Garmin just purchased ActiveCaptain

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

There is history there. My understanding is that Dave and the OpenCPN team wanted to push through the open API and tell Jeff how to run his business on his side of the interface. The open source religion drove to a stonewall and the open source navigation community lost because principle overwhelmed realism.

Open-source is awesome. OpenCPN is particularly awesome. More than half the Internet and the devices on it are running on open-source software.

Nonetheless, there is also room for commercially-driven development, including the aggregation and collation of user data. Jeff and company put in 10 years to build and grow the AC system and community. It's up to users to decide whether the terms of the offering continue to be of value or not.

At present, all the AC data is freely available on their website and the people at Garmin have pledged that the data and API will still be free to use. I'm willing to guess that 99% of boaters are, or will be satisfied with the arrangement. I'm going to test the new API as soon as it's available.

BTW, OpenCPN is open-source, right? That means that anyone can develop plugins for it. So, that being the case, and with the Garmin API also being open to use... what's to stop anyone from developing an AC plugin for OpenCPN, even if the principals of OpenCPN themselves couldn't agree with how AC has chosen to present the data?

Polar Navy has responded to a user request for more info. My reading of it is that PN is having a little bit of a snit about only getting a month to implement the new API, and some concern about the agreement required to use the new API. But it's clear that Polar Navy hasn't been cut off, it's their own decision to not use the new API.

Garmin themselves continue to be mostly silent about the new API or its terms. Supposedly, All Will Be Revealed by Apr 1.

[Opie91]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie91
and they are highly unlikely to share it with other manufactures new products.

Opinion.

An opinion based on Garmin's past behavior.

Like I said before they every right to do what they are doing.

[Capt Gill]

Garmin themselves continue to be mostly silent about the new API or its terms. Supposedly, All Will Be Revealed by Apr 1.[/QUOTE]

Such a interesting choice for a announcement date; it must be nuanced or they are clueless, assuming the former, is it a nerdy joke or Garmin's odd sense of humour ? I await April 1st with baited breath, although I realise it maybe foolish to do so.

[nohal]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

BTW, OpenCPN is open-source, right? That means that anyone can develop plugins for it. So, that being the case, and with the Garmin API also being open to use... what's to stop anyone from developing an AC plugin for OpenCPN, even if the principals of OpenCPN themselves couldn't agree with how AC has chosen to present the data?

I keep being a little surprised by the existence of people still believing ActiveCaptain has, or ever had, an API allowing any application to synchronize it's data and show it.

It was never the case and OpenCPN was explicitly disallowed to do it.

Even when I personally offered to sign the obligatory commercial and NDA agreements to get the information about the API offered to the commercial developers to be able to asses whether there is any way to meet the requirements, I was denied (Shot of the final denial e-mail, being part of longer communication exchange, attached - Many thanks to Mr. Siegel for explicitly and publicly allowing disclosure of our e-mail exchange, which I until then considered private, during later public communication on OpenCPN's Facebook page, which is also archived).

What the so called "ActiveCaptain Open API" vaporware (Does not exist and never did besides an unfinished implementation that disappeared without any notice or explanation before the end of the year 2014, to again appear for about a week after my question what's going on some time later, just to disappear again), which required OpenCPN or any other application potentially using it to be always online to display any AC data can be clearly seen in the partial implementation of the OpenCPN plugin I did and left for public reference at https://bitbucket.org/nohal/ac_pi

I really hope things changed or are going to change and there will be the "Garmin API also being open to use", but so far have not seen any information that would suggest such a change.

Pavel

[Ringmaster]

Let's hope they do a better job with this than they did with Nexus.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by nohal

I keep being a little surprised by the existence of people still believing ActiveCaptain has, or ever had, an API allowing any application to synchronize it's data and show it.

It was never the case and OpenCPN was explicitly disallowed to do it.

Even when I personally offered to sign the obligatory commercial and NDA agreements to get the information about the API offered to the commercial developers to be able to asses whether there is any way to meet the requirements, I was denied (Shot of the final denial e-mail, being part of longer communication exchange, attached - Many thanks to Mr. Siegel for explicitly and publicly allowing disclosure of our e-mail exchange, which I until then considered private, during later public communication on OpenCPN's Facebook page, which is also archived).

This is like reading a spy novel. Every chapter brings something new...

First, I am relatively new to this situation. I have only dug into the relationship between ActiveCaptain and any potential users like OpenCPN in the last couple of months. But I'm also a developer, so i have some grasp of what might be at stake.

From the only only official utterance I've seen (that Panbo article with participants from garmin) I got the imoression that the API was and will be pretty open. ... maybe that wasn't the case.

So please - whoever - confirm my present understanding:

• Any logged-in user can access the AC data through the AC website or through the AC phone apps...PROVIDED that they're online. I haven't tried the AC phone apps; do they allow any caching for offline use?
• SOME applications like Polar Navy did get access to the AC API, but OpenCPN didn't? Was Polar Navy or anybody else allowed to cache AC data for offline use?
• I do know that there are sometimes export restrictions imposed by the US on data and software... is this possibly why they wouldn't allow a Czech developer to access the API?
• I appreciate that AC wouldn't want to fork the whole database or permit cloning; did they explicitly forbid all caching?

Lots of gaps in the story.

[nohal]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So please - whoever - confirm my present understanding:

Anyone can access the AC data through the AC website

True. But this has nothing to do with integration of the data in applications.

or through the AC phone apps...

As far as I know, AC's own apps are discontinued and not working, at least not to the degree they did before. To which degree I have no idea as I do not use them. I am not aware of their commercial partner's apps being restricted access, at least until May 23 2018, and even that I know only from public sources, being Polar Navy's announcement.
The related PR blah blah from Garmin you can read on Panbo.

PROVIDED that they're online. I haven't tried the AC phone apps; do they allow any caching for offline use?

Not true. Commercial application developers, being in contractual relationship with the Active Corporation (As far as I remember that was the name of the business entity behind Active Captain before acquired by Garmin) did, and do, until, probably, May 23 2018, have access to something like an API, which I have never seen, see above why, that allowed them to download and cache the data.
The forementioned applications did not need to be online at all times. There was not and is not any other way for an application to access the AC data (except the short lived Open API vaporware of 2014) without violating the AC EULA and scraping them from the web UI.

SOME applications like Polar Navy did get access to the API, but OpenCPN didn't? Was Polar Navy or anybody else allowed to cache AC data?

True. Yes, as explained above, commercial application developers being in contractual relationship with AC, which depended solely on decision of the AC owner, were allowed to download and cache the data locally.
OpenCPN developers, and also an EU registered business entity willing to bridge the gap (represented by me) were disallowed entering to contractual relationship with AC by it's owner.

I do know that there are sometimes export restrictions imposed by the US on data and software... is this possibly why they wouldn't allow a Czech developer to access the API?

I really doubt so. But unlike mr. Siegel's "very good corporate attorney", I am not an attorney. For your information, the Czech Republic is part of the European Union. European Union is the entity that made AC/Garmin significantly tighten their conditions. To the degree that US based developers (Polar Navy) refuse to accept them. Make your guess if we live on the trees and our only intentions are to steal mr. Siegel's property you created yourself.

I appreciate that AC wouldn't want to fork the database or permit cloning; did they forbid all caching?

I am not aware of anybody ever wanting to fork AC's database. AC obviously did not forbid caching as their contractual commercial partners were allowed to do it. They also exercised their right to chose those partners, and there is nothing wrong about that.
I do find funny the way they presented the results, that is true.

Lots of gaps in the story.

Looking forward to fill any I can. I can of course not fill any gaps involving mr. Siegel's stuff, except parts where I was directly involved. And those are hard, if not impossible, to forget...

Pavel

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

BTW, OpenCPN is open-source, right? That means that anyone can develop plugins for it.

True, given access to the API by a plug-in developer. Given the bad blood between the OpenCPN team and AC that could be problematic. I have hoped that the sale of AC to Garmin would allow moving past history if the OpenCPN team would back off on their religious fervor.

Originally Posted by nohal

I keep being a little surprised by the existence of people still believing ActiveCaptain has, or ever had, an API allowing any application to synchronize it's data and show it.

Since I have three apps on my phone that do just that I am more than a little surprised that you don't accept the existence of that data access.

Originally Posted by nohal

It was never the case and OpenCPN was explicitly disallowed to do it.

Because, at least to my understanding, the OpenCPN team wanted to tell Grandma how to suck eggs on Grandma's side of the interface.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Any logged-in user can access the AC data through the AC website or through the AC phone apps...PROVIDED that they're online. I haven't tried the AC phone apps; do they allow any caching for offline use?

Yes - caching is provided for and many apps do it. I just updated the data in the apps I use.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

SOME applications like Polar Navy did get access to the AC API, but OpenCPN didn't? Was Polar Navy or anybody else allowed to cache AC data for offline use?

Correct.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I do know that there are sometimes export restrictions imposed by the US on data and software... is this possibly why they wouldn't allow a Czech developer to access the API?

Possibly. It is also possible that the OpenCPN team so fouled the water on the issue that Jeff Siegel simply did not want to engage with anyone even remotely associated with that effort.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I appreciate that AC wouldn't want to fork the whole database or permit cloning; did they explicitly forbid all caching?Lots of gaps in the story.

Caching is explicitly permitted. It's great. I've used the capability to great effect a number of times coming in from offshore at an unexpected destination.

[nohal]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

True, given access to the API by a plug-in developer. Given the bad blood between the OpenCPN team and AC that could be problematic. I have hoped that the sale of AC to Garmin would allow moving past history if the OpenCPN team would back off on their religious fervor.

There is no "religious fervor", whatever you think that is. Not on OpenCPN's side.

Since I have three apps on my phone that do just that I am more than a little surprised that you don't accept the existence of that data access.

Which one of them is using an API that did not require it's author to sign the commercial agreements with AC. Which, again, I would gladly have done to provide interface for OpenCPN, being allowed to.

Because, at least to my understanding, the OpenCPN team wanted to tell Grandma how to suck eggs on Grandma's side of the interface.

Source of this information, please? Yes, I of course told Grandma that providing us with an interface that explicitly disallows caching the data on clients machine, is technically much inferior to what the commercial applications may use, and allows grandma to push absolutely anything she wants to our users is not exactly what I will happily invest my free time into implementing for the grandma. Do you think we are not allowed to tell grandma what we think anymore? By what?

Yes - caching is provided for and many apps do it. I just updated the data in the apps I use.

Correct. But many, not all. To my knowledge developers of all of them must have been allowed to sign and sign the commercial agreement with AC. IS your information different? Source of that information?
FWIW I never had any problem at least to read the conditions of these contracts and had shown will to do it and perhaps even sign them after that, but see above.

Possibly. It is also possible that the OpenCPN team so fouled the water on the issue that Jeff Siegel simply did not want to engage with anyone even remotely associated with that effort.

Yes, I have heard mr. Siegel claiming this several times. I have heard him claim similar stuff about different vendors of commercial navigation software who did not accept his terms as well, including Transas and Navionics. I still lack any proof to back his claims though. Do you have some?

Caching is explicitly permitted. It's great. I've used the capability to great effect a number of times coming in from offshore at an unexpected destination.

Caching is explicitly permitted where? Can you post a link to the documentation of the API implementing it and a document stating it is permitted to use it?

Thank you

Pavel

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by nohal

There is no "religious fervor", whatever you think that is. Not on OpenCPN's side.

Not how events were described to me by Jeff Siegel. See below on atmospherics.

Originally Posted by nohal

Which one of them is using an API that did not require it's author to sign the commercial agreements with AC. Which, again, I would gladly have done to provide interface for OpenCPN, being allowed to.

Without knowledge to the contrary I presume all have signed the AC NDA. While I have not and never did sign that particular agreement with Active Corporation I was party to another agreement with Jeff and Karen that included interlocking NDAs. I found them very reasonable and easy to get along with. In that case I had more to gain than they and the Siegels were still accommodating.

Originally Posted by nohal

Yes, I of course told Grandma that providing us with an interface that explicitly disallows caching the data on clients machine, is technically much inferior to what the commercial applications may use, and allows grandma to push absolutely anything she wants to our users is not exactly what I will happily invest my free time into implementing for the grandma. Do you think we are not allowed to tell grandma what we think anymore? By what?

I wasn't there. Apparently you were. Were you the original point of contact for OpenCPN? I thought it was Dave. In every agreement I have been part of (between companies, between governments (two countries) and companies, and between sovereign nations (twice) the bounds of discussion are the interface itself. Any insight across the interface is limited to understanding the interface. What Jeff described to me was that the OpenCPN team wanted to tell Jeff how to implement functions on his side of the interface. None of OpenCPN business *how* as long as the functionality is there to provide the desired data. Given that the interface works effectively for so many others I can understand pushback from AC against changes requested by OpenCPN.

If Jeff proposed a different arrangement with OpenCPN than with other partners as you imply I can understand taking issue with that. Caching data for offline use is critical for offshore applications - I use that regularly. On the other hand if OpenCPN wanted special treatment or accommodation as I infer that is not appropriate.

Originally Posted by nohal

I have heard him claim similar stuff about different vendors of commercial navigation software who did not accept his terms as well, including Transas and Navionics.

I know those disagreements exist. I have no insight into them. Jeff talked about Navionics once but I don't remember what he said well enough to report on it.

I am very familiar with Jeff's personality quirks. We were friends until I failed to do something he thought I should have done (*sigh*) and we weren't friends any more. After many years we are back to "sort of" friends again. Sort of. *grin*

I'm a huge fan of OpenCPN. I use it regularly. It is in my go-kit on delivery and has more than once been principle navigation when boat systems failed. ActiveCaptain would be a major contribution of functionality to OpenCPN. None of the other crowd-sourced data sets come close.

I respectfully suggest that the change in parties be considered an opportunity to OpenCPN. The OpenCPN team should set aside any scars associated with the past and sign the damn (excuse me) agreement with Garmin as it stands and incorporate AC in the tool. Please. Pretty please.

Let me know if I can help. I will.

[bdbcat]

Auspicious...

1. Nohal speaks truth from my recollection. He was the primary point of contact with A/C at the time.

2. If Jeff proposed a different arrangement with OpenCPN than with other partners as you imply I can understand taking issue with that.
That is exactly what happened. The OCPN implementation would have resulted in a very disappointing UX, significantly inferior to contemporary commercial apps.

3. There is no extant "agreement" to sign with Garmin. Polar Navy hints that there is an onerous (to them) NDA that may be signed by acceptable corporate entities, in order to see the technical details of the proposed API. But we have not seen it. We would like to.

4. We are open to meaningful discussion and progress on this and other crowd-sourced data integration. As far as I am concerned, the past is past. Be let us not rewrite history.

Thanks
Dave

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by bdbcat

Auspicious...

So how can I help?

[bdbcat]

Auspicious...

Well, if you know anyone at Garmin, ring their bell. See if they would talk to us.

Dave

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by bdbcat

Auspicious...

Well, if you know anyone at Garmin, ring their bell. See if they would talk to us.

Dave

Monday.

I'm a Dave also.

sail fast and eat well, dave
S/V Auspicious
dave@auspiciousworks.com

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Let me know if I can help. I will.

Originally Posted by Auspicious

So how can I help?

My humble suggestion is to work on alternatives to active captain.

We should all refuse to sign any kind of "NDA" for this, or anything else.

Originally Posted by nohal

Even when I personally offered to sign the obligatory commercial and NDA agreements to get the information about the API offered to the commercial developers to be able to asses whether there is any way to meet the requirements, I was denied (Shot of the final denial e-mail, being part of longer communication exchange, attached - Many

You are from czech republic and that's why?! haha

Back in 2014, I tried too, I am from the USA!

I didn't know much about AC at the time and didn't realize there was an NDA, or any other restrictions. I would not sign any contract or agreement. I figured the issue was development time was all that was needed.

Apparently I didn't have enough assets either as I was "floating" (jeff's word for engine free) in the philippines. He then bragged about how his interface is superior because it lists all the "dog parks" in each area.

I suggested to jeff that it would not be difficult to "extract" the useful data out of his website using robot scripts, so he might as well share it. He was "shocked" and "appauled" by this suggestion. Maybe this made him hate opencpn, or made it difficult for you, I'm a little bit sorry for that, but it has more to do with his personality.

I really hope things changed or are going to change and there will be the "Garmin API also being open to use", but so far have not seen any information that would suggest such a change.

Pavel

I don't trust garmin even if the inital API is open. If it's trivial to implement, maybe, but we really need something that has guarenteed future.