> so it will be very interesting to see if they narrow the gap with Apple around software.
they might be able to narrow the gap with Apple wrt software, but I don't think (at least in the US) Garmin will ever gain marketshare vs. the Apple Watch, especially now with the Ultra for the simple reason that Garmin just cannot offer an equivalent experience on iPhones because of Apple.
We desperately need antitrust intervention to force Apple to open up iOS to allow other smartwatches to take advantage of the same APIs that the Apple Watch does.
If that happens I think Apple will quickly find that they cannot compete on an even playing field.
Third party app development must be a nightmare, based on how much of a nightmare it is even just to install and use those apps.
But I must say, I wish other appliances would be as intuitive as the built in fitness tracking apps and they controls. Somehow it's just consistent, does the right thing, and works reliably. With only 5 buttons.
I’m a garmin user that moved from android to iPhone several years ago. I really miss the ability to filter notifications that hit the watch, which is still missing on garmin iOS software. I don’t think it’s a restricted api problem, as other smartwatches can filter notifications
The absolute worst experience I had with a Fenix watch (I think the 5x) was that when it could not read my HR from the wrist due to sweat or whatever, which happened often, it would log whatever the last reading was even though it could be wildly incorrect. This completely destroyed my trust in them. Having had experience in aviation I would really expect unreliable readings to be marked as such and rather not display anything than showing incorrect readings.
I hope the Edge series will also benefit from that code unification.
I'm missing from Garmin usage of Inertial Navigation System (INS [1]). The sensors are in the devices, accelerometers and gyroscopes. We've using them in airliners for decades (very basic INS was available with the B707, high quality from the B747/A300 onwards), in cheap car navigation (that's why you can drive through tunnels) and most smartphones (you've probably noticed that also your phone handles five kilometer long tunnels well). As far as I know, high quality INS could bring a B747 over the atlantic.
My Edge has an accelermoeter and gyroscope but I see often straight lines in the mountains, in the city-center, in tunnels and garages and when the cloud coverage + trees work together. And it not just the recorded route, it is also the current speed and distance and precise turn-by-turn navigation.
Garmin, Wahoo, Karoo keep adding more of GNSS. GPS, GALILEO, BAIDU, GLONASS, GLONAS 5GHz, Multiband and ground stations (that approach failed). That improved the signal remitance somewheat but the mentioned natural conditions still interrupt or reduce that GNSS quality. Because it is external! External navigation depends on external guidance. You cannot fix that by adding more. And hostile elements figured out, that is easy to jam or spoof[2] the GNSS signals.
Using INS in combination with GNSS should work rather well on a roadbike. Usually mixing the signals from INS and GNSS depending on quality. Except where GNSS is turned off for reasons like jamming/spoofing e.g. in eastern europe. But usually INS needs only to cover a gap of 30 seconds to five minutes. INS is probably less useful on a mountainbike (vibrations and impacts) but especially in the woods GNSS fails...so maybe even here it can help. I think Garmin uses the sensors for other kind of metrics on mountainbikes already (I think the call it grit/flow?).
My smartphone handles a tunnel well. My bike-computer also should do it :)
PS: The integrated LTE-Modem could also benefit security in cycling. There was a sad incident during the last roadbike world-championships in switzerland and a life lost. Cycling computers detect crashes and can send SMS with coordinates but they need a smartphone (radio isn't allowed and smartphones aren't robust).
I'm in the market for a fitness smartwatch focused on running, I have a Garmin 500 something for my bike - it was a gift - and I totally hate its UI/UX. It's not touch, super slow to refresh, maps already don't get updates, the Garmin "generate a random track" sent me on gravel/rock terrain when I have a road bike, the app try to cross-sell you other shit etc.
Is at least the watches UI better?
In the end I bought a Suunto Race S, and it seems nice (still need to try it out in the wild). I was between that and an Amazfit Balance 2. I hope I chose right :D
They're using geostationary satellites, but their Inreach stuff is using Iridium. Anyone know which satellites they're using for this, and if the coverage can be expected to increase in the future?
I have a 2 year old Amazfit GTR 4. I just disabled wifi & cellular data on my phone, opened the Zepp app, pulled down to sync and it happily downloaded my today's activity to the app. And oh, compared to Apple, I only need to charge it once per two weeks (with almost everything enabled, except always on display).
I got really disappointed in Apple's hardware when my mom bought an Apple Watch.
The software is entirely user-unfriendly. For one example: she wanted to use a photo as the standard background image. However, the clock digits could only be positioned such that they appeared over the faces in the photo. I cannot believe that Apple created such bad UX. This is really amateur level.
Every couple of years? My last Garmin lasted 5 years, and I only upgraded because the new model finally had enough new features that I wanted. Otherwise I'd still be using the old one. My "new" one is over 3 years old and still working fine.
I feel like Garmin watches are kind of slept on by normies. They seem to have a niche for fitness enthusiasts. I got one primarily because it looks like a normal watch and not a tech product. But I do appreciate the fitness tracking.
I've had the same one for 5 years and it's still solid.
I agree, it's the right level of smart for me. That said, while it's squarely in the "fitness tracker" niche, I think it is very popular with anyone who has even a passing interest in running, cycling, etc. The last few years I have seen loads of people around the office wearing one.
As someone who isn't the target market for this, is there significant demand for this? $1200 for a smart watch that'll be e-waste in a few years is steep, plus $8/mo to keep it working (though I guess if you're going to pay four figures for a smart watch the $96/yr probably makes no difference).
I guess if you intend to carry a watch anyway, you can save the few ounces and leave your phone at home? And maybe a few ounces for a battery pack to charge a phone? But at the same time, the absolute last time I'd ever want to be tapping out a text message on my watch is when I'm in need of rescue through satellite message. In the most genuine sense possible, I really don't know who the actual target audience is that's not just buying it for the clout.
$1200 is stupid expensive, my Fenix 6 Pro was half that. The F6P was worth every one of those 60,000 pennies, which is coincidentally approximately how many hours I've worn it since purchasing it in 2018.
I always leave my phone at home for running, biking, hiking, kayaking, etc: not being tethered is part of the appeal.
The subscriptions for this new one or for InReach are infuriating, and they even recently made it worse because you can no longer effectively deactivate it. I only do 3 or 4 real backcountry expeditions in a year, I don't need this activated for 12 months.
I used to carry an InReach until the MBAs decided I was cheating them out of surplus cash that they could demand. Now I have an ACR PLB1 instead, no subscription but it can still call in the cavalry if I break my ankle twenty miles from civilization.
I would buy this if (honestly, when) the price drops by half, or better yet the Enduro version with a MIP screen. Some rich sucker will probably want to trade theirs in when the $3000 Fenix 9 Supreme comes out....
They are well built, work very well, and provide metrics that motivate me to exercise more and monitor my progress. There is a touch screen but the buttons are simply a better and easier way to interact with it. It looks cool, and there definitely is a "garmin watch" tribe. Over time, you build an emotional relationship with it.
I got a Garmin Epix 2 watch 3 years ago as a replacement for the Apple Watch ULtra, which turned out to be a terrible sports watch. The Garmin still has two weeks battery life and gets all the functionality upgrades the newer watches are getting. More importantly, it looks great and does exactly what I want it to do simply, and reliably. At the time I also had a whoop. Now I only have the Garmin and it does all I need. It's one of those things you need to try to truly get.
I'm not sold on the prices involved but I could really do with satellite emergency calling for MTB rides where there's no phone signal.
That's far more common than you might think even in areas that should, on paper, have coverage.
I already take my phone for that reason but I think it's far more likely to be damaged in a crash than a smaller watch.
I currently have a Garmin Epix I've had for a few years that I'm otherwise happy with. I would consider switching for satellite SOS if the prices get less crazy.
I'd even consider an Apple watch despite it not working with my power meter and other sensors.
It's more of a PR/interest piece rather than anything that moves the needle for buyers.
Garmin buyers typically choose the brand due to the much longer battery life, however Garmin doesn't have any magic battery technology - the longer battery life is simply from less full time services. If enabling the additional hardware functions that bring it on-par with the ultra, the ultra actually has a longer battery life.
The other issue is that both brands diverge in how they offer satellite connectivity. For iPhones, satellite connectivity includes messaging, sending locations, and carrier-provided functionality via satellite (e.g. SMS), alongside with the road-side assistance and SOS features. These are included at no cost (at this time).
Garmin on the other hand starts with a $40 activation fee, then a minimum per month charge of $8 USD which then still charges 50c per text message, $1 for voice messages and 60c an hour for location tracking. Garmin's also offers a $50 USD per month plan where some of these tariffs are included, but notably voice messages are limited to 50 units before reverting back to $1 each. The $40 activation fee prevents users from saving money by switching off the functionality when not needed.
I don't know how it works on these Garmin watches but on my current inReach plan I can pause it at any time. And it looks like these use the same plans.
They also run their own satellite network team that responds and forwards to SAR services which obviously has additional overhead
> the longer battery life is simply from less full time services
I imagine the transfective screen tech helps quite a bit too. Not having to max out the backlight's brightness to compete with the brightness of the sun has to help.
If you've got a Garmin device check out GarminDB [0]. Garmin actually exposes an API that you can access with your credentials and get the raw activity, heart rate, etc data.
The price is a little steep and I wonder how well a watch with its smaller antenna will work in difficult terrain. My InReach Mini often doesn’t connect in narrow canyons and I assume the smaller watch will be even worse. An emergency device that doesn’t work in an emergency is pretty useless. That’s why the iPhone satellite messaging doesn’t work for me either. In my backcountry tests it was a crapshoot whether it worked or didn’t.
I frequently leave my phone at home and rely on my Apple Watch for the occasional texts, map, etc. I’d prefer a Garmin but not being able to use your existing phone number is a dealbreaker.
And...I could not care less. Garmin needs to fix their software, I am a long time garmin user, from using garmin head units on mountain bikes for the last 30 years, using garmin watches, I have had 4 fenix watches over the years, I swapped to a Apple watch ultra this year, and as a ultra distance trail runner and mountain biker, I could not be happier. Yes, the garmin units are more rugged and can handle more abuse, yes, their battery is light years ahead, but, it does not really matter anymore, the apple watch ultra is tough enough and the battery good enough, and the software is so much better. I can download multiple different running apps, and follow a training plan with it (runna workoutoutdoors, or one of the many other ones), I can do my cross training using one of the lifting apps, like heavy or strong, I can use it with golf etc. yes, the fenix range can do all of that aswell, but the experience is just so much nicer on the ultra. I struggle to see, how garmin can compete software wise, as a single company battling the army of independant developers out there building iOS/watchOS apps. And more importantly, my ultra never crash, my fenix went through a phase, where it would randomly reboot, until garmin pushed a fix. Bugs happen, I get it, but...it's been happening now for years with garmin.
Side: The 15.05 firmware upgrade is causing severe battery drain in some models. From 8 days battery life it got down to 1. Multiple reports can be found here[1].
Support's response is "go to your region-local support shop".
I mean, maybe they do, but I had such an awful time with Garmin software on their cycling devices that they will never see another dime of my money.
The Apple Watch is an imperfect replacement for a purpose-built hiking or cycling tracker, for sure, but that gap seems to be getting smaller. And people outside the endurance nerd community are more willing to sport an Apple Watch with regular clothes than the traditionally clunky Garmin models.
(A certain degree of the Garmin clunkiness is an outgrowth of their better-suitedness to, for example, long hiking trips -- but as with everything, specialization comes with tradeoffs.)
52 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 59.9 ms ] threadSo I am not their target market. I'll stick with Pebble, then.
they might be able to narrow the gap with Apple wrt software, but I don't think (at least in the US) Garmin will ever gain marketshare vs. the Apple Watch, especially now with the Ultra for the simple reason that Garmin just cannot offer an equivalent experience on iPhones because of Apple.
We desperately need antitrust intervention to force Apple to open up iOS to allow other smartwatches to take advantage of the same APIs that the Apple Watch does.
If that happens I think Apple will quickly find that they cannot compete on an even playing field.
But I must say, I wish other appliances would be as intuitive as the built in fitness tracking apps and they controls. Somehow it's just consistent, does the right thing, and works reliably. With only 5 buttons.
But what Garmin can do, do really well.
I'm missing from Garmin usage of Inertial Navigation System (INS [1]). The sensors are in the devices, accelerometers and gyroscopes. We've using them in airliners for decades (very basic INS was available with the B707, high quality from the B747/A300 onwards), in cheap car navigation (that's why you can drive through tunnels) and most smartphones (you've probably noticed that also your phone handles five kilometer long tunnels well). As far as I know, high quality INS could bring a B747 over the atlantic. My Edge has an accelermoeter and gyroscope but I see often straight lines in the mountains, in the city-center, in tunnels and garages and when the cloud coverage + trees work together. And it not just the recorded route, it is also the current speed and distance and precise turn-by-turn navigation.
Garmin, Wahoo, Karoo keep adding more of GNSS. GPS, GALILEO, BAIDU, GLONASS, GLONAS 5GHz, Multiband and ground stations (that approach failed). That improved the signal remitance somewheat but the mentioned natural conditions still interrupt or reduce that GNSS quality. Because it is external! External navigation depends on external guidance. You cannot fix that by adding more. And hostile elements figured out, that is easy to jam or spoof[2] the GNSS signals.
Using INS in combination with GNSS should work rather well on a roadbike. Usually mixing the signals from INS and GNSS depending on quality. Except where GNSS is turned off for reasons like jamming/spoofing e.g. in eastern europe. But usually INS needs only to cover a gap of 30 seconds to five minutes. INS is probably less useful on a mountainbike (vibrations and impacts) but especially in the woods GNSS fails...so maybe even here it can help. I think Garmin uses the sensors for other kind of metrics on mountainbikes already (I think the call it grit/flow?).
My smartphone handles a tunnel well. My bike-computer also should do it :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system [2] At least GALILEO has some protection against spoofing?
PS: The integrated LTE-Modem could also benefit security in cycling. There was a sad incident during the last roadbike world-championships in switzerland and a life lost. Cycling computers detect crashes and can send SMS with coordinates but they need a smartphone (radio isn't allowed and smartphones aren't robust).
I was now thinking to purchase a Coros Pace 3.
They're using geostationary satellites, but their Inreach stuff is using Iridium. Anyone know which satellites they're using for this, and if the coverage can be expected to increase in the future?
(Stealing the cellular data connection over Bluetooth to sync to the cloud does not count. True Bluetooth sync works when there is no cell service.)
Huh? Do not all FitBits do this?
The software is entirely user-unfriendly. For one example: she wanted to use a photo as the standard background image. However, the clock digits could only be positioned such that they appeared over the faces in the photo. I cannot believe that Apple created such bad UX. This is really amateur level.
I've had the same one for 5 years and it's still solid.
I guess if you intend to carry a watch anyway, you can save the few ounces and leave your phone at home? And maybe a few ounces for a battery pack to charge a phone? But at the same time, the absolute last time I'd ever want to be tapping out a text message on my watch is when I'm in need of rescue through satellite message. In the most genuine sense possible, I really don't know who the actual target audience is that's not just buying it for the clout.
I always leave my phone at home for running, biking, hiking, kayaking, etc: not being tethered is part of the appeal.
The subscriptions for this new one or for InReach are infuriating, and they even recently made it worse because you can no longer effectively deactivate it. I only do 3 or 4 real backcountry expeditions in a year, I don't need this activated for 12 months.
I used to carry an InReach until the MBAs decided I was cheating them out of surplus cash that they could demand. Now I have an ACR PLB1 instead, no subscription but it can still call in the cavalry if I break my ankle twenty miles from civilization.
I would buy this if (honestly, when) the price drops by half, or better yet the Enduro version with a MIP screen. Some rich sucker will probably want to trade theirs in when the $3000 Fenix 9 Supreme comes out....
I got a Garmin Epix 2 watch 3 years ago as a replacement for the Apple Watch ULtra, which turned out to be a terrible sports watch. The Garmin still has two weeks battery life and gets all the functionality upgrades the newer watches are getting. More importantly, it looks great and does exactly what I want it to do simply, and reliably. At the time I also had a whoop. Now I only have the Garmin and it does all I need. It's one of those things you need to try to truly get.
That's far more common than you might think even in areas that should, on paper, have coverage.
I already take my phone for that reason but I think it's far more likely to be damaged in a crash than a smaller watch.
I currently have a Garmin Epix I've had for a few years that I'm otherwise happy with. I would consider switching for satellite SOS if the prices get less crazy.
I'd even consider an Apple watch despite it not working with my power meter and other sensors.
Garmin buyers typically choose the brand due to the much longer battery life, however Garmin doesn't have any magic battery technology - the longer battery life is simply from less full time services. If enabling the additional hardware functions that bring it on-par with the ultra, the ultra actually has a longer battery life.
The other issue is that both brands diverge in how they offer satellite connectivity. For iPhones, satellite connectivity includes messaging, sending locations, and carrier-provided functionality via satellite (e.g. SMS), alongside with the road-side assistance and SOS features. These are included at no cost (at this time).
Garmin on the other hand starts with a $40 activation fee, then a minimum per month charge of $8 USD which then still charges 50c per text message, $1 for voice messages and 60c an hour for location tracking. Garmin's also offers a $50 USD per month plan where some of these tariffs are included, but notably voice messages are limited to 50 units before reverting back to $1 each. The $40 activation fee prevents users from saving money by switching off the functionality when not needed.
They also run their own satellite network team that responds and forwards to SAR services which obviously has additional overhead
I imagine the transfective screen tech helps quite a bit too. Not having to max out the backlight's brightness to compete with the brightness of the sun has to help.
But, given the amount of power that needs to be emitted from that watch to make it to the Satellite I assume you need to take it off your wrist first?
[0]: https://github.com/tcgoetz/GarminDB
Support's response is "go to your region-local support shop".
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/1mspank/venu_3_seve...
The Apple Watch is an imperfect replacement for a purpose-built hiking or cycling tracker, for sure, but that gap seems to be getting smaller. And people outside the endurance nerd community are more willing to sport an Apple Watch with regular clothes than the traditionally clunky Garmin models.
(A certain degree of the Garmin clunkiness is an outgrowth of their better-suitedness to, for example, long hiking trips -- but as with everything, specialization comes with tradeoffs.)