Licensing cost

[pguardigli]

May I know the reason why the product will work only with licensing and why to pay additional  once per year  fee?

Thanks

[Mig29fuk]

I dont know but I would think it adheres to many Software models where a License is paid to ensure continued development of that software.
It's been going on for nearly 40 years led by Microsoft. Oracle, Apple and on a more focussed assessment, SkyDemon and many other Navigational or Avionic systems.
I share my Hangar with a very well equipped RV that has just paid Garmin for 'extended squitter' on their Mode S model. £800+ for software upgrade.
The Pilot Aware cost structure and licensing is very fair and I for one will be quite happy to pay as I am for SkyDemon too.

Licensing is to ensure that piracy is kept to minimum and protects those who pay software maintenance annually. Try going on the Internet with a pirate copy of Win 8 and see how quickly Microsoft will pick you up. 30 days.
Regards
G

[FERRYAIR]

Let's not pussyfoot around this subject eh !!!
The Developer's have spent time getting this product off the ground & somebody has to pay a licencing fee, it is only fair that the end user pays for licencing.

Much as I don't like over regulation on anything Aviation I look upon licencing as an insurance that stops numpties from buggering up the end result. If this was a free for all where everyone could build a PAW unit and then buzz around unlicenced I think it would lose credibility.

At the moment testing is going on in Aircraft,Cars,Window ledges,Airfield Car Parks & possibly other places, once this gets to an advanced stage I am hoping that these units will only be used in Aircraft.

I think with the licensing it will then reduce the chances of having a bogus PAW return when Billy Bodgitt builds a PAW unit and puts it in his Lada Car to drive around his locality.
I am not belittling the testing in Cars ( I have done this to find a local user who is less than 0.5nm away from my office) On the subject of Ground Testing, I lost the other person's signal at about 0.25nm separation.
Another Anomaly I noted was their unit was situated in their upstairs room & I was outside at Ground Level, the altitude warning showed their unit being 146ft below me in the logging data ?
Both units are barometric equipped. Any ideas on this?

May I know the reason why the product will work only with licensing and why to pay additional  once per year  fee?

Thanks

[JCurtis]

I believe the licence is there to ensure the continued development of the software underpinning the project.  People throw enhancement requests in, but it takes time and effort to make them happen.

The hardware elements are "open hardware" and all available commercially, even the new radio module in its raw unmounted form.  However the software is what pulls it all together, and for £1 per month (+VAT) is astounding value.
If you wanted to you could "roll your own", but it would take substantially more in terms of time and effort to do and maintain in addition to physically making your own shield to mount the radio module.

The cost of the new shield reflects the time spent in sorting out various issues and I suspect in no part to cover the costs of the required testing to ensure basic CE compliance.  EMC & RF testing isn't cheap, believe me.  Even setting up to do your own pre-compliance checks is an expensive exercise although it can can save £1000's in time at the test labs.

It's a credit to Lee that the price is set at the low level it is IMHO.

[ChrisBell]

Hear Hear - £12 for a licence - what a bargain

Should keep them snacks while they work out enhancements - bug fixes etc

[flyer jones]

I don’t mind paying a licence for this great system as a considerable amount of work has gone into it already, I have one up and running and am going to use it with a Trig transponder for ADS-B Out and already pay the SkyDemon licence.

However I actually drive a Lada and I was quite offended by Fferryair,s comments about people in Lada Cars. I have never tested it in my car and will be testing it actually in flight.

[IainM]

While 12 quid per annum may be not be very significant, I think a lot of people thought they were part of a collaborative community development, rather than beta testing something commercial in an initial free period.  I think the statements about it being public domain, and criticism of Flarm may have added to that impression. Combined with the hiccups over the change of rf protocol I think some of the momentum towards universal take up could be dented very easily by changes like this.

[Richard]

The development is still moving along, just because there is nothing to see don't be fooled, this is just before the storm hits, when it hits it will grow very quickly. With anything new there will always be challenges to over come but will be sorted. I have been with the project from the beginning and would be happy to pay an annual fee to keep everythng moving forward, also very proud to be part of this exciting project.  Do you work for free? If you do you would soon fall and change your job.

[Robski]

...beta testing something commercial in an initial free period.

£12 has to be for just covering costs! There's no way that can be considered a proper "commercial" price for what we are getting!

Why do so many people feel entitled to something for nothing? I used to think the aviation community was better than that, but it seems I was wrong...

[Ian Melville]

Robski,
When you take into consideration many pilots adversity to landing fees, you can see you are very wrong.

[scsirob]

On the subject of licensing, I'd appreciate an option to pay a one-time perpetual license. Even if that would leave me entitled to upgrades for a limited period of time.

This because I might make PAW a standard install in my plane. If I ever want to sell the plane, I do not want to tell the new owner that he has to take an annual subscription or lose part of the value of the plane. Or, in a black scenario, Lee decides to call it quits and there's no further licenses available.

[Robski]

Or, in a black scenario, Lee decides to call it quits and there's no further licenses available.

If you joined this endeavour without realising that is a possibility then you were being somewhat optimistic.

I really hope PAW succeeds, but it is a community development project that started from a basic proof-of-concept device that one builds (and modifies as one goes along) from very cheap components.
I entered into it accepting that it may come to nothing; hoping for the best but planning for and accepting the worst.
I can always use the R-Pi hardware for something else, using some of what I've learned from participation in the great PAW experiment!

Keep up the good work, Lee & Co! Some of us love you!

[Admin]

Or, in a black scenario, Lee decides to call it quits and there's no further licenses available.

I don't think this is a likely scenario.
I know we have been quite quiet on the forum, but believe me manic things are happening behind the scenes, and lots of very good progress.
We are still on track regarding our timescales discussed at the Flyer Forum, and we really want to make an announcement as soon as possible.
Please bear with us - it is going to be fantastic!

[scsirob]

...If you joined this endeavour without realising that is a possibility then you were being somewhat optimistic.

Which is exactly why I asked for the option for a perpetual license. Unforeseen circumstances do occur. I am 100% certain that Lee has some great stuff coming for us, and I'm looking forward to hear about it. Nevertheless, if things do work out other than planned, I'd like an option to continue to use the product as-is without this dependency.

My suggestion would be to pay the equivalent of 3 years license, and that will give you 1 year of updates and after that a frozen version that does not expire. If at some point in the future a new enticing feature becomes availble, a renewal fee would be appropriate.

I'm not negative about the project, to the contrary. In all my flying endevours, I hope for the best but plan for the worst.