Joe, I affably disagree, and let me explain why
TheyÂ’ve learned a thing or two over the years, and Â“more panel space = goodÂ” is one of them.<
I’d modify by saying: “More panel space=good, according to some people’s tastes.”
As you’ve made clear, you personally would like to have lots more space for lots more dials and gadgets on the panel. Many people are in this camp, and they will resist parts of Cirrus’s approach. But Cirrus made a deliberate decision to embrace a different approach – as you mentioned in a different context, like the Macintosh’s approach, versus the original PC. I well recall when the Mac first came out, many tech writers (including me!) complained that it took too many controls out of the sophiscated user’s hands. Where were all the CONFIG files? What about disk caching? How can I load my suite of TSR programs?
By my lights, at the time, I was right – I could more completely control the details of my PC’s operation by sophiscated use of the various DOS commands. In retrospect, I wish I’d gone down the Mac road, but I didn’t. My point here is: Cirrus has made a choice, and it’s one that doesn’t suit you – and that’s fine, that’s why you decided to buy a different airplane. But to argue that their choice is “wrong” because it’s not to your taste is like my going onto the Mac User’s boards in the mid 1980s and saying, “This approach is wrong because it doesn’t let me use Sidekick and other TSR utilities. Where are the config files? Experienced users want them!” Some experienced users did; other users didn’t. Let’s let the market evolve and sort this out.
(Disclosure: at the end of the “practical prospects for Cirrus” chapter in my book, I explicity compare its potential to Apple’s. That is, for a variety of reasons it may have trouble becoming a truly mass supplier. The niche it’s aiming for may be most like the Mac’s – well suited to some people’s taste, and not to others.)
To say it again, we all understand that, in the free market, you personally have decided to vote with your dollars for a different kind of airplane. Fine! Consumer choice makes products evolve. But other people’s tastes may differ from yours. Another example: you pointed out recently that, to you, big screens are not necessarily better. Fine! Having actually used the big-screen in the Cirrus for a long time, I like its size. Neither of us is right or wrong. We each should act on our own tastes and not assume that a company is out of it for addressing tastes different from ours.
Finally, your argument about hole-cutting being obsolete would be much more persuasive if Cirrus had provided an improved alternative. So far they haven’t and, worse, don’t seem to be much concerned about it.<
As I’ve made clear, I think that either ARNAV has to get a lot better, faster, or Cirrus needs to offer alterantives. Otherwise the market will pass it by. But neither you nor I knows right now what dealings Cirrus is having with Arnav or what “concern” it’s expressing. If Cirrus doesn’t come up with a better alternative fairly soon – via Arnav, or via someone else – that will be a sign that they’ve really fallen behind. But that would also be out of character with their adaptive ability over the last half dozen years.
In affability, jf