WAAS and Garmin 430/530

[DoodyButch]

I was all ready to order a (wildly popular) Garmin 530 upgrade but now I have read that these units are not WAAS capable and will need a motherboard upgrade whenever they develop a WAAS capability, since there are fundamental problems with the basic refresh rate - see this months Aviation Safety.

WAAS is very important, needless to say, since it increases the accuracy a lot, and it could save your life. Ironically, the lowly Garmin GPS 295 portable/handheld is WAAS enabled!

At this point, I predict sales of the Garmin 430/530 will deteriorate until they get WAAS.

I'm waiting.

DB

[ArtP]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:34:17 GMT, "DoodyButch"
> wrote:

>Ironically, the lowly Garmin GPS 295 portable/handheld is WAAS enabled!

But it is not IFR certified. The GNS 430/530 would not need a higher
refresh rate if they did not want them to be IFR certified.

[EDR]

> I was all ready to order a (wildly popular) Garmin 530 upgrade but now I =
> have read that these units are not WAAS capable and will need a =
> motherboard upgrade whenever they develop a WAAS capability, since there =
> are fundamental problems with the basic refresh rate - see this months =
> Aviation Safety.
> WAAS is very important, needless to say, since it increases the accuracy =
> a lot, and it could save your life. Ironically, the lowly Garmin GPS =
> 295 portable/handheld is WAAS enabled!
> At this point, I predict sales of the Garmin 430/530 will deteriorate =
> until they get WAAS.
> I'm waiting.

Just buy the UPSAT all in one, it has everything you want and need.
Much nicer interface, too.

[Jeff]

the 295 (which I have right now) updates ALOT slower then the 430/530
GPS/COM's, plus its not IFR certified.
The 430/530's are IFR certified and can do alot more. I had put a 430 in
my cherokee 180 and loved it. Nice system. Right now I am considering it
for my new plane, WAAS is not something I need, but from what I
understand from talking to my avionics shop, all that is needed when the
WAAS updates come out is for you to take it to the shop and they will
update the software in it. No big deal, only takes a few minutes.
I dont see sales going down on the 430 or 530, they are really good
systems especially now since you can get the terrain data base for it.

DoodyButch wrote:

> I was all ready to order a (wildly popular) Garmin 530 upgrade but now
> I have read that these units are not WAAS capable and will need a
> motherboard upgrade whenever they develop a WAAS capability, since
> there are fundamental problems with the basic refresh rate - see this
> months Aviation Safety.
>
> WAAS is very important, needless to say, since it increases the
> accuracy a lot, and it could save your life. Ironically, the lowly
> Garmin GPS 295 portable/handheld is WAAS enabled!
>
> At this point, I predict sales of the Garmin 430/530 will deteriorate
> until they get WAAS.
>
> I'm waiting.
>
> DB

[ArtP]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:18:38 -0700, Jeff > wrote:

> Right now I am considering it
>for my new plane, WAAS is not something I need, but from what I
>understand from talking to my avionics shop, all that is needed when the
>WAAS updates come out is for you to take it to the shop and they will
>update the software in it. No big deal, only takes a few minutes.
>I dont see sales going down on the 430 or 530, they are really good
>systems especially now since you can get the terrain data base for it.

According to Garmin updating my dual GNS 430s for WAAS will cost $1500
per unit. They have to be removed and shipped to the factory.

[Mark T. Mueller]

The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were designed
long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would be
"upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise.

You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz refresh
rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the upgrade
should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical
schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they can
provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any "issues"
with the hardware upgrade...

There will be a significant software upgrade as well.

Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published, I
don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the hardware
upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable problems are
worked out...

In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the CNX80,
but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future
product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was their
entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar G-1000,
and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of
disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an interface for
the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...

Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high pricing
structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model, but I
hope they refocus on their core aviation market.


"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:NLLdb.38601$vj2.28144@fed1read06...
the 295 (which I have right now) updates ALOT slower then the 430/530
GPS/COM's, plus its not IFR certified.
The 430/530's are IFR certified and can do alot more. I had put a 430 in my
cherokee 180 and loved it. Nice system. Right now I am considering it for my
new plane, WAAS is not something I need, but from what I understand from
talking to my avionics shop, all that is needed when the WAAS updates come
out is for you to take it to the shop and they will update the software in
it. No big deal, only takes a few minutes.
I dont see sales going down on the 430 or 530, they are really good systems
especially now since you can get the terrain data base for it.

DoodyButch wrote:

I was all ready to order a (wildly popular) Garmin 530 upgrade but now I
have read that these units are not WAAS capable and will need a motherboard
upgrade whenever they develop a WAAS capability, since there are fundamental
problems with the basic refresh rate - see this months Aviation Safety.

WAAS is very important, needless to say, since it increases the accuracy a
lot, and it could save your life. Ironically, the lowly Garmin GPS 295
portable/handheld is WAAS enabled!

At this point, I predict sales of the Garmin 430/530 will deteriorate until
they get WAAS.

I'm waiting.

DB

[JerryK]

Why is WAAS a factor?

What is it that WAAS offers that you need? The accuracy increase is only a factor for approaches.

"DoodyButch" > wrote in message et...
I was all ready to order a (wildly popular) Garmin 530 upgrade but now I have read that these units are not WAAS capable and will need a motherboard upgrade whenever they develop a WAAS capability, since there are fundamental problems with the basic refresh rate - see this months Aviation Safety.

WAAS is very important, needless to say, since it increases the accuracy a lot, and it could save your life. Ironically, the lowly Garmin GPS 295 portable/handheld is WAAS enabled!

At this point, I predict sales of the Garmin 430/530 will deteriorate until they get WAAS.

I'm waiting.

DB

[Jeff]

Thats alot more then I was quoted from my avionics shop, they said 500$
and they updated the software.

ArtP wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:18:38 -0700, Jeff > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Right now I am considering it
>>for my new plane, WAAS is not something I need, but from what I
>>understand from talking to my avionics shop, all that is needed when the
>>WAAS updates come out is for you to take it to the shop and they will
>>update the software in it. No big deal, only takes a few minutes.
>>I dont see sales going down on the 430 or 530, they are really good
>>systems especially now since you can get the terrain data base for it.
>>
>>
>
>According to Garmin updating my dual GNS 430s for WAAS will cost $1500
>per unit. They have to be removed and shipped to the factory.
>
>

[Dave Butler]

Jeff wrote:
> Thats alot more then I was quoted from my avionics shop, they said 500$
> and they updated the software.
>
> ArtP wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:18:38 -0700, Jeff > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Right now I am considering it
>>>for my new plane, WAAS is not something I need, but from what I
>>>understand from talking to my avionics shop, all that is needed when the
>>>WAAS updates come out is for you to take it to the shop and they will
>>>update the software in it. No big deal, only takes a few minutes.
>>>I dont see sales going down on the 430 or 530, they are really good
>>>systems especially now since you can get the terrain data base for it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>According to Garmin updating my dual GNS 430s for WAAS will cost $1500
>>per unit. They have to be removed and shipped to the factory.
>>

Correct. Check this press release from Garmin:
http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/060403.html

Dave

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeff" > wrote in message news:xAteb.44567$vj2.42107@fed1read06...
> Thats alot more then I was quoted from my avionics shop, they said 500$
> and they updated the software.
>
I talked to Garmin at Oshkosh. It will require sending the unit back. There is
a hardware change required. It's not just a software change.

[Ron Natalie]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > Thats alot more then I was quoted from my avionics shop, they said 500$
> > and they updated the software.

> >>
> >>According to Garmin updating my dual GNS 430s for WAAS will cost $1500
> >>per unit. They have to be removed and shipped to the factory.
> >>
>
> Correct. Check this press release from Garmin:
> http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/060403.html

The summary:

TAWS - $500
WAAS - $1500

[Jeff]

ouch....so 1500$ for the upgrade and xxx to have an avionics person
remove it and send it in.
WAAS isnt that important to me, the terrain data base would be nice to
have tho.


Dave Butler wrote:

>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Thats alot more then I was quoted from my avionics shop, they said
>> 500$ and they updated the software.
>>
>> ArtP wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:18:38 -0700, Jeff > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Right now I am considering it for my new plane, WAAS is not
>>>> something I need, but from what I understand from talking to my
>>>> avionics shop, all that is needed when the WAAS updates come out is
>>>> for you to take it to the shop and they will update the software in
>>>> it. No big deal, only takes a few minutes.
>>>> I dont see sales going down on the 430 or 530, they are really
>>>> good systems especially now since you can get the terrain data base
>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to Garmin updating my dual GNS 430s for WAAS will cost $1500
>>> per unit. They have to be removed and shipped to the factory.
>>>
>>
>
> Correct. Check this press release from Garmin:
> http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/060403.html
>
> Dave
>
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> > Jeff wrote:
> > > Thats alot more then I was quoted from my avionics shop, they said
500$
> > > and they updated the software.
>
> > >>
> > >>According to Garmin updating my dual GNS 430s for WAAS will cost $1500
> > >>per unit. They have to be removed and shipped to the factory.
> > >>
> >
> > Correct. Check this press release from Garmin:
> > http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/060403.html
>
> The summary:
>
> TAWS - $500
> WAAS - $1500
>

No. "Terrain" (not TAWS) is $500
TAWS is $6250

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were designed
> long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would be
> "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise.
>
> You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz refresh
> rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the upgrade
> should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical
> schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they can
> provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any "issues"
> with the hardware upgrade...
>
> There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
>
> Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published, I
> don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the
hardware
> upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable problems
are
> worked out...
>
> In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the
CNX80,
> but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future
> product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was their
> entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar G-1000,
> and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of
> disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an interface
for
> the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
>
> Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high pricing
> structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model, but
I
> hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
>
> I'm waiting.
>
> DB
>
What auto maker was that?

Mike
MU-2

[Mark T. Mueller]

I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a hit
after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest
revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...

Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the auto
sector.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were
designed
> > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would be
> > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise.
> >
> > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz
refresh
> > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the
upgrade
> > should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical
> > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they
can
> > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any
"issues"
> > with the hardware upgrade...
> >
> > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> >
> > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published, I
> > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the
> hardware
> > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable problems
> are
> > worked out...
> >
> > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the
> CNX80,
> > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future
> > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was their
> > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar
G-1000,
> > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of
> > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an interface
> for
> > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> >
> > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high pricing
> > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model,
but
> I
> > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> >
> > I'm waiting.
> >
> > DB
> >
> What auto maker was that?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a
hit
> after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest
> revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
>
> Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the
auto
> sector.
[snip]
> > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high
pricing
> > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model,
> but
> > I
> > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > >
> > > I'm waiting.
> > >
> > > DB
> > >
> > What auto maker was that?

Does anyone know who did get the contract?

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose the
business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher price
(~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler. The
stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real
pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but the
margins are going to be the lowest.

Mike
MU-2


"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a
hit
> after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest
> revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
>
> Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the
auto
> sector.
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were
> designed
> > > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530 would
be
> > > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise.
> > >
> > > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz
> refresh
> > > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the
> upgrade
> > > should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical
> > > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before they
> can
> > > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any
> "issues"
> > > with the hardware upgrade...
> > >
> > > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> > >
> > > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches published,
I
> > > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the
> > hardware
> > > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable
problems
> > are
> > > worked out...
> > >
> > > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for the
> > CNX80,
> > > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and future
> > > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was
their
> > > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar
> G-1000,
> > > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of
> > > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an
interface
> > for
> > > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> > >
> > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high
pricing
> > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business model,
> but
> > I
> > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > >
> > > I'm waiting.
> > >
> > > DB
> > >
> > What auto maker was that?
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Alpine got some Chrysler business but it was for a different product that
what Garmin was working on.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a
> hit
> > after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest
> > revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
> >
> > Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the
> auto
> > sector.
> [snip]
> > > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high
> pricing
> > > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business
model,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > > >
> > > > I'm waiting.
> > > >
> > > > DB
> > > >
> > > What auto maker was that?
>
> Does anyone know who did get the contract?
>
>
>

[Mark T. Mueller]

I don't think so, but I will obviously have to do some research. Alpine been
designing Mopar products for a while. The Mopar RB1 (an awesome GPS head
unit that is Sirius Sat ready...) was shipping back in May, and it is an
Alpine based product...

I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting their
pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect of
their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the biggest
market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are the ones
that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over
Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to
market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven. Perfectly
legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a tad on
the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin,
because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years until
others came to the market, they really milked that one...

Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I am
just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these products.
When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my discussions
with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a WAAS
upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't know
when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from
discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their
resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may be on
the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future on
the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.)



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
. net...
> Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose the
> business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher
price
> (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler. The
> stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real
> pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but the
> margins are going to be the lowest.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took a
> hit
> > after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest
> > revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
> >
> > Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to the
> auto
> > sector.
> >
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were
> > designed
> > > > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530
would
> be
> > > > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise.
> > > >
> > > > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz
> > refresh
> > > > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the
> > upgrade
> > > > should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's typical
> > > > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before
they
> > can
> > > > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any
> > "issues"
> > > > with the hardware upgrade...
> > > >
> > > > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> > > >
> > > > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches
published,
> I
> > > > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until the
> > > hardware
> > > > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable
> problems
> > > are
> > > > worked out...
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for
the
> > > CNX80,
> > > > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and
future
> > > > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was
> their
> > > > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar
> > G-1000,
> > > > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of
> > > > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an
> interface
> > > for
> > > > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> > > >
> > > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high
> pricing
> > > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business
model,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > > >
> > > > I'm waiting.
> > > >
> > > > DB
> > > >
> > > What auto maker was that?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting
their
> pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect of
> their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the biggest
> market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are the
ones
> that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over
> Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to
> market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven. Perfectly
> legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a tad
on
> the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin,
> because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years
until
> others came to the market, they really milked that one...


Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one.


> Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I am
> just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these products.
> When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my discussions
> with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a
WAAS
> upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't know
> when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from
> discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their
> resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may be
on
> the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future on
> the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.)
>

When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade path
for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the TSO, it
required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor on the
430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin certainly
hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified
products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the 430/530
today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get WAAS
into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to having a
146 box today.

Mike
MU-2


>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose
the
> > business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher
> price
> > (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler. The
> > stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real
> > pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but the
> > margins are going to be the lowest.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock took
a
> > hit
> > > after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the greatest
> > > revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
> > >
> > > Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to
the
> > auto
> > > sector.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They were
> > > designed
> > > > > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530
> would
> > be
> > > > > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by surprise.
> > > > >
> > > > > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1 Hz
> > > refresh
> > > > > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated the
> > > upgrade
> > > > > should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's
typical
> > > > > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04 before
> they
> > > can
> > > > > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find any
> > > "issues"
> > > > > with the hardware upgrade...
> > > > >
> > > > > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches
> published,
> > I
> > > > > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until
the
> > > > hardware
> > > > > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable
> > problems
> > > > are
> > > > > worked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go for
> the
> > > > CNX80,
> > > > > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and
> future
> > > > > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH was
> > their
> > > > > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high dollar
> > > G-1000,
> > > > > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of
> > > > > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an
> > interface
> > > > for
> > > > > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> > > > >
> > > > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high
> > pricing
> > > > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business
> model,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > >
> > > > > DB
> > > > >
> > > > What auto maker was that?
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > MU-2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mark T. Mueller]

I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146
capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can only
speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based upon
Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own
marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between right
now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and out of
airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to have a
GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really
looking forward to using.

Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a reorganization in
1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax haven) and
became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab shop,
if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer electronics
(iQue, Rhino, eTrex...)

Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of
Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious
competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to the
markets that got them where they are now.

Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger mania". The
organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died off
in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting
> their
> > pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect of
> > their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the biggest
> > market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are the
> ones
> > that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over
> > Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to
> > market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven.
Perfectly
> > legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a tad
> on
> > the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin,
> > because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years
> until
> > others came to the market, they really milked that one...
>
>
> Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one.
>
>
> > Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I am
> > just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these
products.
> > When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my discussions
> > with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a
> WAAS
> > upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't
know
> > when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from
> > discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their
> > resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may be
> on
> > the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future
on
> > the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.)
> >
>
> When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade path
> for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the TSO,
it
> required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor on
the
> 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin
certainly
> hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified
> products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the 430/530
> today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get
WAAS
> into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to having
a
> 146 box today.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not lose
> the
> > > business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a higher
> > price
> > > (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler.
The
> > > stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no real
> > > pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but
the
> > > margins are going to be the lowest.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock
took
> a
> > > hit
> > > > after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the
greatest
> > > > revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
> > > >
> > > > Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared to
> the
> > > auto
> > > > sector.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > link.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They
were
> > > > designed
> > > > > > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the 430/530
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by
surprise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1
Hz
> > > > refresh
> > > > > > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated
the
> > > > upgrade
> > > > > > should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's
> typical
> > > > > > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04
before
> > they
> > > > can
> > > > > > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find
any
> > > > "issues"
> > > > > > with the hardware upgrade...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches
> > published,
> > > I
> > > > > > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit until
> the
> > > > > hardware
> > > > > > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any inevitable
> > > problems
> > > > > are
> > > > > > worked out...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go
for
> > the
> > > > > CNX80,
> > > > > > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and
> > future
> > > > > > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH
was
> > > their
> > > > > > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high
dollar
> > > > G-1000,
> > > > > > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind of
> > > > > > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an
> > > interface
> > > > > for
> > > > > > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their high
> > > pricing
> > > > > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their business
> > model,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DB
> > > > > >
> > > > > What auto maker was that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > MU-2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

First off Garmin never said that WAAS would be a software upgrade, they said
that they "thought" that it would be. The 430/530 could probably easily be
software upgraded to WAAS but it wouldn't be a 146 box. That is an FAA
problem, not a Garmin problem.

Garmin's US earnings are fully taxed as are their Taiwan earnings. I have
forgotten what the reason for incorporation in the Caymans was but it
doesn't affect the company's income taxes.

Mike
MU-2


"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146
> capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can only
> speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based upon
> Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own
> marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between
right
> now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and out
of
> airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to have
a
> GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really
> looking forward to using.
>
> Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a reorganization
in
> 1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax haven)
and
> became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab
shop,
> if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer
electronics
> (iQue, Rhino, eTrex...)
>
> Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of
> Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious
> competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to the
> markets that got them where they are now.
>
> Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger mania".
The
> organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died off
> in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better.
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in protecting
> > their
> > > pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still suspect
of
> > > their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the
biggest
> > > market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are
the
> > ones
> > > that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS over
> > > Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came to
> > > market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven.
> Perfectly
> > > legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a
tad
> > on
> > > the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for Garmin,
> > > because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many years
> > until
> > > others came to the market, they really milked that one...
> >
> >
> > Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one.
> >
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do. I
am
> > > just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these
> products.
> > > When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my
discussions
> > > with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for a
> > WAAS
> > > upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really don't
> know
> > > when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know from
> > > discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of their
> > > resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530 may
be
> > on
> > > the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace future
> on
> > > the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.)
> > >
> >
> > When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade
path
> > for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the
TSO,
> it
> > required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor on
> the
> > 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin
> certainly
> > hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified
> > products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the 430/530
> > today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get
> WAAS
> > into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to
having
> a
> > 146 box today.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > . net...
> > > > Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not
lose
> > the
> > > > business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a
higher
> > > price
> > > > (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for Chrysler.
> The
> > > > stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no
real
> > > > pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market but
> the
> > > > margins are going to be the lowest.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > MU-2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's stock
> took
> > a
> > > > hit
> > > > > after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the
> greatest
> > > > > revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
> > > > >
> > > > > Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared
to
> > the
> > > > auto
> > > > > sector.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > > link.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They
> were
> > > > > designed
> > > > > > > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the
430/530
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by
> surprise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the 1
> Hz
> > > > > refresh
> > > > > > > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year stated
> the
> > > > > upgrade
> > > > > > > should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's
> > typical
> > > > > > > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04
> before
> > > they
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't find
> any
> > > > > "issues"
> > > > > > > with the hardware upgrade...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches
> > > published,
> > > > I
> > > > > > > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit
until
> > the
> > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any
inevitable
> > > > problems
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > worked out...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably go
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > CNX80,
> > > > > > > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT and
> > > future
> > > > > > > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at OSH
> was
> > > > their
> > > > > > > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high
> dollar
> > > > > G-1000,
> > > > > > > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment. Kind
of
> > > > > > > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with an
> > > > interface
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their
high
> > > > pricing
> > > > > > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their
business
> > > model,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DB
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What auto maker was that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > MU-2
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mark T. Mueller]

OK, I give up. "Garmin" never said WAAS would be a software upgrade, but
their engineers and marketing folks sure did (at least to me...) Perhaps
without "corporate approval"??? Or they were out specifically to get ME!!!

But why would you move a corporate HQ to the Caymans if it WASN'T for the
tax haven?

Isn't that kind of like having a Swiss Bank Account for reasons OTHER than
money laundering and/or hiding cash?

Doesn't pass the smell test to me, but I am willing to admit I could be
wrong... Can't imagine how Anderson and all the other "Big 6" made tons of
money in the 90s using offshore schemes if it weren't to reduce tax
liabilities...

Check out their operating margins for the MRQ. Pretty astounding, if Yahoo
financials have it right. The G1000 is a remarkable piece of kit, and as a
high-margin OEM product, that should do Garmin quite well. I hope
Bendix/King gets their collective heads out of their ass and hires away
UPSAT's engineers so we can once again have some real competition in the GA
market.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> First off Garmin never said that WAAS would be a software upgrade, they
said
> that they "thought" that it would be. The 430/530 could probably easily
be
> software upgraded to WAAS but it wouldn't be a 146 box. That is an FAA
> problem, not a Garmin problem.
>
> Garmin's US earnings are fully taxed as are their Taiwan earnings. I have
> forgotten what the reason for incorporation in the Caymans was but it
> doesn't affect the company's income taxes.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146
> > capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can only
> > speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based upon
> > Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own
> > marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between
> right
> > now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and
out
> of
> > airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to
have
> a
> > GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really
> > looking forward to using.
> >
> > Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a
reorganization
> in
> > 1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax haven)
> and
> > became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab
> shop,
> > if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer
> electronics
> > (iQue, Rhino, eTrex...)
> >
> > Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of
> > Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious
> > competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to the
> > markets that got them where they are now.
> >
> > Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger mania".
> The
> > organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died
off
> > in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better.
> >
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > >
> > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in
protecting
> > > their
> > > > pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still
suspect
> of
> > > > their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the
> biggest
> > > > market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies are
> the
> > > ones
> > > > that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS
over
> > > > Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions came
to
> > > > market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven.
> > Perfectly
> > > > legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US, a
> tad
> > > on
> > > > the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for
Garmin,
> > > > because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many
years
> > > until
> > > > others came to the market, they really milked that one...
> > >
> > >
> > > Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they do.
I
> am
> > > > just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these
> > products.
> > > > When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my
> discussions
> > > > with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution for
a
> > > WAAS
> > > > upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really
don't
> > know
> > > > when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know
from
> > > > discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of
their
> > > > resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530
may
> be
> > > on
> > > > the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace
future
> > on
> > > > the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade
> path
> > > for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the
> TSO,
> > it
> > > required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor
on
> > the
> > > 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin
> > certainly
> > > hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified
> > > products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the
430/530
> > > today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to get
> > WAAS
> > > into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to
> having
> > a
> > > 146 box today.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > . net...
> > > > > Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did not
> lose
> > > the
> > > > > business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a
> higher
> > > > price
> > > > > (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for
Chrysler.
> > The
> > > > > stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with no
> real
> > > > > pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market
but
> > the
> > > > > margins are going to be the lowest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > MU-2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's
stock
> > took
> > > a
> > > > > hit
> > > > > > after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the
> > greatest
> > > > > > revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market compared
> to
> > > the
> > > > > auto
> > > > > > sector.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe). They
> > were
> > > > > > designed
> > > > > > > > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the
> 430/530
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by
> > surprise.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide the
1
> > Hz
> > > > > > refresh
> > > > > > > > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year
stated
> > the
> > > > > > upgrade
> > > > > > > > should be available early next year, but based upon Garmin's
> > > typical
> > > > > > > > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04
> > before
> > > > they
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't
find
> > any
> > > > > > "issues"
> > > > > > > > with the hardware upgrade...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV approaches
> > > > published,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit
> until
> > > the
> > > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any
> inevitable
> > > > > problems
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > worked out...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably
go
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > CNX80,
> > > > > > > > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT
and
> > > > future
> > > > > > > > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at
OSH
> > was
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the high
> > dollar
> > > > > > G-1000,
> > > > > > > > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment.
Kind
> of
> > > > > > > > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with
an
> > > > > interface
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of their
> high
> > > > > pricing
> > > > > > > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their
> business
> > > > model,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DB
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What auto maker was that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > MU-2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I give up. "Garmin" never said WAAS would be a software upgrade, but
> their engineers and marketing folks sure did (at least to me...) Perhaps
> without "corporate approval"??? Or they were out specifically to get ME!!!

They "thought" that it would be a software upgrade but, since the TSO wasn't
out, they couldn't know for sure. If they knew that the TSO was going to
require five updates per second, nobody would have said that it would only
take a software upgrade.


> But why would you move a corporate HQ to the Caymans if it WASN'T for the
> tax haven?

There is a reason but it wasn't the avoidance of coporate income tax. I
forget what the rational was.

>
> Isn't that kind of like having a Swiss Bank Account for reasons OTHER than
> money laundering and/or hiding cash?

Don't know.


> Doesn't pass the smell test to me, but I am willing to admit I could be
> wrong... Can't imagine how Anderson and all the other "Big 6" made tons of
> money in the 90s using offshore schemes if it weren't to reduce tax
> liabilities...

Well look at the taxes that they pay. Their US earnings are fully taxed.

> Check out their operating margins for the MRQ. Pretty astounding, if Yahoo
> financials have it right. The G1000 is a remarkable piece of kit, and as a
> high-margin OEM product, that should do Garmin quite well. I hope
> Bendix/King gets their collective heads out of their ass and hires away
> UPSAT's engineers so we can once again have some real competition in the
GA
> market.
>

The company's margins have always been high, mostly because they design more
desirable products than the competition. Compare the tactile "feel" of the
buttons used on Garmin's audio panel with King's buttons. The Garmin's
buttons just feel better. Little things like that add up.

It is important to remember that Garmin IS the young inovative company,
without them, King would still be trying to sell us KX155s and KLN 92s and
there would be no alternative.

Mike
MU-2


>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > First off Garmin never said that WAAS would be a software upgrade, they
> said
> > that they "thought" that it would be. The 430/530 could probably easily
> be
> > software upgraded to WAAS but it wouldn't be a 146 box. That is an FAA
> > problem, not a Garmin problem.
> >
> > Garmin's US earnings are fully taxed as are their Taiwan earnings. I
have
> > forgotten what the reason for incorporation in the Caymans was but it
> > doesn't affect the company's income taxes.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I didn't mean to infer Garmin should pull out all stops to provide 146
> > > capability to the 430/530. But the fact of the matter is, and I can
only
> > > speak for myself on this, part of my purchasing decision was based
upon
> > > Garmin's statements. I just believe they should live up to their own
> > > marketing hype. Granted, LNAV/VNAV approaches are few and far between
> > right
> > > now, but there are more published every day. I typically fly into and
> out
> > of
> > > airfields that do not have precision approaches, and are fortunate to
> have
> > a
> > > GPS overlay of an NDB approach. LNAV/VNAV is a capability I am really
> > > looking forward to using.
> > >
> > > Garmin was founded and headquartered in Olathe, KS until a
> reorganization
> > in
> > > 1999 or 2000, I believe. That moved their HQ to the Caymans (tax
haven)
> > and
> > > became the "Britainized" Garmin LTD. The Taiwan facility is just a fab
> > shop,
> > > if my research is correct principally for lower margin consumer
> > electronics
> > > (iQue, Rhino, eTrex...)
> > >
> > > Believe me, I have no beef with Garmin, other than my resentment of
> > > Corporate tax havens. These guys are sharp businessmen, and vicious
> > > competitors. My concern is, and will remain with their commitment to
the
> > > markets that got them where they are now.
> > >
> > > Just take a look at what is happening with pharma after "merger
mania".
> > The
> > > organizations have gotten so big, innovation and competition have died
> off
> > > in many market sectors. Bigger is not always better.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > . net...
> > > >
> > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I own Garmin products, but I also know they are vicious in
> protecting
> > > > their
> > > > > pricing and controlling distribution (which is why I am still
> suspect
> > of
> > > > > their UPSAT purchase.) You are correct, that autos represent the
> > biggest
> > > > > market and lowest margins, but the most successful technologies
are
> > the
> > > > ones
> > > > > that can generate high volume sales (witness Wi-Fi or the old VHS
> over
> > > > > Beta...) GPS did not become ubiquitous until "cheap" solutions
came
> to
> > > > > market. Garmin also incorporated in the Cayman's as a tax haven.
> > > Perfectly
> > > > > legal, but considering the bulk of their operations are in the US,
a
> > tad
> > > > on
> > > > > the sleazy side for my taste. Aerospace is a great market for
> Garmin,
> > > > > because it is niche. The 35 "mouse" was way overpriced for many
> years
> > > > until
> > > > > others came to the market, they really milked that one...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Garmin is more of a Taiwanese company than a US one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong, the 430/530 are still amazing for what they
do.
> I
> > am
> > > > > just concerned that they overpromised continued support of these
> > > products.
> > > > > When making my UPSAT vs Garmin decision a few years back, my
> > discussions
> > > > > with Garmin engineers "suggested" Garmin had a software solution
for
> a
> > > > WAAS
> > > > > upgrade. Now we know it is a major hardware upgrade, and really
> don't
> > > know
> > > > > when it will be ready (or if it will ever pass the TSO...) I know
> from
> > > > > discussing from individuals working in engineering that most of
> their
> > > > > resources and talent are pushing the G1000. Upgrading the 430/530
> may
> > be
> > > > on
> > > > > the back burner for a while since they have bet their aerospace
> future
> > > on
> > > > > the G1000 (and spending a lot of coin to get it out the door.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > When Garmin "suggested" that they would have a software WAAS upgrade
> > path
> > > > for the 430/530, the TSO was not availible. When the FAA issued the
> > TSO,
> > > it
> > > > required 5 updates per second and that was beyond what the processor
> on
> > > the
> > > > 430/530 could do. Their was no way to see this coming and Garmin
> > > certainly
> > > > hasn't had any problem integrating WAAS into their non-IFR-certified
> > > > products. You seem to be inferring that not having WAAS for the
> 430/530
> > > > today is an issue and that Garmin should pull out all the stops to
get
> > > WAAS
> > > > into the 430/530. I disagree. There is no functional advantage to
> > having
> > > a
> > > > 146 box today.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > MU-2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > > . net...
> > > > > > Actually what you are referring to is Chrysler and Garmin did
not
> > lose
> > > > the
> > > > > > business.. The system bought by Chrysler from Alpine was at a
> > higher
> > > > > price
> > > > > > (~$1600) point than the one being developed by Garmin for
> Chrysler.
> > > The
> > > > > > stock was ready to take a hit, having run from $20 to $50 with
no
> > real
> > > > > > pullbacks. Automotive is indeed going to be the largest market
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > margins are going to be the lowest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > MU-2
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > I believe it was GM. It was reported back in June. Garmin's
> stock
> > > took
> > > > a
> > > > > > hit
> > > > > > > after the announcement, since the auto sector represents the
> > > greatest
> > > > > > > revenue growth potential for GPS equipment makers...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aviation, as we all know, is a very small, niche market
compared
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > auto
> > > > > > > sector.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
message
> > > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote
in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > The 430/530 do not meet the WAAS TSO (146a, I believe).
They
> > > were
> > > > > > > designed
> > > > > > > > > long before this TSO went final. Garmin always said the
> > 430/530
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > "upgradeable", but I think the final TSO caught them by
> > > surprise.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You WILL need a hardware upgrade in the boxes to provide
the
> 1
> > > Hz
> > > > > > > refresh
> > > > > > > > > rate required by the TSO. Garmin reps at OSH this year
> stated
> > > the
> > > > > > > upgrade
> > > > > > > > > should be available early next year, but based upon
Garmin's
> > > > typical
> > > > > > > > > schedule challenges, it will probably be more like late 04
> > > before
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > provide good turn-around, and that's assuming they don't
> find
> > > any
> > > > > > > "issues"
> > > > > > > > > with the hardware upgrade...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There will be a significant software upgrade as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Seeing as there are only a handfull of LNAV/VNAV
approaches
> > > > > published,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > don't see the hurry in finding the que. I will wait a bit
> > until
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > > > upgrade is on the street for a couple months and any
> > inevitable
> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > worked out...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In the meantime, were I to buy right now, I would probably
> go
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CNX80,
> > > > > > > > > but I would be concerned that Garmin has just bought UPSAT
> and
> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > product support. The "gist" I got from the Garmin reps at
> OSH
> > > was
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > entire engineering staff is focused on rolling out the
high
> > > dollar
> > > > > > > G-1000,
> > > > > > > > > and everything else is taking a back seat at the moment.
> Kind
> > of
> > > > > > > > > disappointing, since I was hoping they would come out with
> an
> > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the 530 with WxWorx instead of that pathetic EchoFlight...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Garmin lost a major auto contract recently because of
their
> > high
> > > > > > pricing
> > > > > > > > > structure. Don't know how that's going to effect their
> > business
> > > > > model,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > hope they refocus on their core aviation market.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm waiting.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What auto maker was that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > > MU-2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>