd rather see all that great creative energy being expended on
something we can all use, NOW rather than re-inventing the same wheel
with a different name that by its very definition is iincompatible
4) Just think of all the great things you can alredy display on the over
250 "tiny-web-pages" of screens in the Kenwoods...
I look at those 250 screens of tiny-web-pages that can be displayed ALREADY
on the D7 HT as the real fun part of HAM radio. SO far, my applications
have included: (and all written in BASIC, since I am NOT a programmer, just
an END user with needs):
1) Satelites in view, range, direction, bearing, direction of movement,
uplink freq and downlink freq dopppler (everything you need to
2) Autmatic traffic SPEED information at known traffic choke points
3) Full display of communications from ANY other user with only a
TOUCH-TONE HT.
I think these aer great applications of use to just about everyone in HAM
radio. But because they were written in BASIC, they havent caught on. BUT
I HAVE been unable to inspire other programmers to tackle these
opportunities and do it RIGHT with Windows so that EVERYONE can benefit.
But so far, no takers.
The programmers just want to re-invent another way to send a position that
is EASY, but really gives nothing new to the end user in the field...
>As long as I see progressive applications and new
>hardware, I'll be excited and think about ways I can
>use the technologies to serve my community.
I agree 100% about wanting to see NEW APPLICATIONS, but I never see the
need for new hardware until I see:
1) That we are using what we already have
2) That we only obsolete hardware when it can no longer do what we need
>Bob is very pro community service. I think that's a
>good thing too. He has a lot of opportunities to
>use APRS in some large applications. I don't have
>enough mobile APRS users in my area, that
>participate in community service events to use APRS.
Ah, then PLEASE help us get APRS-TOUC-TONE going so that anyone with any HT
can participate in APRS! That would make APRS essential at EVERY HAM
activity...
So much to do, so little time, especially when it's alll taken up with
ankle-biters...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: James Jefferson <jj@aprsworld.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:45:07 -0500
X-Message-Number: 56
>>put to use on APRS. Add an extra input frequency and start
>>migrating weather stations and such off of 144.39. This
>
>I hope that never happens! As a weather spotter for ARES, I appreciate
What Scott was referring to was a fixed input frequency. So the digi would
receive on one frequency and would TX on another. The digi would still get
it's DCD from 144.39 and so it would digi the packets when the channel was
clear. The thought being that this would reduce channel load by at least 50%.
It's the same concept at the repeaters that get MIC-E packets and fire then
out on 144.39.
So at most it will delay reception of a weather station by a few seconds if
you would have been able to hear it on simplex. No delay if you can't hear
it directly.
-Jim KB0THN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:49:49 -0400
X-Message-Number: 57
On 6/9/04 at 9:06 AM Curt, WE7U <archer@eskimo.com> sent:
>Doesn't matter though, I've posted real numbers from captured
>packets. Perl is very good for that.
>
Yes, Perl Is Good.
I wrote a short program that dumps the packet for each station in the last
posit table (the last position for all stations heard in the last 10 days
on the APRS IS), eliminating CW stations, WinLink stations, and objects,
all of which do not represent APRS users. Then I wrote a second program to
filter this data, presented below, and I find that 3814 of 17077, or 22.3
percent, used the kenwood radios to send the position report.
This avoids the confounding effect of packet volumes (why should a station
that sends weather every 5 minutes count 288 times as much (for each day of
data gathered) as a D7 that transmits once?).
You can run this yourself, get the raw data (sorted by call) from
http://www.findu.com/raw.txt
(warning 1.4MB) then put the following short program into kw.pl (remove the
print if you do not want to see each Kenwood packet), chmod it to execute,
and use this command to invoke it:
cat raw.txt | ./kw.pl
Steve K4HG
-------------------cut here-------------------
#!/usr/bin/perl
while (<>)
{
$cnt++;
if (m/\:[\'\`].{8}[\]\>]/)
{
$kw++;
print;
}
}
printf ("%d of %d, %3.1f%%\n",$kw,$cnt,100*$kw/$cnt);
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS TT
From: "Jason Rausch" <ke4nyv@hamhud.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:48:31
X-Message-Number: 58
D***, sorry about the bad link. I try to post these messages all day at
work always looking over my shoulder making sure my amateur radio-hating
boss isn't going to pop in on me.
Work my a** off and then I take 2 minutes and of course that will be when
she comes in!
Well, maybe NOW, you can see the board I'm talking about.
Jason KE4NYV
www.ke4nyv.com
RPC Electronics
www.ke4nyv.com/rpc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:09:37 -0400
X-Message-Number: 59
>>>"Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com> 6/9/04 11:10:55 AM >>>
>>I'm talking about the USA where the Kenwoods are, and
>>Ithought I also excluded WX stations. Im talking about
>>50% of the packets that are providing non-static data.
>>Idid'nt include Europe either in my claim where the kenwoods
>>are earlier on the growth curve..
That data was from over 13million packets, over a billion characters, over
several days. Several rush hours got in there, and perhaps a weekend. The
data is quite good.
Are you a media reporter? Yes, it is "good", but good for what? It is
useless to what I was talking about because it includes tons of useless
pacekts that were not included in MY CLAIM:
1) 33% of ALL those packets you mention are when the Kenwood users are
sleeping (8 of 24 hours) and most of the D7 and D700's are turned OFF.
2) 50% of it is from Europe which I was not including in my claim, because
they are not as mobile, don't do as much public service and special events
and where the Kenwood was not marketed for several years.
>You should be able to derive the subset of numbers
>you're looking for by adding up numbers from the
>particular types of equipment you're interested in
>looking at.
Easy, and you get what I claimed in the first place!
Throw out when Kenwood users are ASLEEP with their radios off, and the 16%
becomes 25%. Throw out the HALF of all those packets that are from Europe
(not part of my claim) and BINGO the 25% becomes 50%.
Thanks for the data. Glad to see so many people USING the kenwoods and APRS
for something...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:12:37 -0400
X-Message-Number: 60
On 6/9/04 at 1:06 PM Danny <danny@messano.net> sent:
>The issue a LOT of us have is that the system for improving APRS
>sucks.
I think you are grossly overestimating LOTS. According to sourceforge,
there are "about 30" subscribers to the opentrack mail list. Last I heard,
there were nearly 3000 on this list, there are many thousands more users of
APRS not on the list.
Bob's role is to keep the system working for the vast majority of users,
and he does that admirably. Yes, change is slow...but imagine if anyone
could change TCP, and frequently did so...the result would be chaos.
Popular protocols must be slow changing, and any potential benefit has to
be weighed carefully against the problems that will be caused by the
change.
The way I see it differs from your assessment above, I think there is a
small (though vocal) number of people who feel that their suggestions
should be the most important priority in APRS, and when they fail to
convince the powers-that-be that the benefits outweigh the costs, they
start screaming foul.
No one says you cannot experiment, all Bob, Pete, myself, and others are
saying is those experiments should not compromise the working system that
is APRS. Go off, build your better system, prove that your ideas work and
are worth the effort and problems that implementing them would cause to
APRS. Just don't hurt our users!
Once a userbase grows above 1, it becomes impossible to satisfy everyone.
The focus of the developers of APRS has been on the users of the system,
and that is not going to change. Sorry that you find this so terrible, that
is simply the way it.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: Sean Jewett <sean@rimboy.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:37:16 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 61
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Danny wrote:
>I think the one thing that the powers at be keep missing is this. If we
>HATED APRS, we wouldn't be here. APRS is great. My wife gets sick of
>everything in my house being APRS this, APRS that.
I've spent more time talking about APRS than I have other facets of ham
radio. It's one of the few things that hams do that can be easily
explained to others (given the understanding of the power of the Internet
people now have). It's an application that I can show off to my parents.
I usually send out an email to relevant parties when I'll be taking long
trips. It's a positive application that non-hams can understand and to an
extent use.
Like someone else pointed out, APRS is what got me to take the test. Up
until then I had always wanted to take it but never did. After seeing
APRS I decided I needed to get my license (and I needed a hobby that could
put my computer skills to use).
>Most of us just want APRS to be the system it CAN be. But right now, we
>are stuck in 1999 and forever will be until something dramatic changes
>things.
Well, I think by Bob's definition of what APRS is supposed to be it is
what it can be. The question is, we each have our own ideas of what it
can be... but by those ideas is what we have in mind APRS? In many cases
it might be APRS like (ie, Opentrack) but it's not true APRS. At a
minimum it's packet but APRS bears no more resemblance to tcp/ip via
packet than Opentrack does to APRS.
We might be stuck in 1999 but in some ways this a good thing. People have
felt like they could develop APRS applications and hardware (ie, tinytrak)
without having to worry about coping with an undefined or ever changing
spec. In fact, many good things have come out of these developers /
developments. Items such as corner pegging, beacon rate determined by
speed, and finding new ways to use the internet w/ APRS are all extensions
in their own right.
To complain that we're stuck in 1999 is disingenuous at best, we're all
communicating on this list via protocols that for the most part were
developed in the 80's (it's called the Internet). Yes, there have been
extensions and changes but for the most part computers that could play
10-15 years ago can still play. There are those screaming that we need to
go to ipv6 and while the change is being pushed there's still a camp of
ip4 holdouts that fail to see the need to upgrade. I'll spare everyone
the details but the parallels are the same. Bob and others have extended
and developed the protocol as needed but I don't see us being anywhere
near exhausting the capabilities of APRS. If APRS is too limited for you
then I suggest joining the ipv6 camp (ie, Opentrack). If Opentrack takes
off then we'll all move when we're well and ready. Until then I'd like to
keep my Mac Classic connected to this here Internet.
>I have purchased a few radios since the kenwoods came out and have
>steered clear of them. I try to never buy 1.0 of anything, hardware or
>software. The kenwoods are a perfect example of a "work in progress" as
>even the G models have flaws that remain.
>
>Of course, the biggest flaw of all is that the version of the APRS
>protocol in these radios is set in stone. I don't need to go into this
>again. It's a fact, and there is no way around it.
I find this to be a red herring arguement but I certainly cannot make you
purchase one, just like I won't purchase a new Kantronic KPCx (or an older
one for that matter since they took away the upgrade path on the 3's.
Yeah, they can't get the EEPROM's but they've not been helpful to those
who can and want to be fair (legal) about it). My point being is that the
TNC2's are all hamstrung in their own ways, as are the KPC's. And I seem
to recall some traffic about bugs in KPC firmware. There's plenty of
documentation online about modifying MFJ 1270x's to make them work the way
you want. I'd consider the TNC2's and KPC's works in progress.
The Kenwoods, while maybe not being as upgradeable as some of the other
TNC's, are still capable performers in their own right. They do IMO what
they were advertised to do. I own two D700's. No, they're not perfect
but I've yet to find the perfect radio. The D700's are a close as I can
find to being perfect, at least for my needs. Sure, they cost a bit more
but they do more than other radios.
Nothing is going to be perfect. The APRS spec, the TNC's, the Kenwoods,
etc. Yaesu has put out some crappy radios (ie, FT-8000 and FT8100's).
I'm sure in 5-10 years there'll be complaints about the Opentrack protocol
and how some design "feature" is holding back the next version.
Sean...
--
The punk rock will get you if the government don't get you first.
--Old 97's
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC http://www.rimboy.com Your source for the crap you know you need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:32:32 -0700
X-Message-Number: 62
>I'd like to see extensions like this made for other platforms. My Sparc64
>I-gate runs Xastir and it'd be rather cool if there were a way to send
>satellite position data up to the network. Someone else uses APRSDOS to do
>it in the area, but a lot of the time something happens to his computer or
>it's just not transmitting.
Hey, this reminds me of something else I was going to set up as a demo.
I've got a garage full of old HDS ViewStations - they're monochrome X
consoles (I had a few color ones, but sold them on eBay.) I've had them run
just fine off of Linux, Irix, and Solaris. They'd be just fine for mapping
displays on a LAN. Not sure how many monitors I've got left, though - I
ditched a ton of them before the landfill started charging to take CRTs.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:35:49 -0700
X-Message-Number: 63
>I hope that never happens! As a weather spotter for ARES, I appreciate
>having quick access to various area weather station info in my mobile.
As I described the proposal earlier, you'd still be digipeating onto the
primary 144.39 channel. It'd still let you eliminate a lot of
collision-prone traffic, especially if you let it aggregate data for 10 to
30 seconds rather than retransmitting immediately.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:35:40 -0400
X-Message-Number: 64
>>>Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net> 6/8/04 2:42:46 PM >>>
>>And look how Jeff King...[etc] have now amplified
>>this thread over the last month to the point now where
>>he is pronouncing the radio is obsolete.
>The only overt action I took "against" the Kenwood,
>was to post this almost 5year old message:
http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/aprsspec/9912/msg00059.html
>It was ...>their opinion in response to my concerns APRS
>was going to be hobbled at version 1.0 ALMOST 5 YEARS ago.
Some would say "hobbled", others would say STABLE! Many people remember
the WEEKLY UPDATES of APRS software from 1994 on through about 1999 to keep
up with the ever increasing additions and problems caused by the LACK of a
STABLE SPEC.
>Most of my past negativism has been about the lack
>of flash memory. Don't need to own one to know that.
But why does it need INSTANT upgrades (flash) to do "new" as yet
unidentified things i f you dont even have one, and dont know what it DOES
do now.
In the 5 years since someone WROTE that email, Kenwood has sold (apparenlty
by APRS-IS numbers) over 4100 and EVERYONE of them is a happy user.
So dredging up 5 y ear old Emails just to FAN FLAMES on the APRSSIG is a
WASTE of our time!
>>And notice that Jeff does not have one, and does
>>not know what they do or how they work, yet he is
>>one of the primary spokesman for their "obsolescence!!!!!
>Yes, I don't own one. I think I said that on the SIG, right?
>I was concerned with the APRS communities best
>interest her! It is in their best interest that the Kenwood
>radios can be updated, and that is COMPLETELY
>SEPARATE FROM OPENTRAK.
Why, it is only the OPENtrack people that are complaining about all the
great things that APRS can't do! But so far they have still been undable
to really put any finger on it. So far, the only REAL ACUTAL FACT things
that APRS cannot do is position to 1 centimerer. And it is not "easy" for
programmers. So WHY then do we need to "upgrade" a perfectly good radio
to add 1cm resolution and make programmers happy?
>>PLEASE NOTICE FOLKS, Jeff King who CONDEMS
>>the KENWOODS and their obsolescence and how
>>they are HOLDING BACK APRS is the one who JUST
>>SAID HE has never owned one and doesn't really
>>know anything about them. How can he then be such
>>an expert on their capabilities to justify his condemnation...???
>What did I condemn? The only thing you have
>PROVED, is I made a BUYING DECISION, based
>in part on this 5 year old message:
http://www.tapr.org/tapr/list-archive/aprsspec/9912/msg00059.html
Wow, a LOT has happened in APRS in the last 5 years!!!!!!!!!!! It is now
global, everone likes it, and the Kenwoods have supplanted almost ALL
routine mobile APRS laptops (for receiving APRS while mobile)...
Jeff continues:
>and got nervous spending that kind of money [$350]
>. Plus, as it has already been clearly established here
>by other experts on the SIG, I haven't been on APRS
>in over 5 years, so why would I even need one? ;-)
Clearly you dont. So I dont think it is fair for yout to keep badmouthing
something you don't own, and don't use just because you dont like their
choice of internal fimrware design or their choice of chips...
Bob, Wb4APR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood APRS radio...
From: "sv1uy" <sv1uy@ham.depa.gr>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:39:10 +0300
X-Message-Number: 65
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:49:49 -0400, Steve Dimse wrote
>On 6/9/04 at 9:06 AM Curt, WE7U <archer@eskimo.com> sent:
>Yes, Perl Is Good.
>
>I wrote a short program that dumps the packet for each station in
>the lastposit table (the last position for all stations heard in the
>last 10 days on the APRS IS), eliminating CW stations, WinLink
>stations, and objects, all of which do not represent APRS users.
>Then I wrote a second program to filter this data, presented below,
> and I find that 3814 of 17077, or 22.3 percent, used the kenwood
>radios to send the position report.
>
>This avoids the confounding effect of packet volumes (why should a
>station that sends weather every 5 minutes count 288 times as much
>(for each day of data gathered) as a D7 that transmits once?).
>
>You can run this yourself, get the raw data (sorted by call) from
>
>http://www.findu.com/raw.txt
>
>(warning 1.4MB) then put the following short program into kw.pl
>(remove the print if you do not want to see each Kenwood packet),
> chmod it to execute, and use this command to invoke it:
>
>cat raw.txt | ./kw.pl
>
>Steve K4HG
>
Hi Steve,
Well thanks a lot. I think that 22.3 percent of users is a good enough
reason to go along with Bob's ideas about this matter, especially when
these users are the ones that APRS was made for in the first place and the
most important ones too because they are portable or mobile. These are the
APRS stations who are the ones that should be able to decode all the
packets that fly about in the network and the ones that do not need
anything extra than a GPS and this is not 100% necessary in many cases, so
the simplest APRS terminals should not be hindered but helped!
This is my opinion and I believe that many of you share the same opinion on
this matter!
Thanks again Steve.
---
73 de Demetre SV1UY
e-mail sv1uy@ham.depa.gr
http://www.athnet.ampr.org/~sv1uy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tetroon collateral damage report, revision1
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:39:10 -0400
X-Message-Number: 66
RB> Yet, the complainers, that don't even have a kenwood,
RB> that dont use APRS in the field anyway (or they would
RB> have one), and who just like to argue to hear themselves
RB> argue just keep on complaining...
Ok Bob, enough with your kenwood sales propaganda. I use APRS in the
field, but NOT with a kenwood and I dont plan on purchasing one. I am
quite happy with my laptop, TNC, and portable. I run great software, a
generic TNC, and the radio of my choice. I am not bound by firmware,
software, or my emotional commercial interest.
I think it's important to point out, that so far in these threads, you have
stated the following:
1. Real APRS users use hardware, not software.
2. Those that use software are home bound couch potatoes and their opinion
doesnt matter.
3. To be a REAL APRS user, you MUST be using APRS in the field.
4. If you use APRS in the field, you MUST be using a kenwood (sales pitch).
If you are worried about the image that APRS gets from the internet, think
about the propaganda that is being spewed out by it's creator.
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [ Robert Bruninga ] Re: D700 - Yes mine has FLASH and In-Circuit
Programming.
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:39:53 -0500
X-Message-Number: 67
>AND only 10% of users ever upgraded, so that Kenwood
>never even recouped their investment. THEY LEARNED
>THEIR LESSON:
It might be that only 10% of the users really understood what the upgrade
meant to them and the importance of the features.
>1) Hams are too cheap (as a group)
I don't think this is an accurate statement. Many Hams that I know will
spend money on something that has an obvious benefit to them. Many can't
buy radio equipment or spend money on this hobby arbitrarily. I don't,
because I have a family that I also like to do things with. As my kids get
older, I have become more selective.
>2) Will BITCH no matter what you do
In life, I have found people of all natures who will continuously complain
about something. Hams are not alone here. People driving one brand of
vehicle complain about others. People who'd like to own something with a
single detracting feature, avoid it, and put up quite a fuss about it.
>3) Some Hams insit on perfection or shouda/coulda/woulda
Again, all throughout my life I've found such people. Some are lawyers,
some are doctors, some are craftsmen etc. These three groups, in
particular work with a commitment to some form of perfection. It's no
wonder they might carry the same theme into the rest of their life...
>4) All it takes is one constant complainer like Jeff King
> (who doesnt even own one, but who lambasts the
> (1994 product endlessly for not having user FLASH]
> (which wasnt mainstream until later)
I think you just have a desire to say if you don't own it, you can't say bad
things about it. That's actually an interesting notion. I don't think that
such a notion is good for our society. Maybe somewhere else...
>5) ANd with the internet, one loud complainer
> can sour the whole pot.
The Internet makes it easy for someones words to be seen by a lot of
people. If you don't have an Internet enabled filter by now, then yes,
you'll probably end up believing something because it is in print somewhere
on the Internet.
>The D7(g) model upgrade was a BIG improvement. It
>brougth the D7 up to APRS SPEC compliance
>(The first D7 was finished in 1998, 2 years before
>[ we even had an APRS SPEC). Yet only 10%
>ever upgraded. Apparently even those users are HAPPY!
I got mine upgraded (well replaced) weeks after it was available, while
having it fixed because of a bad main board! It was great to have it
fixed.
....
>Complain all you want. But until you can show a
>business model of how a company that can only sell
>say 5000 APRS radios to a very tiny niche market
>where it costs $60 to upgrade and only 10% of them
>would, dont hold your breath.
I think this is where kenwood went wrong. Sure, they wanted to fix bugs.
But, they wanted to charge for that and provide some enhancements too.
This is why everyone is saying that user downloadable flash wins. Users
can do it, when they want. Kenwoods total investment in creating the
upgrade software would have been perhaps $20,000.
If 10,000 users had sent their radios in for an upgrade, that would have
been a $60,000 expense to our community that could have been avoided.
Manufacturers can be forward looking enough, or responsible enough to take
these issues into account.
When the D7A(G) upgrade was installed, kenwood could have made it possible
for users to do future upgrades by extending the wiring harness into a
place where it was accessible. This is still an option for them if they
are interested in extending the life of the radio by increasing its
usefulness with new features (regardless of whether that might be OpenTrac
support or otherwise). I'd pay for something that was a real upgrade (as I
did for the first one).
There are lots of reasons why everyone thinks this issue is important. I
don't think that anyone can stand around and wave hands and sling
derrogatory phrases because there is a difference of opinions.
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
