JGalban via AviationKB.com u32749@uwe wrote:
: That was back in 2005. I was in the market for an engine analyzer to go
: with my new engine. When I questioned JPI tech support about their
: proprietary data encoding, the response was pretty arrogant and defensive.
: Basically, they told me their software would perform any function that any
: other software package would do, so I shouldn't care if the data had
: proprietary encoding. When I listed a few functions that EGView's software
: could do that their's could not, they said they were working on adding those
: functions (in other words, their original claim was a load of crap).

: When I asked outright why I should not be able to choose how to analyze
: the data that came from my monitor, I was told that JPI considered the data
: that came from their monitor to belong to JPI. That was enough for me.

: My experience with EI's customer support was exactly the opposite. I've
: been flying behind my EI UBG-16 for 2 yrs./250 hrs. and couldn't be happier.

: John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Yeah, that kind of response would be enough to tell them to go f*ck themselves. Not too uncommon in the embedded
market though, sadly.

It's similar in the digital camera market as well. Many pieces of information in the EXIF and/or RAW data are
encoded via a proprietary algorithm. Some have even been encrypted. The response from the manufacturers have often been,
"That's our proprietary information and our software is enough for anyone." So they own the pictures a photographer takes?
Sounds like a load of crap to me and I won't support such companies.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************