ANT+ is entering old age - but not retirement.
Garmin are to end the development of ANT+, or more specifically, ANT+ "Profiles". For those confused with Garmin's terminology - a "profile" sets out how the data should be packaged and interpreted between two ANT+ devices. Common profiles include heart rate straps, muscle oxygenation sensors and bike power meters.
We should maybe mention here what the difference between "ANT" and "ANT+" is. The "+", to the user, says two things: first, this device confirms to the specified ANT+ profile and, second, the device has been fully tested and approved by Garmin's test suite to guarantee conformity to the stated profile. This meant you could go out and buy a couple of ANT+ devices and be sure they would work together if they had the same ANT+ profile logo. So, what is ANT? ANT is the radio communications standard (from radio frequencies and timings up to when to listen, send and reply) that the profile data is transmitted over. In simple terms: ANT is concerned with moving data bytes; ANT+ with information.
This is not a hugely shocking "announcement" since for many years (ten!?) it is clear that it has been taking a backseat to BLE. "BLE is now the standard in everything" is basically true (for phones, yes) but does not necessarily mean another technology doesn't have its place. ANT+ has its place in lots of equipment in systems where looking at your phone might not really be of much use - yes, imagine!
The demise of ANT+ is by mostly being put down to the EU's insistence on encryption of personal data. The perception from developers' (or technical users') point of view could be characterised as "BLE has encryption baked into it whereas ANT+ added too little too late". This is how it feels anyway! It is unfair as ANT+ as a standard can and sometimes does support encrypted data. Its problem was that it was so (enjoyable and) easy to use without encryption that manufacturers didn't support it.
It should be pointed out that yellowcog has never sold ANT+ products (I must repeat this often as Garmin like to keep tabs on us since we are a licensed producer of ANT - but not ANT+ - devices). The reason we don't do ANT+ is firstly the cost, you have to pay Garmin for the privilege, but also we support so many profiles and custom "profiles" that it would slow us down. We interface and adapt to bespoke situations and systems all the time and it is not going to help anyone for us to seal our device software just to put a little ANT+ logo on the box.
Garmin are continuing to support the development of ANT(+) silicon/processors. It is the profiles that are now frozen. Arguably, this is where it's interesting for us all: if we want to do something new and unique then we'll have to work on it together - now that's where the fun begins!