The N2K WiFi gateway issue, is NMEA stifling innovation?

Paul says:

As a member of the boating industry, I know how hard it is to meet the fees of various bodies that want to charge a fee for their certification and compliance. You make light of it, and in these days where profit margins are very slim, large fees do in fact stifle innovation and product development. Your “reasonable fee” could quite well be a burden to some small or start up company. We, ourselves, stopped a development product, because of all the compliance costs and the downturn in the boating industry. We nearly had to close our doors.
An alternative might be NMEA certifing the product for free and charging, say, 0.5% on every unit sold to collect their monies.
snip “The base definition of an open standard is one that doesn’t exclude any manufacturer — like N2K — and while “free” is common in the computer world, fees are common in the industrial world that N2K more closely resembles.” It certainly isn’t an open standard, with NMEA claiming IP rights, certification and fees, no one I know of would call that an “open standard”. Fees affect a business bottom line, and any fee that is too high to the extent that it excludes a business/product, does not lend itself to being an “open standard” and stifles development.

Paul says:

I recognise that the term “open standard” has various definitions, I include here the New Zealand take on open standards.
New Zealand official interoperability framework definition
The E-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) [17] defines open standard as royalty free according to the following text:
While a universally agreed definition of “open standards” is unlikely to be resolved in the near future, the e-GIF accepts that a definition of “open standards” needs to recognise a continuum that ranges from closed to open, and encompasses varying degrees of “openness.” To guide readers in this respect, the e-GIF endorses “open standards” that exhibit the following properties:
Be accessible to everyone free of charge: no discrimination between users, and no payment or other considerations should be required as a condition to use the standard.
Remain accessible to everyone free of charge: owners should renounce their options, if any, to limit access to the standard at a later date.
Be documented in all its details: all aspects of the standard should be transparent and documented, and both access to and use of the documentation should be free.
The e-GIF performs the same function in e-government as the Road Code does on the highways. Driving would be excessively costly, inefficient, and ineffective if road rules had to be agreed each time one vehicle encountered another.
It appears New Zealand may have a different take on “open standard” than your wikipedia. I still hold to my premise that NMEA is not an “open standard” and stifles development within that field of the industry. Isn’t this “stifling” what the debate is about? Not whether a business can handle a $6000 fee, by which I’m sure there may be some.

Mike says:

NMEA2000 is the poster child for How to Frustrate the Adoption of Technology.
The anti-competitive behavior of NMEA is only 40 years behind the times. If you remember when this all started, I tried to explain that “Connectathons” were the *only* approach which has been shown to reliably develop interoperability and that all the “certification testing” in the world would not accomplish it. That opinion was based on long, painful experience building networks. And now what do they have? They have an NMEA2000 Connectathon! So why do they still require “certification testing”? Why don’t they just require participation in Connectathons? Because having to pony up the money up front prevents the riff-raff from showing up with inexpensive hardware and systems that will upset their economic fantasy. It’s happened everywhere else in electronics and communication. Why should marine electronics be any different? Because there is an organization who has created a “standard” designed to prevent it from happening. Not even Microsoft could hold back the tide forever. I personally hope that Chetco and the independent software producers file an anti-trust complaint with the FTC and the EC Competition Commission. There is no possible reason do demand fealty from the software people working downstream from a NMEA2000 gateway. The next thing you know they will claim they are owed a license fee from everyone who makes a web browser who can look at the HTML version of a web page showing data collected by NMEA2000.
it’s time for NMEA to get with the current reality voluntarily before someone helps them, painfully.
It will happen eventually. The question is how much damage will be done before they get a clue.

Jeremy says:

I have been working at an Internet company for the past 12 years (where standards and IP) are a big deal. I am also a marine enthusiast.
Looking at this from all sides, I come down slightly on the Chetco side. (Disclosure: I have installed a Chetco Ethernet gateway on my boat.)
I am not that familiar with the NMEA organization, but from what I have seen, I have found them to be either MIA, or wrong headed. Ben mentioned the daisy chaining issue. I have personal experience with the consequences of some of the requirements for certification. A big one was when NMEA decided that terminating resistors could not be installed in devices. (As Airmar used to have in their PB200 and Furuno still has in the FI instruments.)
Airmar wanted to be certified and responded by removing the resistor from the device and adding a terminating resistor option in their long cables. This means when there is a problem, the cable has to be replaced. Perhaps not an issue at deck level, but replacing the cable running up a mast is not fun.
I understand the theory behind this particular decision, but marine installations are exercises in practice, not theory.
In terms of MIA, the best example is the glacial publication of new PGNs. (Think AIS, for example.) This forces product companies–who are not the fastest moving in this area either–to use propriety PGNs. And of course, propriety means that they won’t play nice with products from other manufacturers.
I like what Chetco is doing because they are pushing the envelope. They are working well with iNavx. I have iNavx working on my iPad and iPhone. Both display charts and instruments, over the Internet showing boat status. Recently, AIS data was added. (This is the only example of NMEA 2000 AIS data coming into portable devices I am aware of.)
In some ways, what Chetco is a bit rough around the edges. The web pages displayed by the device could use some work. (Or I can go to work on them myself.)
But the good thing is that Chetco and iNavx are both moving fast and innovating.
From an IP perspective, NMEA has a point. Having been involved in more than a few start-ups, a per unit licensing fee has to be the way to go.
It is possible to protect IP and innovate at the same time. 🙂

Bill Southworth says:

Hi Ben –
I’ve been involved with electronic and software standards, since, hmmm…. I think it was around Ben Franklin’s time. Actually I was one of the co-founders of the MIDI standards organization for electronic music that is a much more widely used than NMEA will ever be and I was a representative on the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) committee that worked to develop the standards on every digitally recorded movie or TV show that you watch. There were fee structures involved with these organizations and politics were rampant in the development of the standards, but the thing that seems different to me was that the goal was always to promote compliance as a desirable goal for a manufacturer and work to make interoperability easy to do.
I don’t see that with NMEA. It really feels, and it’s only a feeling, that it’s more about making money for the organization.
Secondly, NMEA 2000 does kind of suck. We’ve been working with it a lot and it just doesn’t scale well. The concept of hundreds of devices on a NMEA bus without crashing it is unfathomable. You may think that “hundreds” is just crazy but it’s not long ago that tens or hundred of computers in a car, or smart lightbulbs, or any of the other networked devices we live with were crazy. With the power control systems that we build, I would be very concerned if our own communication between breakers and controls and motors and batteries could be crashed by some other NMEA device. Building even modest sized networks or NMEA-2000 devices without crashing the bus is a challenge.
Instead of focusing on owning all the protocol layers, NMEA would have been smarter separating them and making the higher levels of the protocol — the levels with the actual information much more accessible and open. They could license the cabling and electrical standards separately, and use their trademark Draconian approach for these levels. Then, like CANbus, the information could sit on a low-cost Ethernet, twisted-pair, or (like Hybrid Propulsion does) they could communicate right over the power lines. Although the NMEA-2000 connectors are robust, the connectors and cabling are way too expensive for low cost devices.
I don’t really want to get into a re-hash of the pros and cons of the NMEA standard since it’s all been done before. But I’m arguing that any standard has to evolve rapidly to meet new requirements or it will be ignored and die.
On Ethernet with TCPIP, billions of nodes manage to coexist with this kind of approach. With MIDI, stadiums full of light arrays and full orchestras are managed by an evolving standard that makes things easier for the manufacturer and isn’t seen as a roadblock to development.
The whole boat industry can only exist as a parasite on the technology of the big guys. We have to follow, use and adapt the engineering that’s being done for us by the auto, communications, and computer industries. The problem for boats isn’t assigning packet standards, it’s keeping cables from falling apart and corroding.
My soapbox is starting to sag. I better get off it now before it collapses.
So long for now.
– Bill

Nikko says:

This is an interesting debate – and one I’ve been involved in for years, but in a different industry.
In order for a networking standard (or protocol) to be open, it must be defined enough to be built to, it must be robust enough to handle the innovation introduced to it by developers, it must be developed on it’s own in order to keep up with the same innovation it spawns, and products that claim adherence must be tested against the standard to which they were built.
As a result of these demands, this technology, along the same lines as the products that use it, must go through a product development process. Which means the product must be managed. Product management means innovation by it’s own right, but also means documentation and administration. And like it or not – this adds cost to what was birthed as a free or near free “open” standard.
I don’t know a lot about NMEA as an organization – but if it’s like other open networking standards used in other industries (I’m familiar with those used in commercial.industrial building automation) – it probably follows a pretty common “staffing” structure. They’ll have an Executive Director to oversee the organization – and that person will draw a salary. They’ll have admin help – and that staff will also draw a salary. And they’ll have technical staff – staff that will oversee compliance of submitted product and that will assist developers with their questions as their own product development cycles unfold. And those folks will also draw a salary.
When you couple these costs, along with the costs of a physical location (office), printing costs, Internet (website) costs, mailing costs etc. – you have the makings of a small business. aAd as with any business – it needs revenue to make it sustainable.
In the world of building automation, we too had “rogue” developers – and while their ideas were usually good, and their products added to the mix of existing products, they were almost always problematic for those that tried to integrate them into a network of compliant products. In the end and when this happened, it was the system integrators (installers) or the customers that suffered. And the companies that tried to short-cut the process, were usually onto other things in short order leaving the product you purchased – an orphan.
Bottom line – for a open standard or networking protocol to be strong enough that industry can rely on it to foundation their own product, it must be treated like a product in it’s own right. And while the organization may choose not to be profitable at this – it still requires revenue to be sustainable.
Product development carries a cost. At an initial cost of approx $6K to have the entire networking portion of any new product defined and developed (and able to be purchased as a sub-assembly)is a bargain. And to continue that accessibility at the cost of approx $1000 per subsequent product is peanuts. Compared to the industry I came from – this is incredibly good value. And when compared against the total cost of any product development exercise that results in a product I want to rely on – it’s insignificant.
For me – this is simple. Life’s too short to take a chance on non-certified product. If a company wants to circumvent the NMEA process – so be-it. but another company is right here that has not circumvented the process and their stuff is going to work. If that costs me (the consumer) a few more bucks – I’ll gladly pay the money. I have no interest in placing the safety of me or my passengers in the hands of a company that’s not willing to spend $6K on product development and simple compliance.

Capn. Chuck says:

I don’t think any system is perfect, but a standard is probably better than none and if an organization takes the time and resources to develop an acceptable standard than I believe they should be compensated. I also believe that rather than stifling product development, have a standard will actually be of great benefit. Rather than a free for all with every manufacturer doing their own thing, I now have the option to use the Autopilot I like with the MFD of my choice and the depth sounder I prefer and not be limited to a single manufacturer. This benefits all of those that I choose. Without these options, in the past, I have passed up certain manufacturers because parts of their systems were not to my liking. As a marine technician for many years, the most common complaint I have heard is the inability to integrate different pieces of equipment, noting the “proprietary” nature of manufacturers. I think that those with complaints about the fees and licensing involved in NMEA certainly have the opportunity to go out and develop a standard that is acceptable to all of the manufacturers and give it away if they like. But I would lay my bets down that once those standards have been developed, they will decide that compensation might be a good idea given the time and resources involved in such and undertaking. Chuck

Robert says:

I agree with Paul’s comments and think he may be onto something with the royalty structure. In any event I think having the total fee structure back-end loaded would help to encourage innovation. I don’t know if that is the goal of NMEA, but if it is, back-end loading the fees would certainly help. A royalty structure also helps address the issue of a $10 app download vs. a $3,500 plotter.
How about making the documentation a free download? It’s still copyrighted and the owner maintains full control (“by downloading this documentation you are agreeing to the terms of the license agreement…”). Same goes for the testing/certification software. Allow and encourage a product to be labeled something like “NMEA 2000 beta” with no obstacles; end users would then know what they are getting into. If you want to move to “NMEA 2000 certified” you have to submit the results of the testing suite and pay a royalty.
The problem I see with the current setup is that a developer has to spend $5k just to learn enough to see if he/she wants to play with it. The next stage is playing with it. Then you start to think about the applications and possibilities. Then maybe you throw something up to see if it sticks. If it sticks, paying royalties and reasonable fees isn’t a problem.

Robert says:

The attorney is patently wrong. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)
But seriously… attorneys don’t innovate, they protect. Read the Steve Jobs biography if you are unclear as to how real innovation happens. The process by which Apple was started (zero money, zero business plan, a hacked together product that stuck, etc.) actually isn’t unusual. Google was started the same way. Facebook. Twitter. Having been a former VC and software developer prior to that, I can say that it isn’t a fluke that they all started out messy, without a business plan, and merely an attitude of “this might be cool, let’s try it.” Personally, I love the process but hate the failure rate. I’ve tried to find a better alternative for 15 years – but haven’t.
A trade association might be inclined to protect the interests of its current members, and not necessarily be motivated to encourage a raft of new competitors that upset the existing industry structure. This is rational behavior.
I’d encourage a scrappy engineer to smack together a more modern spec and throw it up on a wiki for comment. Hopefully it will get some free press on this site. It will either stick or it won’t.

GPSNavX says:

NMEA has never contacted me in regards to support of N2K in any of my apps. I am hopeful that is because I did legitimately buy the N2K documentation and that application certification should go through the gateway provider (i.e. Actisense).
I believe RosePoint Coastal Explorer also supports the Chetco SeaSmart protocol.
I found Chetco very easy to work with as they are always responsive to my emails.

Robert says:

I couldn’t agree with you more Bill. Why not hack together an open data level spec and toss it up on a wiki or whatever for comment? XML format? Put the important subset of N2k data in a human readable format? Allow for rapid community extension? There is no reason why a $20 smart LED bulb shouldn’t be able to be controlled from a $2k plotter with zero proprietary hardware between them.

Nikko says:

when I see comments like this one:
….. Integrity and safe operation of a marine electronics network will not be achieved using ad hoc untested products. Improper electronics interfacing/interconnection can create fires, pull down navigation systems and risk lives at sea…..
I shake my head. I understand the passion behind these comments (and applaud it), and I understand the drive for certification. In fact if you scroll up – I supported it through experience and analogy. And I still do.
But blanket comments such as this are irresponsible and will only serve to alienate folks and developers who you really want to enroll in the program.
As one who’s fought the fight before (but in a different industry), and as one who believes strongly in the foundation on which NMEA 2000 is premised – might I suggest a bit of a “honey” approach to fence sitters and those currently developing “ad hoc” product, and a bit less emphasis on the “vinegar” approach?

Brian M says:

Bell Labs had nothing to do with Linux, but everything to do with UNIX.

oregonjoe says:

First off, as co-founder and CTO of Chetco Digital Instruments, I must state we have not and do not engage in illegal activity. We manufacture a wide variety of marine related products. Those that utilize NMEA 2000 interfaces are only a small portion of our product line. We have never stated any of our products are yet NMEA 2000 certified, only that they do meet the requirements as stated. Those customers that wish to purchase a NEMA 2000 certified solution can simply add an external Actisense NGT gateway if they choose that option.
The whole aspect of NMEA 2000 Certification is complex and at times not well understood. While it may be debated as to how much about the process we should have known, it is not that simple when you must pay first to find out.
All of our products that contain NMEA 2000 interface capability, including SeaSmart.net are based on a OEM relationship with Antisense, creators of the NMEA 2000 certified NGT. We felt that using an already certified gateway design would be the most cost effective way to market. The gateway provided all the direct interface with the NMEA 2000 bus and our products would use the now isolated data on the user end. All product development was done exclusively with Actisense Monitoring tools and third-party equipment such as chart plotters and other publically available devices. At no time did we have access to any NMEA restricted or copyrighted documents. As stated in previous posts, this was all done using common and legal practices.
Recently the NMEA has stated displeasure with our mention of NMEA 2000, stating we have somehow engaged in illegal and immoral activity. We disagree. However, Checto Digital Instruments is in the process of obtaining formal NMEA 2000 certification in order to offer its customers confidence they are purchasing the best of quality products.
I have to disagree with some posts that claim that a $10K investment in unnecessary certification is “peanuts” For small innovative hardware companies $10K in cash is very significant. Not only does new product development require talented personal, lab resources, and inventory – it all has to be paid out of sales revenues. For a new product like SeaSmart, funding has to come from other product lines with about $100K in gross sales to come up with the cash for NMEA certs alone. We have to look very carefully as to actual value we get out of such expenditures. Paying this sort of upfront fee is certainly stifling to small companies and keeps them from being part of NMEA. We have always maintained and suggested that a per unit fee or revenue based fee system be a much more fair and equitable approach. As a former Apple Developer in the 80’s – a major key to their success was the active recruitment and support it gave all its “partners”. With NMEA, you need to pay $675 just to see a document that outlines what the certification requirements/tests are! No matter if you can pass them or not. I was involved with Firewire and USB development and this sort of practice would have never worked.
Even more disturbing is now a new NMEA requirement aimed at any Software developer that wants to display any NMEA 2000 data. A new Appendix H has been added to force “Apps” to only use “Certified” Third Party Gateways (TPG) in order to even mention NMEA 2000 or PGN and that they must meet a very restrictive set of tests totally unrelated to their function in order to pass, Its $725 (combined) for non-members.
“..All Third Party Application Gateways must be Certified by NMEA and applications using them must be approved for each Certified Gateway they can be used with. The Third Party Gateway must adhere to the regular NMEA 2000® Certification process and fees. “
I am not aware of any device that can now meet the requirements of Appendix H and therefor assume no “App” can list or claim any official ” NMEA compatibility “. This is a case where an overly aggressive stance has completely killed an emerging market. With no “official” platform to develop for, “App” developers are discouraged. NMEA should have used the few already established certified Gateways as a starting point for Appendix H. CDI products could have therefore complied and the spirit of the spec been full filled. The problem here is not the $300 fee but the fact there seems to be no way to implement the spec. While it has been difficult to pin down NMEA on this new wrinkle, it seems as though with a wink, one can just claim “…compatible with company’s XYZ product” and get by with it for now.
On a note about published fees. Total costs for members would be close to $8,400 for a single product with cert tools. All fees shown are almost double for non-members and one must purchase the Certification tools $2,400 to $4,000 if you can’t find someone else to do it for you. Well, it might be asked why would anyone pay an extra $6K-$8K ($15K total) instead of the membership fees? I suspect some simply do not want to be forced to join an organization they do not agree with and I would certainly not want to demand that of our developers.
CE fees are high too but many aspects of CE allow for self-certification. So, for example if a new product uses a WiFi radio that is CE certified and a Gateway that is CE certified, self-certification can be done with minimal expense. The manufacture of the WiFi radio may have to pay a higher fee but that encourages the OEMs to embed their products without the added CE costs. There is no force to purchase docs/spec and no membership fees. Just because a WiFi radio is put in a different color box does not force recertification and extended fees as is the case with NMEA. More importantly, CE certification is optional and without fear if one does not choose to do so.
Joe Burke
CTO
Chetco Digital Instruments
http://www.chetcodigital.com

Anonymous says:

I normally lurk quietly in the background, but I feel the need to comment. I am a hobbyist, and I am tinkering with the NMEA 2000 network on my boat. I will never produce any commercial product. I’d like to purchase the NMEA2000 specs, but at over $2K, that is just not an option. Instead, I am reverse engineering things.. If anything breaks, it’s my own fault.
As for open standards.. NMEA 2000 isn’t new.. It’s DeviceNet with a new name..It’s ISO J1939 with new PGNs.. You can buy NMEA 2000 connectors, tee’s, and cable from a marine supplier for a lot of money, or you can get the identical supplies for half price from your local electronic supplier. Why the enourmous cost difference?
Someone commented that certification is required to prevent the sky from falling and boats from catching fire. The NMEA2000 standard is supposed to achieve interoperability and safety. If that is true, why do we have vendors with proprietary connectors and proprietary PGNs? Clearly, the standard is an epic failure when it comes to compliance because innovative people have to work around it, instead of within it. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is a technical issue. I think the problem is with the implementation.
I don’t believe NMEA has any interest in innovation.If you want innovation, look at the internet. Little or no license fees, interoperable standards without a lot of certifications, and protocols are the openly published. Most companies adopt standards voluntarily without being forced. There is a model that works. It’s been around for decades, and it promotes innovation.
OK.. I’m done ranting..

Ramrod says:

Dinosaurs. will. die.

Matt Marsh says:

Is the NMEA 2000 standard rather too pricey for small developers and start-ups? Yes. It’s not much as a percentage of the cost of R&D on a new product, but to a struggling start-up, every dollar counts- especially on the software side where the dollar amounts involved are so tiny at first.
Are we picking on the NMEA too much? Also yes. Standards organizations do have costs they have to cover. True, it costs zero dollars to distribute a copy of the standard, but it took a fair bit of time and money to put it together, and the NMEA’s staff do need to get paid somehow. A per-unit-sold royalty would be prohibitively complex for such a small organization to administer, which is probably why they do it the way they do.
“NMEA 2000” is a registered trademark. The certification costs include paying for the right to use the trademark on that product. IANAL, but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to use the NMEA 2000 trademark in connection with non-certified products.
From the customer’s perspective, the tests and the text of the standard don’t matter: it boils down to “Will it work, yes/no”. If he adds a widget to his network and it crashes the network, the answer is “no” and he exchanges it for a different one. If your product’s not N2K certified, there’s probably a greater risk that weird edge cases will cause it to hiccup, i.e. a greater risk that customers will be throwing the things back at you with RMA slips attached. Likewise, being certified does not immunize you against weird edge cases (or against having to take responsibility for your device doing something dumb), but it does improve the odds that such issues will be caught and fixed before release.
Re. proprietary connectors: IMHO, this was a dumb mistake that slipped through and got locked in before anyone had a chance to tell Ray and Sim to quit playing games. If you don’t like it, simply don’t buy from the companies involved (and write to their head offices to let them know why they lost the sale).

oregonjoe says:

Ben
Our NMEA 2000 products are leveraged off of the Actisense NGT which we pay a significant COG for. Actisense undertook the task of developing and marketing a certified NMEA 2000 gateway. They recoup some of the costs paid to NMEA by resealing products to other companies such as CDI. All communication takes place on the “public” side of the gateway which is the purpose of a gateway and was certified by NMEA for that purpose. There is nothing “unethical” about any company using this approach to build up new and innovative solutions. All information used for development was legally obtained from Actisense and nothing was required from NMEA.
We pay Actisense for the right to use their technology. No, ethics problems here.
To state CDI has not paid a “dime” is misleading. We do not obtain our access to NMEA 2000 data for free. We pay for each and every node. The problem is that NMEA does not collect any additional revenue if a company sells one product or a million. When Actisense sells to us they get to keep above and beyond what they paid to NMEA. I do think this is the problem but not one CDI created. One has to admit this a great business model for Actisense and a poor one for NMEA.
The argument that NMEA is somehow wronged by this is like saying a software developer has to pay Microsoft just because their Apps run in windows 7. Or that anyone creating a Web Site has to pay AT&T because it goes over phone lines. Yes, the new products are built on existing technologies.
Keep in mind that most of the internet technologies used today are based on another Standard Organization called the IEEE yet we are not being ask to join to use a router or pay a doc fee to connect to a Hot Spot. Nor are the manufactures of these products required to pay. Standards committees create standards to promote market growth. The NMEA members should be quite happy to have new applications that promote sales of their own products. We all do not need to be members to contribute.
What has created the stir with NMEA is that our interface is repackaged into a smaller footprint and intended to be used in multiple applications. They felt that even though the Software and firmware we purchased was exactly the same as the certified NGT, the electrical isolation may be different (it is not) and therefore the whole product now requires recertification from the ground up, taking into no account that 90% of the certification spec deals with the Software/Protocol interaction already covered by our OEM purchase. There are no exceptions for products “based on” or “Licensed from”.
In order to assure customers, CDI has undertaken separate certification so there may be no doubt as to long term availability. There has been no design changes made for this purpose. It is purely a marketing decision.
In essence, we are paying twice for the same product.
Now, NMEA also wants any “App” developer to pay to use any “gateway” products. If I were to question ethics, I would start there. The NMEA want to collect a fee from everyone no matter how far removed from the bus they become. First it’s the connector/cable companies, then the gateways, then routers/access points, and now the app developers. In essence, they want to tax the data the NMEA 2000 is generating. No wonder, product developers like Active Captain are becoming disappointed as their very existence depends on availability of data.
It appears that NMEA discovered a loophole in allowing Gateways to become “certified” in the first place and now is trying to close the barn doors. The new restrictions on Appendix H are confusing and poorly implemented to the point that no one can offer a product. It is my hope that we can work with NMEA to revise these new rules to meet sensible and practical implementations and give developers a clear path to delivering what customers want.
Joe Burke
CTO
Chetco Digital Instruments
http://www.chetcodigital.com

Kees says:

Ben,
I would like to comment on “In fact, if you read the comments critically you may notice a paucity of actual NMEA type electronics developers as well as the astute consumers trying to build an advanced and reliable electronics system.”
I don’t understand why you say that. Almost every comment here, and there are a lot, seems to originate from either set — manufacturers, developers or savvy users.
“I can tell you that the malarkey level is higher than normal.”
I don’t understand why you say this. Every post I’ve read in this thread is on-topic, at least half restrained, and not abusive. Some are expressed better than others, sure. But malarkey?
Is it that most people seem to think that yes the NMEA is stifling innovation?
How can a low cost or ‘gratis’ commercial app developer justify $1369 with $625 recurring every year? In a market where he will, in all likelyhood, only sell a few hundred copies? The entire point is not that someone will come up with the killer app that will be a runaway success (and sell maybe 10.000?) The point is that this way you won’t get the tens or hundreds of small app developers, each trying something different, because of these “modest” and “fair” barriers to entry.
And to get back to my point of open source: these developers cannot participate at all, period, since the NMEA does not allow republication of the data in any format.

Robert says:

i have been reading over and watching the debate over NMEA2000 since its beginning, mostly here on panbo. the problem with NMEA on the consumer side is the slowness of innovation cuased by NMEA’s licensing scheme. i will give NMEA credit. 0183 was a nightmare of cables. NMEA2K systems can be put together and installed safely by the boat owner. however the nmea over wifi/ethernet should make nmea rethink its methods. proprietary systems are simply not doing what consumers need. EVERYONE wants to use a computer/tablet. while i have bought my MFD it does not do everything i need, it was the best at the time, and is my reliable safe navigation tool, i use charts as backup too. NMEA should be making getting into the front door easier for not just the “Industry” players, but also the hobbiest and small innovators. NMEA should not just be working for thier members, standards are to ensure everyone is playing nicely together and protect both the idustry and the consumer. yes i also want certifications, it makes things more compatible, however with as slow as the industry is innovating, as a consumer i no longer care if a product is certified or compliant. i just want it to work, with the features i want. nmea, and marine electronics were very stagnant until recently hit a huge boom, due mainly to moving nmea information into the software/wifi arena. not that the technology wasnt available, just that competition was stagnant. the ipad has made the industry innovate, and NMEA had better take heed. microsoft tried and continues to try to build proprietary standards, and that business model is no longer accepted by consumers. apple and android are going at it, apple has a smoother interface due to certifications after development and before release on the market, however the restrictions and draconian approach to those standards is sending more business to android. right now as a consumer i see NMEA as money hungry, they are attempting to micro manage, thier standard, in the interest of money. thier membership is elitist and mainly composed of industry players, that try to protect thier own interests OVER consumer interests. it appears nmea is the tool to increase profit by stifling competition by keeping out hobbiest and small business competiters. i am currently holding off spending money on new equipment as nothing available now meeds my needs. i want my computer, and chartplotter synched with the same information, i want point and click vhf integration, with plan b redundancy. it needs to be easy to use, i want my wife and kids to easily figure it out, without having to get a industry license. am i asking to much? NMEA you better figure things out!

Yet Another Industry Insider says:

Having sold and installed more NMEA2000 than most dealers, and having been personally involved in correcting numerous HAZARDOUS system designs and installations (by others) I am dumbfounded that safety is not a greater consideration here, if not the ONLY one.
NMEA2000 is a protocol developed to sit on top of a “free” physical layer (after royalties are paid). The specific overarching intent of all of the NMEA2000 restrictions are to ensure that when a certified product is properly implemented, the data gets through EVERY TIME without incident based on a very effective prioritization scheme.
Having read this entire thread along with many others on this subject, safety seems to be the single point that everyone avoids. Or I get to read that it is a red herring from people who have an agenda.
For the record, I have personally seen an errant polling command issued by a software update (to a peripheral connected to a backbone connected unit) max out the network bandwidth. This caused the CANBus based AC/DC switching (with an improperly designed connection to the NMEA2000 backbone) to have to be reset. Yes, the vessel had to go black because of a software glitch from a non-certified device. Although it was improperly connected, the network load was low enough in most cases not to cause an issue. For all you software guys out there 98% compatible IS NOT compatible in the real world.
I have also personally seen a do-it-yourself install with two NMEA2000 antennas tied to a properly terminated backbone, but both of them had the internal terminators activated. The result of this was to damage to CAN port on both antennas and the ONLY plotter on the boat. All needed to be replaced, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how that connection caused the damage that it did.
While most reading this are involved in the recreational end of things, that is not the only master which NMEA2000 needs to serve. When the USCG and IMO look to endorse/adopt a standard, they are unlikely to accept “it works most of the time” or “it shouldn’t be a problem”. NMEA2000 as designed and certified can meet ANY scrutiny a regulating agency throws at it. THIS consideration should be the only one that determines who is allowed to connect to a backbone.
My soapbox is very old and tired at this point…

Paul says:

“The question is whether or not NMEA is stifling innovation related to NMEA 2000. I don’t see it, but I will listen carefully to any and all comments.”…
Is the original question posed by Ben!
It appears that some of the comments are starting to get personal without alluding to an answer to the original question.
I would ask, (but I’m NOT the moderator), that we keep the focus on that, and answers that give reason to a stance taken on the original question.
These “vinegar” responses don’t help.

Rick R says:

Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Shell would like to advertise that their motor oil meets Cummins specs. But Cummins won’t tell Shell what their specs are unless Shell pays Cummins mega bucks, and promises not to reveal them to anyone else. Then Shell can’t use its own lab to test the quality of its oil, but must submit it to Cummins for testing. More mega bucks. Shell baulks, but decides to advertise that their oil meets the Cummins standards anyway, being careful not to claim that it is “approved by” or “certified by”. So they get a “cease and desist” order, which forbids Shell from supplying information to their customers, information that they know to be true and accurate. So their customers are left in the dark guessing that the oil is compatible.
Next Shell is accused of operating illegally or unethically, so decides to give into Cummins demands and pay the exhorbitant fees. Of course these costs are passed on to their customers. Boaters get screwed again.
Of course this scenario is entirely fictional, or is it. Change “Shell” to “Chetgo”, and “Cummins” to “NMEA”.
As a consumer, I don’t give a twit whether a piece of equipment meets a particular standard, or is “certified” by someone or not. The only thing that matters is does the item work as advertised, and that it does not create an unforseen hazard. Any attempt to prevent a manufacturer from dispensing true and accurate information about their product is simply not acceptable.

Steve James says:

Hi Ben
My turn to chime in. As co-founder of Chetco Digital I can speak from the front lines. A year ago we were still developing the final product. I dont know if you ever started a small business in the worst economic conditions since 1930 but we did and cash was and still is very tight since all capital is reinvested in building inventory, R&D and other related items on the P&L. We are not part of a conglomerate nor do we have access to bank captital or VC funding, when we go to a trade show we pay for it out of our pockets. I do know that everything Joe has done to this point has been done via reverse engineering and his extensive background in hardware and software developement.
NMEA related sales were really not a factor in Chetco markets so to dig up 6-$10K to pay for a NMEA certification was not feasible, smart or even possible.
We sell our analog to digital interface to mainly non NMEA related markets such as marine retrofits where no NMEA backbone exists, automotive, oil and gas, mining, remote generators and heavy equipment. So to layout this kind of capital would have been a pretty poor use of company funds.
It was only after I found your blog and Joe started interfacing with the other bloggers that we pursued more aggressively the NMEA product interface. Prior to this we purchased Actisense NGT units as is sold out of the factory as the red dongle.
Since we were selling a product (Analog to digital interface) that was being used by yacht owners in some cases to populate their Chartplotters with analog data we had to use the NMEA2000 “Label” in our marketing to tell people we could interface with the NMEA backbone using the NGT-1 although still at the time many or actually most of our clients did not have a NMEA2000 backbone.
I think if you read all of our press releases dating back a couple years we always stated that the Actisense interface was needed or used. Not until the past year did Joe take the next step to design a more user friendly package.
Early in 2011 we asked NMEA if we could make payments while we worked through the developement.In fact I was teh one that asked if we could make a down payment then make a payment every month. They said NO. We had to pay all upfront. We then asked if we could use the Actisense NGT-1 unit as it comes from the factory but remove it from the red dongle case and insert their PCB into our Remote interface box. NMEA said NO, it had to be external and it had to show externally that it was the actisense device.
So as much as you think you were privey to all our communications with NMEA and others involved you are really only privey to what others felt open to provide you to support their case.What I wrote above may not be what you understood and you may consider me a conman also and thats your opinion and your welcome to it. As we all know what opinions areand what opinions are like.
Joe and I do resent the fact that we (Chetco Digital) were referred to as criminals and unethical by some parties involved. This was uncalled for and immature to say the least. But we are over it and we have moved beyond these rash, unfounded and harsh chartacterizations. We are moving forward with the advancements of this technology and have wasted enough time and brain power discussing it.
I applaude your blog but deplore the fact that your blog is not truely open since you edit entries to fit the day, but it is your blog and you are welcome to do as you see fit and you do. Thank you for your efforts in getting the open standards interface to the forefront and we are confident that by working together in harmony we, you, NMEA, Actisense, developers and everyone else can put the customers best interest ahead of our ego’s and attitudes in our efforts to bring cost effective technology to the boating world. It is the customers we must keep at the core of all we develope and distribute.
Thanks again for you efforts.
I think we have beat this dead horse until it just wont bleed anymore.
Lets bring the next round of technology to the masses.
Oh and lastly. Joe and I havent seen a dime of Chetco Revenue’s either. It is all pumped back into R&D,inventory, Rent, electric,marketing(trade shows) fulfilling the goverment reporting regulations, taxes, other simple overhead expenses. At the end of the there is no revenue to split up. We could increase the prices I suppose but that would be counter productive and not in keeping with our philosophy. Now that our volumes have picked up considerably with the iPad interest booming, the NMEA 2000 issue basically behind us life is good and customers can count on us to champion their technology needs and expectations.

GPSNavX says:

Ben, NMEA certification or official testing never came up in the discussions I had with Chetco. Instead the exchanges were all technical (that is the side of this I prefer) in regards to working with the SeaSmart API. More nuts and bolts and bits if you will. Chetco was very supportive and even made API enhancements at my request. I learned about the Chetco SeaSmart on Panbo. A good thing. I believe I then contacted Chetco with an interest in adding N2K support to iNavX. Since I already had added N2K support to MacENC and had the official NMEA N2K PGN specification I saw it as a relatively easy task. It turned out to take a bit longer because iNavX supports far more N2K PGNs then MacENC does.
I see no benefit in either you or Chetco “winning the argument” here. Instead let’s move forward to the gain of the end user with more connectivity solutions. Of course N2K is not perfect, but it sure makes it much easier to avoid vendor lock which for me is a big deal.
For me it was exciting to see N2K data on with iNavX on my iPhone and iPad wirelessly. Chetco did a nice job with the SeaSmart API.
I have no bitterness towards all involved parties and look forward to working with NMEA, Panbo, and Chetco.

steverow says:

Ben, in answer to your question, MTA for three related similar items £7125 plus VAT. I forgot CE Certification which cost just over £2000+VAT just to get the advice and go-ahead that we could self certify, we have not yet crossed the LLoyds and DMV bridge yet, but as one of our Survey vessels we have an install on, has just got DMV status that is no doubt coming, and if your gear isn’t on the list it can’t be on there. Bear in mind we are in a very small sector…Survey and Renewables with a small amount of pilotage, and that our top product costs less than £300 without accessories, then you will understand that we have a way to go yet to even think of being profitable. At some future point we will probably be releasing products that do use NMEA 2K so we will add that to the list. Then if we want to sell in the US we will have to appoint a distributor who we will have to pay to get us FCC approval as well, although that will only be required for the Leisure market, as thankfully US/UK have a reciprocal arrangement on MTA. It was never envisaged that we would go into the Leisure side, but that is exactly what we are going to have to do to be profitable (hopefully). One thing that really wicks me off is that If we had been manufacturing in Shenzen rather than keeping the manufacturing here in the UK in Luton, then we could have just walked down the street a little way, and picked up a CE certification for about 100 dollars and a couple of packets of cigarettes, and it would have been acceptable. I notice from the link you posted that there are only eight companies in the UK that are registered with NMEA, how is that so,when the UK is the second largest designer/ producer of Marine Gear outside the US, doesn’t stack up somehow.
We have also had enquiries from the offshore Gas sector, but that in itself is a whole new ball game, having to have the gear certified as intrinsically safe in an explosive environment, and probabaly not worth the effort in terms of sales against aggravation.
Sorry if this wanders off thread a bit, but it’s important that people know that NMEA approval is not the only setup cost involved in marine gear, and as I said before, anything that can be done to help small startup companies like ourselves and presumably Chetco has got to be welcome.
Steve.

Anonymous says:

I’m a senior engineer for a marine electronics manufacturer. I’m sorry, but I must be anonymous.
I live in the middle of this discussion every day. On one hand, I design the hardware and software for NMEA2K devices for a large, worldwide market. On the other, I have my own ideas and plans to create products that my mother company would never create. I live in this small innovation world but understand the standards, big company issues as well.
Anyone reading over this entire thread would walk away with one undeniable fact. Ben was looking for people to defend NMEA as to allowing innovation. This wasn’t a quest for information. Ben’s continual arguing against a small developer is shocking especially alongside the numerous other developers saying that innovation is hurt by NMEA. Ben, are you listening?
So let me add one more voice. The small volume product ideas I have would be impossible for me to experiment with at home if I didn’t have access to all the NMEA info at work. What I’m doing is unethical. If I can build what I think I can, I’ll have to join NMEA and pay the full ride to make my product legal. I couldn’t do that if I just had a boat and a good idea. Paying hundreds of dollars for documentation in order to allow exploration is not just stifling, it’s aggressively anti-innovation.
The small innovator sees needs. We should be encouraged to create, explore, and develop. That isn’t being done and it’s bad for our industry. What’s worse Ben, is that Panbo used to be the place where honest inside exchanges could take place. This isn’t happening especially as I hear about postings being removed and edited. It makes me wonder if the picture of the director of NMEA handing you a check lower down on the page has something to do with this. It makes me question the information that is presented on this blog. And after 6 years of reading every posting, that sucks.

Yet Another Industry Insider says:

Interesting commentary from Anonymous et al. I too must remain anonymous because of my involvement with both sides on this conversation as well.
First, the DISGUSTING implication about Ben Ellison’s ethics is completely out of line and indicates a sophomoric, uneducated viewpoint. IF you want to hurl stones, know what you are throwing and at whom. The NMEA has paid to sponsor the annual awards breakfast for the Boat Writers Institute annual meeting at the Miami Boat Show each year since 2011. The NMEA began that practice with the specific intent to unveil their Master Dealer Program to the boating public. BWI has a panel of their OWN MEMBERS who vote on the submissions for awards and determine the winners. The BWI Board (I believe) raises award money and allocates it to the winners in each category. To indicate that Ben is being “paid off” by the NMEA is just short of libel, and it may not be short.
Second, I think maybe it is time for all of the independent innovators to come together, coordinate a volunteer effort, develop their own interface protocol, introduce it and market it to the public. Then it would really be free and they would have exactly what they want.
Personally, I am VERY ANGRY that my local Mercedes dealer will not allow me to drive off the showroom floor with a new model when I tell them I just want to use it for a few weeks to achieve my objective (which is to pickup the upgraded supermodel class girlfriend and get invited to swanky parties on Collins Avenue). No matter how much I promise them I will bring it back and they weren’t going to sell it for the time I had it out, and I would make sure it would show no wear and tear, they refuse to do so. HOW DARE THEY?!?!?!? Don’t they understand that I am just a little guy trying to make my way in this big mean world.
If an innovator has the idea for new products that clients want, find a venture capitalist to sell your plan to. If you need one, let me know, I have access to several and Ben will forward your request to me anonymously.
This is a basic matter of ownership and any other conversation (particularly the insults) is just out of line for so called professionals.

Bill Southworth says:

Ben –
I was not aware of the Third Party Certification for apps operating through a certified gateway, but this thread prompted me to read the abstract. I would have read the whole thing but, of course, I’d have to pay for the privilege.
Appendix H does seem to require that any app that uses the information from a NMEA-2000 network must pay up UNLESS the PGN has been stripped out and the message has been translated, not just imbedded, in another protocol. This should be pretty effective at killing off a third party app market if enforced.
Maybe next NMEA could require anybody who owns or is a passenger on a NMEA-2000 equipped vessel to pay a fee unless they are wearing blinders.
A real service from one of the guys on this thread might be to initiate an open standard which could be embedded in a protocol layer over Ethernet, Bluetooth and WiFi. The one “certified” gateway could actually save money because you could avoid the hundreds of dollars in NMEA-2000 cables, connecters and hubs. I’m certain NMEA would try to close any loophole but, as long as the data is translated to a second set of identifiers other than the PGNs, I don’t believe a fee could be charged. Perhaps some lawyer here could suggest how much these P*Ns need to be differentiated. Maybe you just need to add a digit to the PGN number.
This of course would all be unnecessary if NMEA where truly interested in promoting the interests of technological advancement, which they are clearly not.
Ben, I know that you’ve put together a lot of NMEA 2K hardware and I’m really surprised that you haven’t run into the electrical and cabling issues of the spec. In even a moderate size cluster of NMEA 2000 certified hardware (like maybe 20 devices) it’s so easy to end up with a bus crash. This is a relic of the underlying CANbus. Also, add a couple 20′ legs off a hub and put a terminator in the wrong place and God help you. Engine manufactures have taken notice of this. I don’t know of one NMEA-2K equipped engine that lets you do more than just observe engine info.
As a developer, I certainly wouldn’t want any information that my products used for proper operation to be coexisting on the same wire. The “safety” arguments made by NMEA are self serving and misleading at best.
As for all the “proprietary IP” of NMEA 2000, the standard basically IS CANbus with connectors that are available off-the-shelf. The only thing that’s really proprietary is the message content and the PGN numbers. Any old CANbus sniffer can read NMEA 2000. Oops, I think I just tipped off the NMEA police of another criminal.
Then there’s the cost of a NMEA 2K network. Instead of buying some RJ connectors and cable at Radio Shack or Home Depot, you probable had to special order your connectors and cables from Hamilton or West and paid $80 for a hub, $18 for a T-connector, $20 to $50 for each device cable, and $10 for each terminator. By comparison, a good quality Ethernet switch should cost $20 or so and each cable should be in the $2 to $4 range.
NMEA should be praised for at least getting the industry together to cooperate on communication between devices. On most other aspects of the standard and for their absurd licensing structure they should be damned for stifling innovation.
Ben, your support of NMEA is admirable but I think you are on the wrong side of this argument.
– Bill

steverow says:

Bill,
I think you have hit the nail on the head there. I dont have much to say about the protocols and layers, because they are essentially ethereal and dont “really exist”, or can always be changed. But what on Earth inspired the NMEA peeps to go with an ancient cable technology is beyond me. We got rid of all our resistor terminated coax stuff when we changed from DOS to 3.1.
There are far better cable types out there with multiple cores, cheaply available and would have been when 2K was being developed, HDMI or VGA with triple data screening, being two such examples, and would give longer runs with far fewer packet collisions, than the setup they now have. I’d love to know what drove their thinking on the “physical layer”.
Steve
PS Ben this thread is now so long you’ve run out of “white space” and my PC is now showing all messages with a blue background…lol

BrianM says:

Zealot? I point out an error in one of your comments, and I am a zealot?
Maybe what I should of said was “you might try reading the wikipedia entry for Linux before saying Bell Labs invented it.”

Guest Chris says:

Wow this is one Heck of a thread. I will throw this out there from one of my other hobbies. Back in the late eighties early nineties the NMRA (national model railroad assoc) decided to created a net work control standard for model railroads. They openly publish the standard and allow for certification thru minimal fees this idea has allowed for many smaller companies to create products for a relatively small market in this sense it has a lot in common with the marine market. Anyways here is the link to the info, Personally this seems to be what most of the developers on this forum would like to see.
http://www.nmra.org/standards/DCC/DCCHome.html

Zak Borg says:

Focusing on what’s good or bad with NMEA will surely not solve any of the challenges we are currently facing in the marine industry. It’s a blatant fact; NMEA is outdated and will remain outdated as they have a monopoly in the industry.
Their definitely are major short comings in the N2K protocol but no matter what we are going to have to stick with is for at least a couple of more years as uprooting all networks on board a boat and fitting a new network is surely not going to happen.
With this said, over the past year in collaboration with major players in and outside the marine industry have been working on MARSSA, an open reference architecture and open source platform for marine vessels.
When we say ‘Open’ we really mean OPEN and it’s free for all to use. MARSSA basically abstracts the end developer from the hardware and communication layers, allowing the developer to develop applications which are independent of the architecture on board the vessel by providing an open API and in the future SDK.
MARSSA is integrating with all existent marine protocols BUT we are pushing forward Ethernet and the concepts of a private/public cloud. With such a framework in hand we are enabling an App store concept through which a yacht owners will in the next couple of months be able to install MARSSA on board there vessel and download the necessary apps needed onto their vessel. We therefore encourage anyone interest to join the community and help bring forward this platform.

Kees says:

Hi Ben,
As you know I’m one of the first developers that started working with the Actisense NGT-1, which is the only practical NMEA 2000 gateway as of now.
One of the things that Actisense did early on before the NMEA would assent to the idea of a TPG is that the NGT-1 does not just act as a physical interface translating serial-over-USB into CAN (like most other CAN interfaces). Instead it is ‘smart’: it enforces that the packets sent by the NGT-1 on behalf of the ‘3rd party’ do not violate the NMEA 2000 standard. In particular it sets rate limits for all PGNs independently. By design it will just not let you flood the bus. It will not let you send “half” packets.
That’s all besides it electrical goodness, with it being very careful in that no ground loops/voltage spikes/current loops can occur in the NMEA 2000 network.
The only way you can mess up as a developer is by sending incorrect content, but that’s all. But since you cannot override any other sender on the bus, I’d say this is about the only worry a user has.
Let me repeat: there is NO WAY that you can “mess up” a GPS sending on address X or a depth sensor at address Y from the software side of a NGT-1. Your MFD / display device, once set to display data from X or Y, WILL WORK.
Since Actisense did such a good job, why not ease up on the software side?
PS I concur with your findings that, generally, NMEA 2000 networks typically “just work”. Some devices themselves may fail, but I’ve yet to see a network level failure.

Andy Campbell says:

Again you beat me to an answer Ben! 😉
Although I was going to reference the NMEA’s simple pdf of the top-level PGN details as I didn’t know it had evolved in to that great searchable database option.
The NMEA should publise that link far more.

Anonymous says:

Ben–How would I possibly be able to know that it is a requirement of the NMEA-2000 standard that a manufacturer tell me about the PGN’s their device can use? I have not purchased a copy of the standard. In order for me to know that a NMEA-2000 certified device must inform me about its PGN’s, I think I would have to purchase the standard to know that, wouldn’t I?
And Ben, it is not proper for you to tell me details of the standard like you have done, if you have purchased the standard yourself, because you are not supposed to disclose the details. Isn’t that right?
Do you see how strange this non-disclosure requirement becomes?

guest chris says:

Seems like the J1939 standard is a lot less expensive then the NEMA standard.
http://store.sae.org/jpaks/
indvidual sections can be purchased for $50 and $615 buys enough downloads to at least create a product.
Also you failed to mention MODbus which is the most used CAN standard behind CANopen (j1939 is part of CANopen)which is a fee and open standard. from their site
http://www.modbus.org/faq.php
Open: The Modbus protocol was transferred from Schneider Electric to the Modbus Organization in April 2004, signaling a commitment to openness. The specification is available free of charge for download, and there are no subsequent licensing fees required for using Modbus or Modbus TCP/IP protocols.
MOD bus also has an ethernet version that works well personaly I think maybe some of the developers on here should get together and create a NEMA alternative using something like MODbus thus creating a more open standard to move forward with.

Dan Corcoran (b393capt) says:

No wonder I couldn’t find much on J1939 when I was curious last year.

norse says:

I hardly dare comment on this thread. Innovation equals change. Sometimes stability is more desirable. NMEA 2000 is hardly established enough to be overly concerned with change. Having said that, their slowness has meant that obsolescence is a constant threat. Things evolve. Some old species continue to thrive along with the new, others die out. Which brings me to the history of computer products which are mentioned as examples. Nobody remembers what Ethernet was like before, or remembers its competitors. Nobody remembers what the products were which HTML replaced. Nobody remembers failed standards or attempts to create standards. For all the successes in the computer world, there have been many more failures and many successes which did not survive long. There is also the other extreme — things which fork or branch out into “similar but different”. Unix is not just one thing. Neither is Linux. It’s hard to be compatible with everything in the long run. That’s why standard writing is hard. NMEA might have been too naive going into writing NMEA 2000. Oh well. I’m for making the best of the situation, however imperfect it is. It still beats each manufacturer having its own standard (with a new one every few years).

Taniwha says:

I’m late to the game (I missed out on all the “live” fun above), and slightly off topic, but I think NMEA 2000 is a significant advance on what we had before. It has enabled me to implement an information and control system on my yacht that I would have only dreamed about 5 years ago, and it’s very robust and I use components from different suppliers. If I had written that sentence 10 years ago, you all would have said that I was dreaming.
Does it stifle innovation? Yes and no.
Clearly it has resulted in significant forward progress, which would say that it has helped innovation.
Have some developers not been able to participate? By the sounds of it, yes, and in that respect it has stifled some innovation. But I don’t see that as necessarily bad.
I own a small software company. Laissez faire open systems can (and do) create significant forward progress, but in my opinion are often not very end-user (read “consumer”, not “tech-geek”) friendly. It takes effort, skill, and money to create good end-user products. I don’t see a $6,000 entry fee as a barrier to entry that is significant enough to deter good progress.
And NMEA 2000 will evolve, and yes, may be replaced at some point with something better. That has always happened, even to the best “standards”, whether they be open or not. That will have taken some people effort, skill, and money, and thus I will not begrudge their wanting to get a return from that.
The leisure marine industry is a very fragile and niche animal. We have seen that countless times with reputable and significant players going under (we’ve seen that very recently with Raymarine).
Despite this, we have seen some really significant advances in MFDs and other electronics. Is it as bleeding edge as it could be? Possibly not. But I, for one, am very pleased as a consumer with the advances.
NMEA 2000 has very positively affected this environment and I am very happy that a small group of people took it upon themselves to bother to do it (I know how hard it is to develop industry standards: I worked on 2 standards in mobile computing through the 90’s).
It’s very easy to throw stones at a system that already exists (none are perfect, except those that we develop ourselves, of course). But I doubt that many of the stone throwers could have developed something that has advanced my electronics ( as a consumer) as much – oh, hold on, none of them actually did. But it seems like some want to ride on the coat-tails: isn’t that wanting your cake and eating it, too (excuse the mixed metaphors).
Meanwhile, I say thanks to those who persevered and created forward progress which has given me some really cool new stuff on my yacht. 🙂

BenTest says:

Did you read the Optimus 360 entry, DotDun? I didn’t say that CANbus and N2K would be on the same cable; what I wrote was this:
“And speaking of innovation I couldn’t help but notice how well NMEA 2000 works to help make a radically new technology like this possible. I’m not sure where the CANbus networks in Optimus 360 end and the N2K interface begins but since N2K is just a layer on top of CANbus it wasn’t hard to do. Isn’t that why Garmin has already introduced a GHP20 Steer by Wire autopilot that works with 360? Raymarine has also announced the SPX40 CANbus AP and I heard that Simrad and others are on the way.”
I don’t know if the AP connects to 360 with a CANbus cable or a NMEA 2000 cable, though of course they can look exactly the same because the DeviceNet cable standard is used for both. That’s why I referred to “one N2K/CANbus cable” above.

NotYetJoined says:

You asked:
    “The N2K WiFi gateway issue, is NMEA stifling innovation?”
The absurdly obvious answer is a resounding “YES!”
But of more concern to me right now is the “why” behind that answer, and especially your rather transparent attempt to “stack the deck” of the ensuing discussion:
    “I also don’t want to see the discussion sidetracked by the argument that NMEA is not an open standard because it’s not free. The base definition of an open standard is one that doesn’t exclude any manufacturer — like N2K — and while “free” is common in the computer world, fees are common in the industrial world that N2K more closely resembles.”
Your definition quoted above is perversely twisted, and that skews this entire discussion. Therefore, this issue is NOT a “sidetrack”; it is the very crux of the biscuit, upon which any *meaningful* further discussion must be based, or we’re just going around in circles (and based on having read the entire thread-to-date, I’d say we’re on about the 180th lap). So, my apologies in advance for declining to forgo this aspect of the debate; but I feel it is too essential to ignore. It is partially for this reason that I am submitting this response before I officially “join” Panbo, so you will have an opportunity to read and consider it before it appears publicly. I do hope you will choose to publish it; but that, of course, is up to you. So, with that out of the way…
To call NMEA 2000 an “open standard” is preposterous on its face. It is barely a “standard”, and is “non-open” in the extreme. The very fact that I, as a private individual boat owner, cannot even read a copy of the standard (at least without prohibitively exorbitant cost, which effectively means not at all) tells us all we really need to know about that. But even beyond that, the NDA requirement is incontrovertible proof of the “closed” nature of the standard. Such restrictions are simply not compatible with ANY “open” model, period; and more to the point, they inherently form an (obviously deliberate) barrier to entry. Reference any IEEE or IETF standard for a glaring contrast to the tightly locked-down NMEA model. Can you say, “Good Ol’ Boys Club”?
As for the term “free”, and its specific relevance to this issue, you apparently need to bone up on the difference between “free, as in beer” vs. “free, as in libre”; try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre . All the subsequent dickering about whether NMEA certification costs are or are not “too high” (whatever that might mean in any specific context, which is enough of an intangible moving target to be a perpetually unanswerable red herring in the general case) completely misses this point. Testing and certification fees are a separate matter from whether or not the standard itself is or is not “open”. (And for the record, I think it is perfectly reasonable for there to be such fees, perhaps even substantial ones; but that is another discussion entirely.) The standard itself, however, MUST be fully and publicly published (with little or no restriction on its subsequent redistribution) to have any pretense of being “open”. The relevant documents don’t necessarily need to be “free, as in beer”; but if/when the cost significantly exceeds the direct duplication and distribution costs of the underlying media, it is no longer an incidental “cost covering” fee; it is a (dearly) paid licensing arrangement, by any name — i.e., the exact antithesis of an “open” standard. If you have ANY doubt about this, go back to that Wikipedia page you later cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard , and re-read the first sentence: “An open standard is a standard that is publicly available …”.
If that still isn’t enough to change your mind, keep reading that same page. In particular, look at virtually any of the individual formal definitions cited; you will find statements such as:
  “‘Open Standards’ are standards made available to the general public …” (ITU-T)
  “The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.” (EU)
  “An open standard is accessible to everyone free of charge…” (Danish government)
  “…whose specifications are public and without any restriction in their access or implementation.” (French law)
  “An open standard fulfills the following conditions:
    * it is public, and its use is available on a free [gratis] basis, or at a cost that does not imply a difficulty for the user.
    * its use is not subject to the payment of any intellectual [copyright] or industrial [patents and trademarks] property right. (Spanish law)
  “Open standards: technical specifications, published and … available to everybody …” (Venezuelan law)
  “… a standard shall be considered open if it meets all of these criteria …
    3. open access: all may access committee documents, drafts and completed standards free of cost or for a negligible fee.
    4. It must be possible for everyone to copy, distribute and use the standard free of cost.
    5. The intellectual rights required to implement the standard (e.g.essential patent claims) are irrevocably available, without any royalties attached.
    6. There are no reservations regarding reuse of the standard.”
  (South African Government)
  “* Be accessible to everyone free of charge: no discrimination between users, and no payment or other considerations should be required as a condition to use the standard.
  * Remain accessible to everyone free of charge: owners should renounce their options, if any, to limit access to the standard at a later date.
  * Be documented in all its details: all aspects of the standard should be transparent and documented, and both access to and use of the documentation should be free.”
  (New Zealand official interoperability framework definition)
Heck, even Microsoft, one of the most infamously anti-open-standards (and anti-competitive in general) organizations known to mankind and the birthplace of the “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” mantra, at least gives lip service to this same fundamental concept: “…’open’ refers to it being royalty-free, while ‘standard’ means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis. An open standard is publicly available, and developed, approved and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process.”
So how long are you going to cling to the delusion that “all the soldiers are out of step except my little Johnny”?
Another point that seems to be getting missed a lot here is that these devices *are* (at least primarily) computers, not electro-mechanical industrial devices. Hence, that is — or at least “should be” — the applicable model, particularly as the underlying platforms inevitably become more and more generic and interoperable with each passing day.
This is no longer 1957. It’s time for the NMEA (and you?) to understand that the world *has* changed.

NotYetJoined says:

Ben said —
    Funny you didn’t quote any of the Wiki definition — much,
    much debated I’m sure — that disagrees with you, like the
    first paragraph:
    “An open standard is a standard that is publicly available
    and has various rights to use associated with it, and may
    also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g.
    open process). There is no single definition and
    interpretations vary with usage.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
I don’t see how that disagrees with my point — unless perhaps you take just the last sentence, out of context, and use it as an excuse to ignore the entire thrust of the article as a whole, including all the formal definitions I cited earlier.
So, while it is true that “[t]here is no single definition and interpretations vary with usage”, one thing they ALL have in common is that the standard is openly published and freely available to the general public. That is an essential characteristic of an open standard, and not even close to what NMEA does. The very fact that NMEA considers (or at least claims) the N2K “standard” to be their “intellectual property” puts it in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the concept of an “open standard”.
    Well actually you did, since NMEA 2000 is both publicly available
    and royalty free.
Really?!? Where? Can I perhaps go to my local public library and read the full specification there?
According to the NMEA web site http://www.nmea.org/store/index.asp?show=cprd&cid=7 , just to download (no paper, hence no copying costs) the so-called “Full Set” (which really isn’t) would set me back at least $4,000 — onerous (if not outright prohibitive) for most normal mortals — and even that doesn’t get me the details of the test procedures or criteria, to know what the various tolerances really are. For *that* information, I have to sign an NDA. So how exactly is that “publicly available and royalty free”, again? Even if we ignore the NDA aspect (how can we?), four grand seems like a heck of a royalty, to me.
    My favorite part of your screed, though, is the “these devices
    *are* (at least primarily) computers, not electro-mechanical
    industrial devices.” That’s very funny.
How so? I meant exactly what I said; and I wasn’t joking.
    You’re confusing the MFDs that often manipulate and display N2K
    data with all the sensors that deliver the data.
Not at all. In fact, from the above, it appears that it is you who is confused. Just because a device doesn’t have a keyboard or a big fancy LCD display does NOT mean it’s not a computer. Read on…
    I was just looking at diagrams of a big install yesterday, maybe
    40-50 devices on the N2K backbone (which has a bridge and
    multiple power feeds). 90% of them are relatively simple
    electronic devices, not computers. They are devices typical of
    the CANbus world.
And each and every one of those devices — such those Lowrance fuel-flow sensors I mentioned in another post, just to use a handy example (BTW, I typoed the model number in that post; they were really EP-60Rs) — are in fact computers themselves. They are very small and highly specialized computers to be sure, but computers nonetheless. They include such recognizable subsystems as analog/digital converters, internal memory, a processor of some type (with an instruction set), and a network interface. How is that not a computer? This is further self-evident from the fact that they output *digital* data and “talk” over the N2K bus. Put simply, *ANYTHING* (except the raw power feed, of course) which attaches directly to a CANbus network (including the N2K variant thereof) *IS* a computer, at least in the broad sense of that term (to be somewhat pedantic, a more precise term would be “microcontroller”; but as a practical matter all modern microcontrollers are in fact computers anyway — cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcontroller “A microcontroller … is a small computer on a single integrated circuit containing a processor core, memory, and programmable input/output peripherals”).
    The devices represent at least three manufacturers and there’s
    lot of data sharing going on, all possible because N2K is open to
    all manufacturers.
No. It is partially open to members of the “Good Ol’ Boys Club”, and ONLY to those members. More to the point, it is certainly NOT “freely available to the general public”, by whatever meaning of the term “freely” you care to apply.

BrianM says:

So anything that involves software should be “free”, in both the “free beer” and “freedom” contexts, notyetjoined?
Thats nice of you, deciding what everyone else should do with their work.
“publicly available” doesn’t mean that they have to give it away. No matter how much you plead poverty.

Paul says:

I tried really hard not to get sucked into this thread 🙁
Ben…
“N2K is, in fact, the result of thousands of hours of largely volunteer labor contributed by members of a marine electronics trade organization”
Are you telling me these volunteers had no financial interest or are not employees of organizations with a financial interest in the 2k ecosystems? I’m sure a lot of very bright, hard working people contributed (I knew several of them). Passionate about the success of 2k … sure. Volunteers … without compensation? No