From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: 
To: lml
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:03:29 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1027831@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB607203725671@PDX-MX6.stoel.com>
References: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB607203725671@PDX-MX6.stoel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>:

  In response to your email below, I am "negative" about only one thing, the
assumption that, in switching from the crossbow to the pinpoint product, D2
has solved the AHRS problem.  As I have now said several times, I frevently
hope that they have solved it.  I am only concerned because that conclusion
cannot at this point be supported by publicly available empirical fact.  To my
knowledge, the only empirical difference between the xbow and pinpoint
products that is relevant to the question of whether and in what circumstances
they work is that, in contrast to the xbow product, the pinpoint product does
not have enough use in the field to enable a determination as to what about
it, if anything, does not work.  When the xbow product was at the same stage
of development, those who are now singing the praises of the pinpoint product
were singing the praises of the xbow product.  It is only the actual use in
the field of the xbow product that has identified the problems with the
product that now require solution.  Given that fact and the fact that it seems
clear that actual field testing of products such as both the xbow and the
pinpoint AHRS is required to identify and work out the glitches, it seems
unduly optimistic to me to assume that the pinpoint product will survive field
testing without experiencing similar issues to those experienced by the xbow
product.
  
  It is possible that I feel this way because I lack access to facts that 
would
reassure me.  Among those facts might be the background and experience of
those responsible for the pinpoint product or the fact, if true, that the
pinpoint product has been extensively field tested.  At the moment, the only
fact that has been advanced in support of the optimistic assessment of the
pinpoint product is that it is not the xbow product.  Given the inherent
technical challenges associated with produing a low-cost, reliable AHRS that
works as advertized without the kind of testing that certification would
demand, it simply seems to me that the appropriate attitude about the pinpoint
product is to reserve judgment about it until more is known.  At that point it
may appear that the pinpoint product is more dependable or less dependable
than the xbow product.
  
  It may ultimately appear that the challenge of building a low-cost, reliable
AHRS simply cannot be met; that the price of reliability is not in the four
digits but in the five digits.  In that case, there is an established,
reliable product available from xbow that meets the need.  Rather than to
speculate on the relative merits of the xbow 400 and the pinpoint products,
what I have done to protect myself is to work out a deal with my supplier
that, if a switch to the 500 product is necessary, I will get full credit for
the price of the 420.  That seems to me to be a much safer bet than an
unsupported speculation that the pinpoint product will turn out to be reliable
from the start without adjustments resulting from field testing.
  
  If I had to guess as between the xbow400 and the pinpoint, I would bet on 
the
xbow product for two reasons: first, xbow is an established AHRS manufacturer
while, in the absense of any information to the contrary, I must assume that
pinpoint is not.  Second, one plausible scenario is that both products will
eventually be made reliable but only after fixing problems identified in the
field.  If that is so, one product is not inherently more reliable than the
other but xbow is further down the path to establishing the reliability of
their product.  I stress, however, that this is simply a guess based on the
evidence available to me and that I may well be wrong.  Unfortunately all of
us have to make judgments based on the information available to us and that is
all I am doing.  I wish I had more information about pinpoint but the fact
that I don't seems to be the result of a judgment that they have made about
their "business model".  As someone who has advised a number of startup
companies, I am mystified by a business model that makes a virtue of ignoring
the ultimate customer but it's a free country and a market economy and people
are at liberty to adopt whatever business model they think will work.
  
  The same goes for D2.  I don't know what their relationship was with xbow,
contractual or other.  That is their private affair in which I have no
interest (in either sense of the word.)  What is public is that, in their
press release, they came close to accusing xbow of dishonesty, incompetence or
both, an act that, at least from my perspective, seems both imprudent and
impolitic for a number of reasons.  That said, there may be more to it than I
know -- probably is.  As it is not up to me to pass judgment on what they did
or why they did it, my only intention was to describe what it seemed to me
they did.  I think that is all that I have done.