On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:27 PM, <sandy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The URL you provide says: > > "ANT/ANT+ are managed by ANT Wireless, a division of Dynastream Innovations > Inc.......Dynastream was established in 1998 and became a wholly owned > subsidiary of Garmin Ltd. in December 2006. " > > So, there is the most likely reason for using a new proprietary solution. > They OWN the company. Clearly, the company's software is superior to any > solution that was 'Not Invented Here'. Sorry, but no -- that is an entirely reasonable supposition for Garmin, but ANT/ANT+ is used by a significant number of other companies as well -- for example, I know them from Peloton exercise bikes, Samsung phones, etc. A quick glance at their "directory" shows what looks like a few hundred brands, and >600 products. >From a *very* quick glance it seems that, for simple things, it is simpler to integrate than programming against bluetooth directly (e.g the Nordic RNF5283 is ~$2.00, and does BLE, ANT and NFC) -- there are a number of friendly looking libraries and demos for things like talking to bikes, etc. ANT *feels* like it provides a higher layer / abstraction to program against -- for example, this datasheet https://www.thisisant.com/resources/fit2-fitness-module-datasheet/... 'tis been many years since I tried to integrate a bluetooth module into something, but when I did, there seemed to be so much rope that getting started was tricky... I suspect that the root answer to Alessandro question is a combination of 1: NIH, 2: because other devices I need to talk to already do this, and 3: better abstractions / nicely defined and documented stack. [ Note: This is just from a brief skim of their website - I may be completely wrong, BT / BLE may have progressed and libraries improved, and better, clearer profiles created, etc... ] W > > -Sandy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > "Alessandro Vesely" <vesely@xxxxxxx> > > To: > <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: > > Sent: > Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:10:57 +0100 > Subject: > What is Ant's Fit Protocol? > > > > Hi, > I annoyingly see this stuff in some GPS devices. It seems to be a > proprietary > protocol for wireless communication, also used as a file format. It is > resumed > here: > > https://www.thisisant.com/company/ > > I'm wondering why companies use that protocol instead of an open standard. > Is > it because there is no suitable open standard or just because they hate open > standards? > > I would try and dissuade open source packages, e.g. gpsbabel, to try to > support > it, since that protocol seems to be going to change unpredictably and hence > their software will never work. Opinions? > > TIA for any reply > Ale > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf