Jamie

Jamie

Well Known Member
If case you ever had any doubt about the price of stamping the word 'aviation' on something, look at the Garmin 376C. It's basically the marine version of the 396, complete with XM WX, etc. The difference? The 376C has a MSRP of $999 while the 396 has a MSRP of $2595, a difference of $1596. The 396 will also interface with an SL-30/40 and the GTX-330 for traffic, but I would be willing to bet that the only difference in hardware between the two units is the name stamped on it. The software is probably the only difference.

No wonder aviation is so expensive.

Don't get me wrong...unless something better is on the market next spring I'll probably be buying the 396 for my RV...but these numbers are interesting.

Here's Garmin's site for the 376C.
 
It's not unreasonable, though. Here are a few differences between the marine version and the aviation version:

- Addtional testing during development to make sure the transponder interface works.
- Much larger market for the marine version...helps defrays the investment.
- Larger tolerance for high prices among pilots (in other words, they charge pilots more because they can).
- Probably a larger liability insurance premium for the aviation version...but I'm out of my field here.
 
Will Womack said:
One Word: Certification :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but as far as I know aviation portables do not require any certification at all.

I'm not saying that Garmin's prices are out of line, just pointing out the high premium placed on aviation 'stuff'.
 
Does the 376C "do aviation"

Does the 376C "do aviation"? By the looks of it, it does not. Don't know if it's just a matter of adding an aviation database, but I suspect there's much more to it than that.

I now have a 396 and -- WOW.

)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
 
Marine vs. Aviation

I have lived on the waterfornt for the past many years, and my neighbors all complain about the outrageous prices they have to pay for Marine parts, becasue their only point of comparison is home and auto supplies.

I tell them that they need to own an airplane FIRST, then get into boating...and they will feel that owning an maintaining their boat is a real bargain! ;)

It's all a matter of perspective.... :D


Paul

The Wise man asks - "is the glass half empty, or half full?
The Optimist says - "It's half full!"
The Pessimist says - "It's half empty!"
The REAL pessimist says "There is no glass....."
 
Also, the aviation database might be quite expensive compared to the marine database.
 
Software costs

Software development costs include "requirements development", "requirements review", "requirements acceptance", "requirements baseline establishment", "software design", "software design review", "verification that all requirements in the requirements baseline are adequately addressed in the design", "Design baseline", "software coding", "code standards conformance verification", "Verification that the code faithfully implements the design", "Code acceptance", "build unit code modules", "test unit code modules to verify that they perform as intended at the lowest level", "baseline the unit code", "develop a controlled build process and build environment to assure that the executable code can be built in a consistent manner from the baselined source code units and produce identical executable software", "build executable load modules from the code units", "resolve all build warnings and errors", "review and accept the build", "baseline the executables and databases", "develop a controlled installation process for installing the executable code and the databases into the target environment", "install the executable software and databases", "review the installation and verify that it is correct", "test the installed software in the target environment to verify function and performance of every requirement", "review the test results to assure that the function and performance requirements are satisfied and no anomalies occurred", "document the test results including all discrepancies", "resolve all discrepancies", "baseline the software products", "maintain controlled libraries of all software milestone products". Then you can think about deliveries. Every line of code has a very large cost attached to it. When you say the only difference is software that can and in this case no doubt is a huge difference.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob:

You give a great summary of the software development cycle of business software. This methodology is one of the problems with software development in America today and one of the reasons Indians are getting a lot of contracts that American contractors are not getting. The Indians have really streamlined the process...and we need to take note. The much lower wages paid to Indians doesn't help us either...but we digress...

I work in an embedded software shop and have gotten my hands dirty with development of a couple of custom moving map GPS devices for large corportations. I can assure you that we don't operate using this methodology -- we would NEVER finish anything if we did. The life-cycle you mention is generally used for consulting firms where EVERYTHING must be in writing. If Garmin is developing their software in-house, the developers have immediate access to the design guys and can ask them any question they need. There isn't this back and forth stuff going on -- it's a get-r-done philosophy.

Our company's current contract is a 5-year deal with SAP and I assure you that we don't use the methodology you mention...and you don't get much more methodical than SAP.

At any rate, if it costs that much for Garmin to write some GPS software, they seriously need to do some housekeeping among management. Remember that most of the software for the 396 was already done for the 296. The new stuff is XM, TIS, SL-30/40 connectivity. Much of the XM is the same as the 376C (XM audio, Nextrad, local weather, etc).

If I was in charge of the 396/376C products, I would make the hardware identical except for perhaps a flag in EEPROM that would tell the 376C not to run the aviation code. This prevents someone from installing the 396 code on the 376C but lowers production costs. This sort of thing is done quite often. This is why I said software is probably the only difference.

I stand by my original assertion that the higher cost is most directly related to market demands. XM weather in a GA aircraft is far more valuable than XM weather to a recreational boater. There are higher software costs in the 396, but not $1600 worth. That's all I'm saying.

I think some of the earlier posts did a great job of outlining some additional cost areas, such as the higher cost for Jeppeson licensing fees, possibly higher insurance rates, a more rigid QA process, etc.

I have nothing against the 396 (or the price). It's a fantastic device and very 'polished', as we say. In my opinion it blows away the competition (anywheremap) at a comparable price point. It will cost you $5000 for the GDL 69 to just add XM WX to a 430...so the 396 is quite a good value.

Now back to earning my $2600 for the 396. :D

All the best,
 
You may be right

You may be right and it may just be a rip off but I really do not believe that is the case. I must come back to you and state that high reliability, absolutely cannot fail software development, that is maintainable, must be developed this way. The development life cycle must be complete and inflexible. The system engineering, designing, and coding, and unit testing can be done in the creative minded peoples own world but when it comes to the requirement, design, code, build, instalation, test and deploy milestones everything I mentioned has to pass successfully through the control wicket and be accounted for in a finite controlled process. There can be a lot of creativity in how the individual processes are organized for a specific development but if the process does not recognize any of the things I mentioned the process is going to fail over time. At one time I was the software delivery manager for a multimillion line of code system (not office management software) that took 9 days with the build computer operating 24 hours a day to compile and link a software release from source code and I have been responsible for things as small as 1553 data bus controllers and even smaller facility software used in low temperature physics experiments and in my shops every lifecycle development milestone requirement was met. As software is developed and proven you certainly take advantage of that. You do not redevelop operating systems or other off-the-shelf software from scratch (but you verify function and performance with robust testing) and even these must be rigidly controlled to assure that the executables produced are consistent. I got my MSCS 25 years ago and I came back out of the intense direct participation in software development 15 years ago but until my retirement last year my responsibility for software development never diminished. I have worked with every kind of genius and faker you can imagine and my belief in the criticallity of methodical, controlled and consistent software development has only intensified for "can't fail" software. I would certainly include GPS396 aviation software. Now the inhouse engineering and marketing scheme is something that Garmin management has to deal with. As you say they may indeed burn read only memory with the same software and disable portions for the sea going market if that is the most economical way to generate revenue. As you know, there are also many other options like using different/smaller memory and eliminating vast amounts of application code enabling the use of slower and cheaper hardware components. I can almost gaurantee that some bean counter in garmin is saying we are paying to much for development and that's not a bad thing but when that influential position prevails to the point that the methodology is only a word and not really an applied process Garmin will fail.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.