GPS Fees: discussion

[chrisfx811]

Get what you pay for?

I'll start by saying I didn't search too far back to see if there had been a discussion regarding the membership fees for GPS units as it relates to the long term success of the companies, so I apologize if this has been covered.

I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are about paying yearly fees/course fees in addition to the hardware costs.

I sometimes wonder how the companies that are not charging any fees are going to stay in business, and be able to provide consistent updates and good customer service when they don't have any type of revenue coming in other than the hardware costs. These companies that are offering no fee downloads seem to be strictly relying on hardware profits and accessory sales to stay in business. That would be like selling a cell phone without service... no recurring revenue stream.

Do you guys worry/wonder if these units will be around for any length of time, and how up to date will their courses stay?

While I'm not crazy about Skygolf's membership prices when you factor in their rep for poor CS, and the other hassles that seem to occur with their units (which are detailed in many posts so no need to go into here), it would seem they will have the necessary revenue coming in to keep up with course updates, software updates, etc.
Even the uPro unit, whose fee structure I think is fair, at least has some recurring revenue coming in that will hopefully allow them to continue to improve.

What do you guys think of the 'no fee' units that just require a one time hardware investment, an doffer unlimited downloads for free? At first glance, it seems like the cat's arse, but I just wonder if we can expect these companies to be viable for the long term?

I've only owned a Bushnell 1500 TE, which I miss dearly, but am considering a GPS this time around because I'm a gadget guy.

[mkrolewski]

As to the fees for courses or annual fee, I think that is a poor business model unless there is some real significant cost to getting the data.

 

For the most part, it appears a lot of the data is collected from gps maps which entails reading the map and doing data entry. If the company actually had to send people to each course and physically do the survey, then maybe. Obviously, they could contract local people to perform the needed tasks and send in the data. uPro may have some significant costs for the fly-over and its detailed mapping.

 

How often are you selecting new courses? After you get the majority of your local courses, are people really going to lots of others. I am trying to add playing golf to my travel experience. So new courses are needed periodically. The only bad thing is I most likely want 5-10 courses in each area. I most likely will only play one or two. This would be very expensive if this is per course. In addition, travel/courses outside the US are poorly supported.

 

If you want to follow the fee for service model, you should be giving away the gps unit eg cell phones or charging some nominal rental charge eg cable companies. $400 per unit is not giving them away.

 

In addition, this is a chicken and egg business. If you have not mapped significant numbers of courses, no one will buy your unit. You cannot charge after the fact for work that is already done.

 

Another premise of the annual fee is that your courses are changing. Think about the courses you play on. How many have had any significant changes in the last 5 years? Or a rearranged green? Or changes that you would expect the gps unit to track? How significant is moving the tee box back? My experience is not many. Besides switching front 9 to the back 9, I have only seen one course change. And that course had the river that ran though it re-diked.

 

 

 

 

 

I have the golfGuru unit. Very please with the unit, the course coverage, firmware updates, feature updates, and customer service.

 

My version is limited to 20 courses at time. At the moment, I have 19 on the unit and that covers everything I played this year.

 

Except for user error -- I forgot to download a course prior to playing, no real issues. I generally charge up the unit and check/download courses and software updates the evening before playing. Just something to do while at the computer anyway.

 

The only serious issue I have is I would like layup locations for some holes on most courses. But I am too lazy/busy to go out and do the mapping.

 

Minor issues with some maps being poor. But that is the exception and they were cleaned up quickly. The majority are terrifically accurate. If my shot making was half as accurate, I would be happy golfer.

[phil75070]

You are assuming the revenues from the handheld golf GPS is any company's sole source of income. It may or may not be. I think these companies would be viable enough at this point in time to justify purchasing their units. It is not like they cost an arm and a leg, and with the exception of SkyGolf (I think they are the only ones) the units would still work with any courses that have already been downloaded before the company went under. With the way the technology keeps advancing 3-4 year ownership of a device might be the norm anyway.

[gandor]

i have sonocaddie and i love it! one time fee for $30 for unlimited download for the life of the unit within the US. i love the scorecard plus game analysis and be able to get your club distances. upro is great for playing new courses all the time with the birds eye view and the ability to get specific distances but course downloads IMO is too expensive if you play new courses all the time.

[WishICouldPlayMoreOften]

There are other topics/threads similar, but it's ok to have another recent one since some of them are a bit older.

 

Annual fees are ridiculous! I'd think of them as reasonable if they mapped every course every year and there were significant changes, but neither is the case. Also, the tiering is ridiculous too - no need to charge more than one, low rate for access to all courses. And if the reasoning is the cost to map, I'd recommend simply asking the course attendant or pro to have the course mapped and updated each year for 0 cost. I know that will rankle some feathers, but it's in the course management's best interest to be included as a mapped course.

 

I'm ok with whatever a company charges for the unit purchase. That just means they have to build a unit that has the features and quality that buyers want. However since accessing the satellite doesn't require an ongoing fee on the manufacturer's part (I don't think it does), then there shouldn't be an additional fee. Other satellite services (e.g. radio, gps-traffic updates, etc.) are charging for real-time programming or other services beyond the basic satellite signal so that model shouldn't apply to golf gps. Somehow though, it has.

 

I wish courses could map themselves to a consolidated course database and have the makers only distinguish themselves on the unit features and quality. Right now, they're making it tough for anyone to determine what the best unit(s) is/are since there really is never a direct apples-to-apples comparison.

[Scott-C]

I wish courses could map themselves to a consolidated course database and have the makers only distinguish themselves on the unit features and quality. Right now, they're making it tough for anyone to determine what the best unit(s) is/are since there really is never a direct apples-to-apples comparison.

This is the best golf GPS-related idea I've heard yet. The variability in the quality of course mappings is truly bewildering to me, and it unnecessarily complicates the consumer decision of which unit to buy.

[InTheHole]

I'm guessing, but the problem is probably that there is no standard to the mapping information. All of these GPS units probably use different mapping standards/specs, maybe even completely non-compatible files.

 

I briefly worked in a mapping group for the Army and I couldn't believe how many different formats/files there were - they all used GPS info, but the maps themselves were completely non-compatible.

 

We had custom software writtten that could create a standard map from several different formats. Big project, lots of money, lots of really smart programmers- all custom work.

[PlaneMaker]

How much does it really cost to map a course. If I am the owner of one of these companies I either contract the work out.

 

Or,

 

I contact the course pay a minimal fee send the mapping unit out and have the course do the mapping.

[InTheHole]

I think what they're getting at is that all the different GPS units map to a different standard. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing they all have varying levels of detail and since all the units have different features, one's good mapping data is not good for another.

 

It is confusing for the consumer because not only are we comparing the hardware, the features, and the subscription, but even though a course is mapped for a particular unit, that mapping may leave something to be desired.

 

It would be nice if all the units could use the same mapping for a particular course- then you can compare apples to apples.

 

I think we're years away from that, though.

[phil75070]

I think what they're getting at is that all the different GPS units map to a different standard. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing they all have varying levels of detail and since all the units have different features, one's good mapping data is not good for another.

 

It is confusing for the consumer because not only are we comparing the hardware, the features, and the subscription, but even though a course is mapped for a particular unit, that mapping may leave something to be desired.

 

It would be nice if all the units could use the same mapping for a particular course- then you can compare apples to apples.

 

I think we're years away from that, though.

 

I doubt we will see all of these guys enable the use of a single course database. The number of courses mapped or the claim that their maps are more accurate "because"....are selling points.

 

In the absence of that, it is the primary reason I bought the Golf Guru after using SkyCaddie SG2 for about 5 years. I play 95% of my golf on 4 courses. If desired, I can completely map them to include the outline of the greens for use with Golf Guru's equivalent of the SkyGolf Intelligreen feature, or edit the downloaded course to add or replace targets if I feel they are off or if I want to know precisely what point on the ground that the distance measurment is specifically referring to.

[RRFireblade]

My concern is the same but actually opposite of the original post.

 

I wonder about a "membership" company going out of business and I lose all of my courses as opposed to building my own data base that I can have forever and if they then go under , I still have my data to use as long as the hardware keeps working or can still be found.

 

I can always tweak and tune what I have but not if I don't have access to it anymore. :)

[WishICouldPlayMoreOften]

I believe consolidation is just around the corner, and it will be good for golfers once the dust settles. First, there are too many small players in this market. They will be forced to merge, be acquired, or go out of business due to lack of ongoing upward sales momentum. Second, at some point they probably have all figured out recently that the current business model is not sustainable. With that in mind, I think they will have to come up with a single standard for mapping because they simply will not have the revenue to remain so independent from each other. The one area that they can share costs is the mapping.

 

In the end, I believe the unit-stored devices and companies are currently the safest bet for golfers right now. But look out next spring when some of the annual fee-based companies start to feel the pinch from people who don't want to get needlessly bled for +/- $50 each year.

 

You can also expect some of the web app developers for other GPS capable devices (eg. iPhones, Windows Mobile phones/devices, and existing GPS devices for other sports) to compete for golfers attention at a much lower price.

 

By next year, I bet there will be a 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in the GPS device field.

[InTheHole]

I agree.

 

There's more or less a fixed number of golfers and a fixed number of courses. And with the current economy, the fixed cost is not the big deal to me, it is the recurring costs.

 

There will come a point some time in the future where there is just a single database of datapoints for each golf course and all of the GPS companies can pick from the database.

 

Heck, maybe they'll get a golf/GPS application for the iPhone and be done with all these GPS units. But of course then, Verizon will want to charge us $9.99 per course.

[Wayneo]

InTheHole - there are already at least 2 iPhone GPS apps for Golf. Their names escape me at the moment, but a quick Google search should do the trick.

[InTheHole]

InTheHole - there are already at least 2 iPhone GPS apps for Golf. Their names escape me at the moment, but a quick Google search should do the trick.

 

Interesting... I didn't realize since I don't have an iPhone I really haven't gone looking for anything like that.

 

I wonder if it is as good as the dedicated units. Anyone have one?

[bradbuff]

Greenfinder is an iphone app that you can get for $35 and works very well.

[RRFireblade]

I'm curious where you'all think this 'data base' is going to come from. ;)

 

Auto navigation is been around for almost 20 years now and 2 companies still dominate the mapping source . . . last time I checked , they're still not giving it away.

[WishICouldPlayMoreOften]

Someone out there sees all this market variability and confusion as a big opportunity. They will be able to directly sell against current annual pay sites, especially if they compete on cost, courses available, and include an annual total database update that current providers fail to offer. I don't believe people want to shell out for the high-end, high-cost units in the long run given that no one can actually say they have a "top" model. People don't want to be forced to choose between features and accuracy so these two components will become separate markets if none of the existing players improve significantly in the next 1-2 years.

 

 

Consolidation and shrinking of the players in the market will change the market landscape. I do not think there's a long-term market for "subscription" services given that most golfers actually do play a majority of golf on less than 10 different courses each year. Those same 10 courses probably don't make significant changes or don't get "re-mapped" annually so it's not like subscribers are getting any extra value for the same price. In addition, subscriptions are likely to be increased soon.

 

How could a single database emerge? I believe there will be some yet-to-be-discovered company that will be willing to make a business of the information (continuously updated mapping) currently being done by multiple small companies who are also selling units. Think of it more as an upstart like Google making it's way not by controlling access to info available on the internet or by making hardware (I know they've grown enough to do some of that recently), but by making it easier and consistent to get to. They don't control websites or data from content providers; they just make themselves a preferred way to get there.

 

One way to do that is to get courses to allow them to map just like any other existing company does, but to offer them a way to distinguish themselves as a "master database X-mapped" course guaranteeing updated course info. I believe it would benefit the courses also to put other info like current course conditions, specials, and other sellable info that would attract golfers.

 

That model can open up the market to direct advertising that many golf courses have to pick and choose their way through right now. Imagine a local course with low or average use being able to "advertise" themselves as mapped to a master GPS source so the readings will then come down to accuracy of the units. That will leave unit makers in the biz of making units.

 

I think the emergence of GPS phones and other GPS devices with golf applications available is going to put additional pressure on some company to take the lead in providing the information.

 

That said, I think most golfers would be willing to pay a smaller fee for guaranteed full annual re-mapping info. I'd say something in the neighborhood of $30 annual would be the sweetspot.

[italianstallion]

There are other topics/threads similar, but it's ok to have another recent one since some of them are a bit older.

 

Annual fees are ridiculous! I'd think of them as reasonable if they mapped every course every year and there were significant changes, but neither is the case. Also, the tiering is ridiculous too - no need to charge more than one, low rate for access to all courses. And if the reasoning is the cost to map, I'd recommend simply asking the course attendant or pro to have the course mapped and updated each year for 0 cost. I know that will rankle some feathers, but it's in the course management's best interest to be included as a mapped course.

 

I'm ok with whatever a company charges for the unit purchase. That just means they have to build a unit that has the features and quality that buyers want. However since accessing the satellite doesn't require an ongoing fee on the manufacturer's part (I don't think it does), then there shouldn't be an additional fee. Other satellite services (e.g. radio, gps-traffic updates, etc.) are charging for real-time programming or other services beyond the basic satellite signal so that model shouldn't apply to golf gps. Somehow though, it has.

 

I wish courses could map themselves to a consolidated course database and have the makers only distinguish themselves on the unit features and quality. Right now, they're making it tough for anyone to determine what the best unit(s) is/are since there really is never a direct apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Great post.

 

As a business major, I understand the yearly fee for getting information, its genius. However, as a consumer the last thing I want to be doing is paying $400 for a golf unit and have to keep paying yearly fees. Cell phones are different, they are necessary in today's world.

 

Then you have to worry about courses being mapped etc.... I'd rather buy a laser rangefinder with the only negative being not getting yardages to flags I can't see, which is really, really rare.

[cristphoto]

Interesting discussion. I had a SkyCaddie and got rid of it for a Callaway/Nikon 550 rangefinder. I'm retired and so are my golf buddies and we play all over the place. I was tired of downloading new courses all the time. The price of the plan wasn't a deterrent - the accuracy of the unit was my concern. My Callaway is a dream for convenience. I just leave it in my golf bag and its ready to go at whatever course we play. The battery virtually lasts forever since the unit it only on for a couple seconds while you take a reading. The Skycaddie (and other GPS) use battery power much quicker since it is turned on for the entire round. Something to consider if you're on a golf vacation - pack the charger.

 

Additionally I work in the pro shop at a golf course and we recently redesigned all the course sand traps and many were relocated, thus throwing the yardages off. Nobody from SkyCaddy has been in contact to re-measure the course. I assume if you have a unit that gets is data from satellite photos you probably contact them and let them know a course needs to be updated. A moot point with a rangefinder.

[phil75070]

Interesting discussion. I had a SkyCaddie and got rid of it for a Callaway/Nikon 550 rangefinder. I'm retired and so are my golf buddies and we play all over the place. I was tired of downloading new courses all the time. The price of the plan wasn't a deterrent - the accuracy of the unit was my concern. My Callaway is a dream for convenience. I just leave it in my golf bag and its ready to go at whatever course we play. The battery virtually lasts forever since the unit it only on for a couple seconds while you take a reading. The Skycaddie (and other GPS) use battery power much quicker since it is turned on for the entire round. Something to consider if you're on a golf vacation - pack the charger.

 

Additionally I work in the pro shop at a golf course and we recently redesigned all the course sand traps and many were relocated, thus throwing the yardages off. Nobody from SkyCaddy has been in contact to re-measure the course. I assume if you have a unit that gets is data from satellite photos you probably contact them and let them know a course needs to be updated. A moot point with a rangefinder.

 

Devices are starting to be capable of holding many more courses than the 10 that SkyCaddie has traditionally been limited to. One of them will hold up to 20,000 courses, another 200, another 20 downloaded and 20 user mapped......

 

State-of-the-art GPS receivers are much more accurate these days. In fact, I never found accuracy to be an issue with my older SG2 either. :)

 

Regarding the course changes you mentioned, aerial/satellite photos are not always that current either but it is also a moot point if you own one of several GPS devices that allow for editing downloaded courses. I am also curious because it was always a problem for me with a laser, of the sand traps on your course, what percentage can you really get a distance reading for with the laser, both front and back lips?

[cristphoto]

"I am also curious because it was always a problem for me with a laser, of the sand traps on your course, what percentage can you really get a distance reading for with the laser, both front and back lips?"

I usually shoot at the back of the trap which is the highest point typically. I have no problem getting a good reading. I don't take a reading to the front of the trap - if I know the distance to clear the trap, thats all I need. If it's a fairway trap and I want to layup short of it, I simply take a reading as above and simply subtract 20-25 yards for a safe layup. What I've found interesting is that after playing golf all my life I have a pretty good ability on guessing yardages. Where the laser comes in handy is wide open courses that hinder my depth perception.

[phil75070]

"I am also curious because it was always a problem for me with a laser, of the sand traps on your course, what percentage can you really get a distance reading for with the laser, both front and back lips?"

I usually shoot at the back of the trap which is the highest point typically. I have no problem getting a good reading. I don't take a reading to the front of the trap - if I know the distance to clear the trap, thats all I need. If it's a fairway trap and I want to layup short of it, I simply take a reading as above and simply subtract 20-25 yards for a safe layup. What I've found interesting is that after playing golf all my life I have a pretty good ability on guessing yardages. Where the laser comes in handy is wide open courses that hinder my depth perception.

 

That is where I see an advantage for a GPS. Often you can't get a good reading to a "flat" hazard like the front of a bunker or where a creek or lake starts with a laser. Just guessing at a lay up or backing off an estimated 20-25 yards is very different from glancing at the GPS and knowing within a couple of yards what those distances are. 20-25 yards could be as much as a couple of clubs, or more for some. For me personally, if that meant the difference between hitting, say, a long iron (3 or 4) or a mid iron (5 or 6) that is significant as I don't hit the longer irons as well and would have less confidence with the next shot. Just like with the pros, for any kind of a lay up, if possible I want to lay up to a yardage I am comfortable with for my next shot.

 

The fact is, I have found that proponents of lasers typically will never be convinced that a GPS can have equal if different value. I have used lasers and GPS devices extensively for years and a GPS has saved me far more strokes knowing, front, pin, and back distances on a line into the green than knowing the exact distance only to the pin.

[cristphoto]

"The fact is, I have found that proponents of lasers typically will never be convinced that a GPS can have equal if different value. I have used lasers and GPS devices extensively for years and a GPS has saved me far more strokes knowing, front, pin, and back distances on a line into the green than knowing the exact distance only to the pin."

I agree. Though I use a rangefinder, I think for the "average" golfer a gps is more convenient. Though not as accurate, if you need a quick reading the GPS wins. Plus line of sight isn't needed so if you end up in the wrong fairway or has a blind shot over a hill to a green a GPS will still give you a reading. The rangefinder would be stymied.

[stevestrike]

Interesting posts about the laser, and I don't want to turn this into a laser vs. GPS thread... but!

 

I've been a GPS user for the last year. I'm up against the deadline to renew my membership for $35 (iGolf). Now, I don't need anymore course--I've got all the ones I play. I don't get any updates for the unit--iGolf has not updated the Neo's software in the last year :black eye: (and it's not like their product didn't NEED some updates!)

 

So what am I paying for? Courses I don't need? Non-forthcoming firmware updates? No. I am paying for that course I may visit once next year, so my GPS unit is not WORTHLESS! My buddies and I try to get out and try a couple of new courses every year. No membership for me = worthless GPS. So basically, the courses are going to cost me $17-35 each. Ouch.

 

That, and for limitations I've found with the GPS, I think the laser is the way I'll be going for my next purchase. If the Neo breaks, I won't be rushing out to replace it.

[rapriebe]

There are other topics/threads similar, but it's ok to have another recent one since some of them are a bit older.

 

Annual fees are ridiculous! I'd think of them as reasonable if they mapped every course every year and there were significant changes, but neither is the case. Also, the tiering is ridiculous too - no need to charge more than one, low rate for access to all courses. And if the reasoning is the cost to map, I'd recommend simply asking the course attendant or pro to have the course mapped and updated each year for 0 cost. I know that will rankle some feathers, but it's in the course management's best interest to be included as a mapped course.

 

GolfLogix claims to review and update all courses annually. I know that if you email them with an update to a course you play and find an error or change, they usually update the download file within a week. That kind of service seems worth the $29.95 annual fee for unlimited downloads... which you only have to pay once if you get the only 20 courses you'll ever want and put them all on the GPS.

[stevestrike]

GolfLogix claims to review and update all courses annually.

GolfLogix HAS to offer that because they are one of the companies that doesn't allow you to change/add/edit your own course files. If GolfLogix, or Skycaddie, or any of those companies go out of business, you're sunk.

 

At least with the Guru, Neo, Sonocaddie (and maybe others) you can add/edit/change the course file yourself.

[rapriebe]

GolfLogix claims to review and update all courses annually.

GolfLogix HAS to offer that because they are one of the companies that doesn't allow you to change/add/edit your own course files. If GolfLogix, or Skycaddie, or any of those companies go out of business, you're sunk.

 

At least with the Guru, Neo, Sonocaddie (and maybe others) you can add/edit/change the course file yourself.

 

 

 

I don't see GolfLogix going anywhere soon... since the unit is made by Garmin, the world leader in consumer GPS.

[stevestrike]

Yeah? Ask anyone if they would have felt the same way about GMC last year. After all, they were one of the big 3.

 

I'm just saying... company size has nothing to do with whether they'll be around next year, or if they decide to discontinue the golf side of the business and focus solely on car navigation because it's "not profitable".

[rapriebe]

Yeah? Ask anyone if they would have felt the same way about GMC last year. After all, they were one of the big 3.

 

I'm just saying... company size has nothing to do with whether they'll be around next year, or if they decide to discontinue the golf side of the business and focus solely on car navigation because it's "not profitable".

 

What is it that you seem to target me? Garmin is into a lot more than car and golf GPS. Probably their largest market is in handheld units for hiking etc. The GolfLogix is based on the VERY successful architecture of the eTrex handheld GPS. Not to mention that Garmin is not losing 30+ billion a year because of mismanagement like GM... :rolleyes: