Garmin and Active Captain-A Cautionary Tale

[aboatman]

Unless things that changed, all those markers are placed by users with no AC verification. So you can put a marina or a hazard anywhere you want. I am sure that the users try to do their best but they arne’t cartographers.

I think the marinas are verified. Possibly not the anchorages and hazards. I usually don't pay attention to the "hazards" because of the often low quality of the reviews. What may be a hazard for one boater may not be for another boater. As far as anchorages, it's possible to anchor in lots of places not identified on AC or a book.

 

[aboatman]

......... I feel betrayed for him creating a good product, saying he was doing it 100% for the betterment of the community (not the money), then treating some of the community like st+t.

You can't buy groceries or health care with "betterment of the community". He would never admit to it, but somehow he was making money on the product.

I don't hold that against him but lying about it is another story.

 

[CaptTom]

For the record, I never felt Jeff shouldn't make money on AC. And I really don't blame him for selling. I get the sense he's a "been there, done that" kind of guy, and he's anxious to move on to his next project. Great. Good luck!

I guess my (probably misplaced) feeling of betrayal comes more from who he sold it to. My experience with Garmin customer support hasn't been good.

Also for the record, I never felt that companies exist solely to enrich shareholders. I like to think companies are started to provide a product or service which people need. To fill a niche that someone feels they can be good enough at to make a living at. Shareholders are only needed to help the company finance growth, to improve their product or service to the benefit of owners, shareholders, workers and customers.

I know it's currently fashionable to have some whiz kid business major make all the decisions, with the only goal being short-term gain for shareholders. But it seems to me this complete disregard for customers and workers isn't beneficial in the long term.

Many stockholders aren't investors. They're speculators. Gamblers. They take their winnings and move on to the next game, leaving the company in shambles.

 

[BandB]

You can't buy groceries or health care with "betterment of the community". He would never admit to it, but somehow he was making money on the product.

I don't hold that against him but lying about it is another story.

He built a good business where no one else saw the potential or knew how. Impressive. He made money doing so, although not a tremendous amount for his time and effort. The only way to capitalize was to sell eventually. Unfortunately, he felt fine with acting like a complete jerk in public forums and when dealing with customers. Some people who are self employed do so with no one to stop them.

 

[BruceK]

My understanding is the controversial AC/JS posturing was intentional, it drove traffic to the site,which made money
Businesses are sometimes acquired for their profitability and success,and then,oddly enough,changed. Makes little sense to destroy the very features that attracted the buyer,perhaps some think they can make it even more successful by changes.
Here it seems the aim may have been to benefit the existing business of the acquirer Garmin, rather than promote and improve the AC business. It may be too early to say what the intentions are.
In Australia Garmin is just one of a number of navigation hardware and software providers. I had a negative experience with them which was instantly solved by copying in Garmin USA on the correspondence. After that, Garmin Aust. could not do enough to solve the issues their incorrect pre-purchase advice created.

 

[aboatman]

He built a good business where no one else saw the potential or knew how. Impressive. He made money doing so, although not a tremendous amount for his time and effort. The only way to capitalize was to sell eventually. ...............

I suspect 90% of us would have been willing to pay $25 or more per year to access AC. That would have been a pretty good income for him.

 

[BandB]

I suspect 90% of us would have been willing to pay $25 or more per year to access AC. That would have been a pretty good income for him.

Not like a one time shot though that allows a nice retirement if one so chooses.

An interesting thing has happened in the start up of small businesses in the past couple of decades. Once it was with the intent of operating them forever and supporting your family by running them. Now, especially with any technological enterprises, the main goal of many entrepreneurs is to build a business to sell. Cashing out is the plan.

In a business like AC, which was a two person show largely, the owner is tied down to the daily operation of the business forever unless he sells.

As to the percentage who would have been willing to pay, I don't have the same optimism as you and by charging for use, you would have reduced the number of users and, therefore, reduced the value of the advertising paid for by marinas.

 

[twistedtree]

An interesting thing has happened in the start up of small businesses in the past couple of decades. Once it was with the intent of operating them forever and supporting your family by running them. Now, especially with any technological enterprises, the main goal of many entrepreneurs is to build a business to sell. Cashing out is the plan.

I agree, and much of it is driven by the startup investment money that is available. VC firms, which are pretty much the only source of capital for any sizable endeavor, want their money and profits in 10 years, give or take. And the only way for that to happen is by going public or selling. It leaves a real funding gap for companies that don't fit that profile.

 

[sunchaser]

I worked for 7 different companies in my career. All companies, except the last, were sold and exist no longer but their various resource based assets remain profitable for the next wave of owners.

Business 101, build up a company's asset base to be attractive for the next group of owners. It is called capitalism. AC and JS did fine. Garmin is happy. Naturally some grumbling seems to persist by those that had no skin in the game.

 

[dhays]

He built a good business where no one else saw the potential or knew how. Impressive. He made money doing so, although not a tremendous amount for his time and effort. The only way to capitalize was to sell eventually. Unfortunately, he felt fine with acting like a complete jerk in public forums and when dealing with customers. Some people who are self employed do so with no one to stop them.

What he said. ^

 

[BandB]

Wifey B: I just grabbed a couple of pieces of bacon and a piece of sausage and was wondering why my sudden craving for a good steak.

And this isn't making fun of all vegetarians or vegans as I know some very nice ones, some based on personal choice and some for religious purposes, and I've never had any issues with them.

 

[FoxtrotCharlie]

May have been said earlier here, but me thinks Garmin bought AC to squelch competition, such as it was. Navionics? Same. Was getting too easy to navigate with an ipad and not needing Garmin...

 

[CaptTom]

...Naturally some grumbling seems to persist by those that had no skin in the game...

So a company only exists to enrich it's owner(s)? Customers, suppliers, employees, supporters who give free, word-of-mouth advertising, and volunteers who spend time writing up assessments and reviews have no "skin in the game?"

I sincerely hope you're wrong. I hope that there's still a place in the world for a group of people to develop a better product or service that others want to buy. A product which somehow enriches the lives of customers, who are happy to see the company succeed. A company that people are proud to join as employees, and take pride in their contribution to society. A company that benefits other companies which act as reliable suppliers, pays it's taxes and is a welcome asset to the community.

What you describe is not investment. It's speculation. Gambling. Pure greed. No good ever came of that.

 

[sunchaser]

So a company only exists to enrich it's owner(s)? Customers, suppliers, employees, supporters who give free, word-of-mouth advertising, and volunteers who spend time writing up assessments and reviews have no "skin in the game?"

I sincerely hope you're wrong. I hope that there's still a place in the world for a group of people to develop a better product or service that others want to buy. A product which somehow enriches the lives of customers, who are happy to see the company succeed. A company that people are proud to join as employees, and take pride in their contribution to society. A company that benefits other companies which act as reliable suppliers, pays it's taxes and is a welcome asset to the community.

What you describe is not investment. It's speculation. Gambling. Pure greed. No good ever came of that.

Boy you sure took a leap with that post! :lol: