HELP: unlocking Garmin City Navigator NT and Topo to second unit

[+Firefishe]

Today is December 6th, 2008. This is Firefishe, Caching In On The Journey.

 

During the very early morning of Thursday, December 4th, 2008, I went over to the fine Garmin folks at www.gpsnow.com and bought a nice, compact eTrex Vista HCx. Wanting this quickly, I popped down the $16.53 for Priority Overnight Delivery by 10:30am and promptly obtained the package from the equally fine folks from FedEx on Friday, December 5th, 2008, at *exactly* 10:30! (No joke, the driver pulled in without a second to spare! Left me impressed...but I digress.)

 

I have owned previously, a GPSmap 76CSx, which was my last unit, a GPSmap 76CS, an eTrex Vista Cx, Vista C, and Vista. My very first GPS was a thoroughly hacked Magellan Map 330 (see Yahoo Group m330 for what I mean by that) which gave me my first taste of not only Geocaching, but introduced me to the technical aspects of GPS firmware, for which I will be forever grateful. (It's a highly rewarding feeling to know you can hard-code your name, address, and phone number into something that not just anyone can change via a menu on the unit! Made for good theft prevention, that!

 

Other units I've owned have been the Lowrance iFinder H2O--given to my Father-In-Law--and an iFinder Hunt Color, of which I went through two before ending up returning them for a refund due to constant electronic problems. I decided, at that point, to opt out of Lowrance's offerings and go with the 'Ol' Standy' and buy Garmin's Vista Cx, after that model had been out for a while. I didn't regret it.

 

My current units are the aforementioned eTrex Vista HCx and the excellent Nuvi 350, as well as an utterly dependable Foretrex 101 (the 2 AA powered model) I use as a backup, and sometimes as my primary during cache hunts if the tree cover isn't too dense.

 

Okay, so now you know what I've owned. What does that have to do with this thread? Plenty!

 

What I like to term 'The MapSource Licensing Rant' has been cropping up, filling my eyeballs and ear canals ever since Garmin decided to stop producing their own, high quality maps and partnered with Navteq for map data. (Didn't I also see their earlier name as NAVTEC when they first started to appear on Garmin packaging? Thought the 'Q' was a 'C' in the early days, but I could be wrong...)

 

I don't have to look very far in many online GPS forums if I want to read about the MapSource/Navteq licensing problem. And is it a problem? You bet your twenty-thousand-dollar Trimble GeoExplorer XH it is!

 

I have a smattering of old MapSource software lying around, the most recent of which is City Navigator, Version 7! I have some older US Topo CD's, and one old MetroGuide cd from Somewhere In Time, Circa 2004, I think. Guess I used that with the Vista.

 

What is interesting to me is that, although the GPS units I've owned have faded into other's hands, my MapSource software is still lying around! The DVD's and CD's still have otherwise-useable map data--even though it's a bit dated! Wouldn't it be nice if I could use the more recent and reasonably up-to-date maps of my two, three, and four-year-old mapping software with my current, compatible hardware (and my Vista HCx *is* quite compatible!) without having to go all-out and buy, buy, buy even newer mapping data that, although being highly useful--and *will be purchased* soon enough!--is a bit beyond my budget after popping yet another $262.00 bucks for yet another excellent piece of Garmin GPS hardware?

 

I think it's time that we, as Garmin Customers, take some time to start a campaign to present to the fine folks in Olathe, just how Unreasonably Idiotic, Stupid, Asanine, and Greedy have been the restrictive software-to-unit Policies that Garmin has unleashed upon the pubic--both in the name of Profit and with the name of MapSource/Navteq!

 

I liken it unto something like this: "Hey, Mr. SUV dealer, I'd like to buy that nice, mid-sized 4x4 SUV you have for sale in the lot. What's that you say?

 

You say I can buy the SUV, but I have to buy an unlock code to use the 4-wheel-drive system? Doesn't it already come with it installed? I mean, I own the vehicle already, and that system is part of the drivetrain....what's that you say? You say that the 4-wheel-drive part of the drivetrain is controlled by an electronic circuit that has the latest in traction-control and road sensing, even being able to sense through the tires?" (wouldn't that be something, folks!)

 

"Well, Mr. Salesman, I don't get it? Please explain...yes? Go on, I'm listening. You say that because of the possibility of unauthorized mechanics using equipment to break into the on-board CPU and stealing the data that controls the 4-wheel-drive sensors--especially the ThroughTheTire real-time sensing system that the manufacturer of the drivetrain patented--the automaker of said SUV had to agree to a licensing scheme that only allows the original owner and his immediate family members to operate the four-wheel-drive system?"

 

"You also say that, should I sell the SUV to a third party--or even another car dealership--that the license for the 4x4 part of the SUV doesn't go with the SUV, but that the new owner will have to purchase an unlock code to be able to use the 4-wheel-drive part of the SUV? Well, Mr. SUV Salesman, what about the two-wheel....? Oh! The two-wheel-drive part of the SUV doesn't need licensing. I see. Well, thank you for clarifying that much. I'll get back to you. Have a good day, now.

 

Sound familiar?

 

Folks. Fellow GPS enthusiasts. Fellow Geocachers! There is something to the trade laws and warranty acts in the United States pertaining to something that I think we should all speak up about, and LOUDLY!

 

It is called "Suitability of Merchantability for a Particular Purpose."

 

As translated by The Layman (meaning, Yours Truly): Are the MapSource mapping products Garmin produces--the ones that restrict your use of the mapping data--which you purchased--to only a certain number of physical GPS hardware units--which you also purchased--, each costing multiple hundreds of dollars, truly suitable for inclusion upon a market that has grown weary of such restrictions on PURCHASED-AND-PAID-FOR Computer Software?

 

Is the Garmin/Navteq partnership's licensing restrictions any different from the Apple iTunes Music Store policy restricting the number of times you can burn those songs to CDs? The songs you BUY from that store for .99 Cents a track??

 

I don't throw the words "Class Action" lightly around. When I say them, what I mean to articulate is that I believe that we, the public, are being shafted by Garmin and Navteq, and I think it's time this partnership was dissolved. Permanently!

 

I am going to begin researching what needs to be done to stop Garmin and Navteq from implementing such draconian licensing schemes for their products. Once a mapping product and/or GPS unit is purchased, bought, money is taken out of a wallet or purse, and it changes hands, that software and hardware belong unconditionally to the purchaser of same, and must be able to be used freely, and without impediment, to the original user, and subsequent users, of the hardware and/or software. There must be no restrictions in place upon the consumer as regards the hardware/software usability interfacing!

 

Meaning: "Once You've 'Boughten' It, It's Yours Forever! Period! You Own It!"

 

Enough for now. Point Made. Case...still wide open as Montana!

 

Please reply and tell me what you think!

 

Warm Regards from,

Edited December 7, 2008 by Firefishe

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I'm really sure what the purpose of this is, however, typically, when you "purchase" software, you are really purchasing a license to use the software in a manner consist with the licensor's terms.

 

If you don't agree to the license terms, then you don't use the software and you return it to the place of purchase unopened.

 

You have not purchased an exclusive right to use the software in any manner you choose. Much the same as you agree to the Waypoint License agreement when you download data from Geocaching.com

 

You are not free to use the data inconsistent to the license terms.

 

The hardware, obviously, is yours. But the software isn't.

[+Firefishe]

I'm really sure what the purpose of this is, however, typically, when you "purchase" software, you are really purchasing a license to use the software in a manner consist with the licensor's terms.

 

If you don't agree to the license terms, then you don't use the software and you return it to the place of purchase unopened.

 

You have not purchased an exclusive right to use the software in any manner you choose. Much the same as you agree to the Waypoint License agreement when you download data from Geocaching.com

 

You are not free to use the data inconsistent to the license terms.

 

The hardware, obviously, is yours. But the software isn't.

 

I disagree on the principle that I paid for it, therefore I should be able to use it on as many pieces of hardware as I like!

 

I should not have to be forced to purchase multiple pieces of hardware that do the same thing, but have to have different database licenses to use the information.

 

I'm all for DeLorme and the PN-40 at this point. $30 bucks a year and you've got all the map data you need, and more. The reason I bought the Vista HCx is because of the form factor, price, and quality of signal reception. It's a great GPS, hands down! The thing is, I already have a slew of mapping data that will work quite well for my purposes. Any roads I need I can drive on, save the files as tracks, and use it that way, I have no problems with this for my uses. I use the Nuvi 350 in the car, anyway, and it's a better product for that purpose; furthermore, I paid $600 for that thing when it was just out.

 

I should not have to buy any more mapping data for my handheld, if I don't want to, and when I have data already-in-possession that is otherwise completely useful to my purposes! I am not paying to license two, three, and four-year-old mapping data. Period! I should not have to do so, it is criminal and only comes out of greed and the desire to make a profit. Profit is good, it's the lifeblood and end-product of successful business enterprise, but it should not be restrictive to the point where profit is the only motivator.

 

The Amateur Radio (or Ham Radio) Community has it within the Amateur Radio statutes that the service exists for, among other things, the advancement of the radio art. That is, we operate our radios, build them, cannibalize old parts, and re-use them again to understand how things work, how things are made, and what we can do better to improve both Ourselves and our Community.

 

For-profit partnerships like Garmin/Navteq have forgotten this. It's high time they remembered.

 

Warm Regards From,

[+Donsell]

Unfortunately, Garmin can license their software however they want and we, the consumer, have a choice to buy their products or not.

 

Garmin's licensing is the most restrictive I've heard of. Even Microsoft lets you install Office on your desktop and your laptop without purchasing a new license And you can move the non-OEM versions of Windows from one computer to another without much hassle.

 

Garmin will eventually figure out that this form of licensing actually encourages pirating rather than eliminates it.

 

There are so many ways they could license their software that I think would help their bottom line. Things like being able to download your home state's City Nav map for free when you register your device and deeply reducing the licensing costs of software for subsequent units purchased.

 

But this is what creates opportunity for companies like DeLorme. It won't take long for someone to take advantage of the situation.

[MtnHermit]

Garmin's licensing is the most restrictive I've heard of. Even Microsoft lets you install Office on your desktop and your laptop without purchasing a new license And you can move the non-OEM versions of Windows from one computer to another without much hassle.

 

Garmin will eventually figure out that this form of licensing actually encourages pirating rather than eliminates it.

Had it ever occurred to you that Garmin has no choice. The maps in question are owned by Navteq, Garmin licenses them and Navteq defines the terms. On Garmin's in house maps, Topo 2008, no locking is required.

 

Nokia thought so highly of Navteq's intellectual property they were willing to pay $6B last year. Tells you something.

[+Donsell]

Had it ever occurred to you that Garmin has no choice. The maps in question are owned by Navteq, Garmin licenses them and Navteq defines the terms. On Garmin's in house maps, Topo 2008, no locking is required.

 

Nokia thought so highly of Navteq's intellectual property they were willing to pay $6B last year. Tells you something.

 

Did you read my whole post? I said that Garmin can license this however they want. They've made a business decision to license this and how to pass costs on to the consumer. We the consumers either have to agree to their terms or look elsewhere. I'm a software developer so I refuse to pirate software, but many people will when they feel the terms are unreasonable.

 

But, in a free market, it's my opinion that such restrictive license terms hurt the company in the long run. We'll have to see how this plays out for Garmin.

[+TotemLake]

Garmin's licensing is the most restrictive I've heard of. Even Microsoft lets you install Office on your desktop and your laptop without purchasing a new license And you can move the non-OEM versions of Windows from one computer to another without much hassle.

 

Garmin will eventually figure out that this form of licensing actually encourages pirating rather than eliminates it.

Had it ever occurred to you that Garmin has no choice. The maps in question are owned by Navteq, Garmin licenses them and Navteq defines the terms. On Garmin's in house maps, Topo 2008, no locking is required.

 

Nokia thought so highly of Navteq's intellectual property they were willing to pay $6B last year. Tells you something.

 

Nokia is a one unit one license product. That doesn't make it a good product. That just makes it legal from the software perspective.

 

This tells me it's time for Garmin to negotiate something less restrictive. If it's starting to upset the purchasing community, they're going to lose them to their competitors. The licensing used to allow multiple units. No more. Somebody got greedy and saw a potential profit increase by limiting it to one unit.

Edited December 26, 2008 by TotemLake

[jholly]

Had it ever occurred to you that Garmin has no choice. The maps in question are owned by Navteq, Garmin licenses them and Navteq defines the terms. On Garmin's in house maps, Topo 2008, no locking is required.

 

Nokia thought so highly of Navteq's intellectual property they were willing to pay $6B last year. Tells you something.

 

Did you read my whole post? I said that Garmin can license this however they want. They've made a business decision to license this and how to pass costs on to the consumer. We the consumers either have to agree to their terms or look elsewhere. I'm a software developer so I refuse to pirate software, but many people will when they feel the terms are unreasonable.

 

But, in a free market, it's my opinion that such restrictive license terms hurt the company in the long run. We'll have to see how this plays out for Garmin.

 

I don't think you parsed the first sentence you quoted. Navteq says one license, one unit. Garmin can make a business decision to offer the product with this restriction or it can make a business decision to not offer the product. Pretty simple, they don't have a choice.

 

As was pointed out, the IP Garmin controls there are no restrictions.

 

Jim

Edited December 26, 2008 by jholly

[MtnHermit]

Thanks Jim, it was clear I wasn't getting through.

 

Had it ever occurred to you that Garmin has no choice. The maps in question are owned by Navteq, Garmin licenses them and Navteq defines the terms. On Garmin's in house maps, Topo 2008, no locking is required.

 

Nokia thought so highly of Navteq's intellectual property they were willing to pay $6B last year. Tells you something.

Did you read my whole post? I said that Garmin can license this however they want. They've made a business decision to license this and how to pass costs on to the consumer. We the consumers either have to agree to their terms or look elsewhere. I'm a software developer so I refuse to pirate software, but many people will when they feel the terms are unreasonable.

 

But, in a free market, it's my opinion that such restrictive license terms hurt the company in the long run. We'll have to see how this plays out for Garmin.

I don't think you parsed the first sentence you quoted. Navteq says one license, one unit. Garmin can make a business decision to offer the product with this restriction or it can make a business decision to not offer the product. Pretty simple, they don't have a choice.

 

As was pointed out, the IP Garmin controls there are no restrictions.

 

But, in a free market, it's my opinion that such restrictive license terms hurt the company in the long run. We'll have to see how this plays out for Garmin.

Don't disagree, but right now Garmin is between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

 

If I were Garmin, I'm not, I'd commit the resources to make my own routable road maps from scratch. A few hundred talented people like yourself could do amazing things AND invent the next generation of whistles and bells at the same time.

 

Garmin sold 15M PND's in 2008, mostly road warrior boxes, that's a lot of license fees being paid to Navteq.

[+Donsell]

Thanks Jim, it was clear I wasn't getting through.

 

Sorry, I'm the one who isn't being clear. I agree with you that Garmin doesn't have a choice but follow it's licensing agreement with Navteq. Garmin's choice was deciding to use the NavTeq IP in the first place. I don't know if NavTeq was the only game in town when they made this decision or if their IP was so much better than everyone else's that Garmin is gambling that it'll be worth it to us.

 

But the fact is licensing Garmin software is expensive and restrictive. My point is that it will be interesting to see how their business model serves them in the future. I'm not going to purchase any Garmin stock.

[MtnHermit]

Garmin's choice was deciding to use the NavTeq IP in the first place. I don't know if NavTeq was the only game in town when they made this decision or if their IP was so much better than everyone else's that Garmin is gambling that it'll be worth it to us.

 

But the fact is licensing Garmin software is expensive and restrictive. My point is that it will be interesting to see how their business model serves them in the future. I'm not going to purchase any Garmin stock.

Few things to put the whole issue into perspective:

1- Navteq and TeleAtlas were/are the only game in town for road maps that route. IIRC, when Nokia bought Navteq for $6B last year, TomTom offered $2.5B for TeleAtlas, Garmin offered $3B, TomTom won ~$3.5B.

2- The restrictive license issue you're addressing ONLY applies to CN on handhelds. If you buy a Nuvi it comes preloaded with CN and the whole locking issues is a non-issue.

3- Since CN sells for ~$100 and a starter Nuvi sells for ~$100, why load CN to a handheld at all???

4- Garmin sells ~100 Nuvi's for every handheld, so do you think Garmin really cares?

 

Member of this forum see their etrex's, Oregons, Colorado's, GPSMAP's as the center of the GPS universe, Garmin does not. Given that Garmin had a YoY unit sales increase of 50%, I'll suggest that Garmin stock is a far better bet than most consumer electronic companies.

[jholly]

3- Since CN sells for ~$100 and a starter Nuvi sells for ~$100, why load CN to a handheld at all???

4- Garmin sells ~100 Nuvi's for every handheld, so do you think Garmin really cares?

 

Precisely. I have a nuvi for the car and a 76CSx for the trail. I don't have CN on the computer, don't really need it with Yahoo and Google maps. I have Topo and some other maps in mapsource for the handheld. I have found that for the most part the roads on Topo are adequate and I don't care about routing on the handheld. The mount and screen on the Nuvi is much better than anything on the handheld. And I suspect that 90-95% of the folks buying a Nuvi could care less about having it on the computer and loading it on the handheld they don't have. I see it as a non-issue.

 

Jim

[+efflandt]

I have the Vista hcx. Looking at buying Nuvi 750, comes pre-loaded with city navigator nt.

1st, If I buy the full version city navigator nt dvd, can I upload the map to the hcx

msd card and use it to pre-plan a trip (driving)?

2nd, Can I use same city navigator nt dvd with the 750 to pre-plan a trip (driving)?

 

Yes on all counts. I got an eTrex Legend HCx bundled with City Navigator NT (2008, but I got free 2009 upgrade DVD and unlock). I also picked up Garmin Mobile 10 for Smartphones cheap on Ebay (for my Palm TX) which came with 2008 NT maps and free 2009 unlock. I got the unlock code for my nuvi from My Garmin, My Maps, Manage Maps. Since the nuvi unlock is for North America, I was able to put Canadian maps on SD and they work (USA was preinstalled). So I have unlock codes for all 3 devices in MapSource

 

When you generate a map file with MapSource it works for any GPSr that MapSource had unlock codes for at the time (it does not necessarily know which unit you are generating maps for, especially if on SD/microSD).

 

Of course if I ever want to update those it will cost me. I don't know how frequently that is necessary. I have often used paper maps for years. When I got a company car in 1975 it had New York maps in it from 1949.