Re: What is Ant's Fit Protocol?
Alessandro Vesely <firstname.lastname@example.org> Mon, 23 January 2017 11:27 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56E41295E7 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:27:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([188.8.131.52]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXIdAaA9qM5p for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:27:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [184.108.40.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B461295DF for <email@example.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:27:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1485170849; bh=nW5SPRVd8wo1FNlYpB+9q9kMNjqqM98ZpXqcO2xCMHs=; l=20852; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=TehhcVVzsVGuWJ3XcsSbiKZ3TE6zOzhLHWyIXnJUiPdsUgTImyDTFy3Q/a64MoK/j Whrvb2iZRGG/jnXwTHSMhaRdL2tOIfkPoEui7hAFNcPsTH/BQoyUk61F2UgB4x97Fz KUvtKgqStr6BS0HVBIzpswKMQBVK4YcfsR6/G0m0=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.88] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.88]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:27:29 +0100 id 00000000005DC053.000000005885E8A1.0000632D
Subject: Re: What is Ant's Fit Protocol?
From: Alessandro Vesely <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:27:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4657C003BDAF2FE64F67523C"
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:27:35 -0000
Thanks a lot for your analysis. I had missed that the company was bought by Garmin. That fact dwarfs any argument about revenues originating from SDK licenses, as a reason to restrict protocol specifications. Snapshot from D00001578_FIT2_Fitness_Module_Datasheet_Rev1.3.pdf, reproduced under fair use exception to copyright law.At a first glance, both SDK and protocol specifications seem to be concerned with the (binary) file format and ways to encode/decode relevant data. Lower levels, as shown in the image beside, are not discussed. I don't think Garmin fear that a competitor would gain an unfair advantage if they openly published that part of the FIT protocol and the related SDK source code. Rather, an increased availability of compatible software packages could foster device usability. Assuming that Garmin's core business is selling devices --not software licenses-- why do they keep such a restrictive license? I hope not just to save lawyers' fees... Sic venit IoT Ale On Sun 22/Jan/2017 23:01:05 +0100 sandy wrote: > Right, the website shows quite a few well-known companies using their > technology. Possibly we have the timetable backwards. Perhaps, "We needed > something better so we bought that company because we thought it had a better > solution." That gives them a better solution and the ability to push changes > as needed to _keep_ it better in the future. The only downside is to users > outside their company, who can't predict changes. > > -Sandy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > "Warren Kumari" <email@example.com> > > To: > <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Cc: > "email@example.com Disgust" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: > Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:21:07 -0500 > Subject: > Re: What is Ant's Fit Protocol? > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:27 PM, <email@example.com> wrote: > > The URL you provide says: > > > > "ANT/ANT+ are managed by ANT Wireless, a division of Dynastream Innovations > > Inc.......Dynastream was established in 1998 and became a wholly owned > > subsidiary of Garmin Ltd. in December 2006. " > > > > So, there is the most likely reason for using a new proprietary solution. > > They OWN the company. Clearly, the company's software is superior to any > > solution that was 'Not Invented Here'. > > Sorry, but no -- that is an entirely reasonable supposition for > Garmin, but ANT/ANT+ is used by a significant number of other > companies as well -- for example, I know them from Peloton exercise > bikes, Samsung phones, etc. > A quick glance at their "directory" shows what looks like a few > hundred brands, and >600 products. > > From a *very* quick glance it seems that, for simple things, it is > simpler to integrate than programming against bluetooth directly (e.g > the Nordic RNF5283 is ~$2.00, and does BLE, ANT and NFC) -- there are > a number of friendly looking libraries and demos for things like > talking to bikes, etc. ANT *feels* like it provides a higher layer / > abstraction to program against -- for example, this datasheet > https://www.thisisant.com/resources/fit2-fitness-module-datasheet/... > 'tis been many years since I tried to integrate a bluetooth module > into something, but when I did, there seemed to be so much rope that > getting started was tricky... > > I suspect that the root answer to Alessandro question is a combination > of 1: NIH, 2: because other devices I need to talk to already do this, > and 3: better abstractions / nicely defined and documented stack. > > [ Note: This is just from a brief skim of their website - I may be > completely wrong, BT / BLE may have progressed and libraries improved, > and better, clearer profiles created, etc... ] > > W > > > > > -Sandy > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > "Alessandro Vesely" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > > To: > > <email@example.com> > > Cc: > > > > Sent: > > Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:10:57 +0100 > > Subject: > > What is Ant's Fit Protocol? > > > > > > > > Hi, > > I annoyingly see this stuff in some GPS devices. It seems to be a > > proprietary > > protocol for wireless communication, also used as a file format. It is > > resumed > > here: > > > > https://www.thisisant.com/company/ > > > > I'm wondering why companies use that protocol instead of an open standard. > > Is > > it because there is no suitable open standard or just because they hate > open > > standards? > > > > I would try and dissuade open source packages, e.g. gpsbabel, to try to > > support > > it, since that protocol seems to be going to change unpredictably and hence > > their software will never work. Opinions? > > > > TIA for any reply > > Ale > > > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >