[TenTec] [Orion] "Technical Correspondence", August 2007 issue

[Kevin Purcell]

Thanks not what I said.

I was asking what value their closed software adds that would be lost  
if they opened their software.

Do they have trade secrets in their implementation that add value  
that they wouldn't want others to see? I don't see it in the feature  
list but it may be in performance of their code (for example).

Would they benefit is the open-sourced or partially open-sourced  
their software. What have they too loose? What do their customers  
have to win? Would it sell more hardware or improve their  
"intangibles" (like customer satisfaction or customer service or even  
software quality or time to find and fix bugs). Would it help them in  
multiple markets by propagating those bug fixes or new features to  
other markets? Would it help them against (potentially more open)  
competitors?

It seems to me that TenTec, like Apple, makes its money on selling  
hardware that happens to run software (so to speak). But perhaps they  
consider their software a core competency?

Apple uses an interesting approach where some of their software is  
open-sourced and some of it is proprietary (the software they use to  
add value).

As others have said for me amateur radio is about experimentation so  
the ability to experiment with commercial hardware (by say tinkering  
with the software just I we tinker with the hardware).

I focus on TenTec here but this applies to other companies too:  
Elecraft, FlexRadio (Windows only ... whats with that?), Icom, Yaesu,  
Kenwood, etc.

Some may wonder why this discussion is here but for me (and some  
others) it's an increasingly important consideration when buying  
amateur radio equipment that is dependent upon it's software? For how  
long will the company support this hardware and update/bug fix their  
software? For example, the ethernet connectivity of the O7 raises  
interesting issues of security that we've already seen the operating  
system world deal with.

On Jul 24, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Duane Calvin wrote:

> Proprietary software is "non-value added?"  I think we need to start
> discussions here with definitions.
>
> 	73, Duane
>
> Duane Calvin, AC5AA

--
Kevin Purcell
kevinpurcell at pobox.com