In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:
The Garmins may cost more, but they are better supported and usually
have more features.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Feature-wise, it for sure isn't, and I'd
like
your unbiased statistical measure of support proving your point.

It's simple. The Garmin 195 is still being supported with database
updates, which means that the 195 can still operate as a useful unit
with a current database. The AirMap 300, which was on the market as
competition for the 195, was ditched by Lowrance years ago. The AirMap
100 was released after the 300 (and the Garmin 195), and it too is no
longer being supported.



And they sell it for a lower price. And the features will be offered soon as
an upgrade. What's your point? Having features is not a value in itself.

Take me, for example. Flying mostly in Europe, I couldn't care less about XM
weather.

That may be true, but Europe is a rather insignificant market compared
to the United States. Sorry to break the news. Companies sell to their
largest market, and sell features that are valuable to their largest
market.



Lowrance does not have a product to
compete with the Garmin 396.

They don't have a product that will set you back by an absurd amount of money
plus a steep monthly subscription fee, either. Again, having features is not
a
value...

Weather uplink is a huge value if you fly in or around weather. It's
easily worth the price of admission. Garmin has nothing to do with the
monthly fees, though I do not think that $30/month for the "Lite"
subscription is "absurd." Many folks pay 3 times that amount for cable
television every month, and that is truly something that contains almost
no value.



JKG