If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
|
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote: When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap? Well, let's call a spade a spade. This is technology that's already in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't seen the SB for the SVI yet). Paying another $18,000 to get that stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is there whether it's turned on or not. It's not like we're talking about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530 install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for more than the VFR-only install. This kind of thing is standard practice. Look at all of the "pro" software out there with a "basic" or "home" counterpart. It actually takes significantly *more* effort on the part of the software maker to create these two distinct versions of the software, but they anticipate making enough money to make it worthwhile because they're able to better extract more revenue from people who can pay. It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote: Le Chaud Lapin wrote: One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for indemnification. Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self. One example I recall followed a Bonanza pilot flying VFR into IMC, and digging a hole somewhere in Kansas. Pilot error, no evidence that the aircraft broke up for any reason other than majorly severed overstress. The lawyer (or law firm) going for civil damages added everyone he/they could think of, including Beechcraft. They were demanding something on the order of $2B in damages. That "B" was intentional, not a typo. And the suit wasn't laughed out of court by the presiding judge. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 24, 4:36*pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark wrote: On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote: When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap? Well, let's call a spade a spade. *This is technology that's already in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't seen the SB for the SVI yet). *Paying another $18,000 to get that stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is there whether it's turned on or not. *It's not like we're talking about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530 install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for more than the VFR-only install. This kind of thing is standard practice. Look at all of the "pro" software out there with a "basic" or "home" counterpart. It actually takes significantly *more* effort on the part of the software maker to create these two distinct versions of the software, but they anticipate making enough money to make it worthwhile because they're able to better extract more revenue from people who can pay. Yep, price-stratification. The ISP's are kicking themselves right now because they feel that Internet-Access Service was commoditized and price-homongenized far too prematurely. They know that some users would be willing to pay much more than others, for certain patterns of usage, but it is difficult for them to find a way to stratify the service, now that cat is out of the bag. They are currently trying to come up with pitiful excuses to justify the action, even thought it is no secret that the utilization of existing cable plant is frighteningly low, so low that companies like http://www.level3.com stays afloat by charging large, somewhat indifferent customers between 10-100x what those customers would pay with smaller vendor Level3 sees red on P&L statement every quarter in hunreds of millions, with a glut of capacity. Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply was..."But it comes with mints!" It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities. I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for about $42,000. They discovered, long after market planning and device design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market, customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. But there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by lower-paying customers. Not very pretty, but it worked. As the saying goes: Customer: "How much does it cost?" Vendor: "How much you got?" -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply was..."But it comes with mints!" It's spelled "usury", and this is not it. Usury refers to the specific practice of charging illegally high interest (orignially, to charging interest at all) on loans. It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities. I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for about $42,000. They discovered, long after market planning and device design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market, customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. But there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by lower-paying customers. Not very pretty, but it worked. Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be, and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice. As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper, if it weren't done. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 25, 7:35*pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply was..."But it comes with mints!" It's spelled "usury", and this is not it. Usury refers to the specific practice of charging illegally high interest (orignially, to charging interest at all) on loans. Realized that just after I hit the ENTER key. dsloppy/dt 0 definitely monotonically increasing function of t when it comes to typing. It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities. I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for about $42,000. *They discovered, long after market planning and device design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market, customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. *But there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by lower-paying customers. *Not very pretty, but it worked. Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be, and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice. As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper, if it weren't done. True. I was just pointing out the highly desirable benefit of price stratification from vendor's point of view, as even the marketing people had not previously had any intention of addressing the newly- sprung market, and at $30,000 they were still making a profit. Incidentally, had dinner tonight with a friend who is salesman for company that makes all kinds of electronic surveillance equipment. He showed me a device that can be used to check if someone is spying on you with a CCD camera. He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could be mounted on GA aircraft, and it turns out that company has entire line of cameras for aviation, including police surveillance. The equipment is in excess of $1000, and in some several $1000's for what was essentially the same $100-$200 unit. We got into discussion about whether they were repackaging same equipment that they sell for cheap (they are), and what justification for higher pricing, and in the end, I said, "So basically, it's the same unit, same technology, made in Taiwan, different case, different manual, and differnt power connector, which probably costs less than $50 I'm guessing, and the real reason that you are charging so much to pilots is because you can." And he says, "Well..yeah, right, that's the idea, isn't it?" -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could be mounted on GA aircraft If it's small duct tape will do as a mounting :-) I've used a similar camera (it's about the size of a large thing of lipstick, hence is called a 'lipstick camera') on planes and racing motorcycles. Some examples (although the quality will be somewhat degraded by youtube): http://www.youtube.com/user/74HC138 I also now have a completely self contained camera which cost (in US money) about $70. Records to an SD card. It's not as good quality as the lipstick camera, but it weighs only 35 grams and fits on a radio controlled helicopter. -- From the sunny Isle of Man. Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities. I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for about $42,000. ?They discovered, long after market planning and device design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market, customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. ?But there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by lower-paying customers. ?Not very pretty, but it worked. Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be, and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice. As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper, if it weren't done. True. I was just pointing out the highly desirable benefit of price stratification from vendor's point of view, as even the marketing people had not previously had any intention of addressing the newly- sprung market, and at $30,000 they were still making a profit. Sure, I just wanted to point out the highly desirable benefit of price stratification from the *buyer's* point of view. With this kind of "underhanded" technique, the $30,000 buyers suddenly had a product. Without it, they would not have had the opportunity to purchase it at all. Net win for them. Also, "still making a profit" is extremely misleading. In electronics, and especially software, design costs are enormous. Those engineers don't come cheap, but they get paid the same amount no matter how many units you sell. It is entirely possible to make a profit on each unit but still lose money overall. Incidentally, had dinner tonight with a friend who is salesman for company that makes all kinds of electronic surveillance equipment. He showed me a device that can be used to check if someone is spying on you with a CCD camera. He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could be mounted on GA aircraft, and it turns out that company has entire line of cameras for aviation, including police surveillance. The equipment is in excess of $1000, and in some several $1000's for what was essentially the same $100-$200 unit. We got into discussion about whether they were repackaging same equipment that they sell for cheap (they are), and what justification for higher pricing, and in the end, I said, "So basically, it's the same unit, same technology, made in Taiwan, different case, different manual, and differnt power connector, which probably costs less than $50 I'm guessing, and the real reason that you are charging so much to pilots is because you can." And he says, "Well..yeah, right, that's the idea, isn't it?" If you don't want to pay the outrageous price, come up with your own mounting! -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 26, 6:05*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact resolution). *Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could be mounted on GA aircraft If it's small duct tape will do as a mounting :-) I've used a similar camera (it's about the size of a large thing of lipstick, hence is called a 'lipstick camera') on planes and racing motorcycles. Some examples (although the quality will be somewhat degraded by youtube):http://www.youtube.com/user/74HC138 74HC138? You EE too? I also now have a completely self contained camera which cost (in US money) about $70. Records to an SD card. It's not as good quality as the lipstick camera, but it weighs only 35 grams and fits on a radio controlled helicopter. Well, I watched all your YouTube videos over breakfast this morning. I guess you already know that you could have probably had a career as a movie director. Very very nice! -Le Chaud Lapin- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |