Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Garmin's –$40B Pivot

readtrung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 317 posts

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#121

Post by jeffbee »

jcfrei wrote: post #78

I use a Garmin edge 830 for cycling and it feels like one of those devices where software engineers hated every minute developing the GUI for it. I can only imagine that the reason garmin is profitable is because they keep the same cheap hardware and custom OS they developed 10, 20 years ago for generations and just do occasional GUI refreshments. Definitely going to switch to an alternative for my next one.

I still use an Edge 130 because its lack of graphics abilities constrains the UI to something reasonable. All I want it to do is throw the time/speed/distance/pulse in my face. In fact if Garmin made an Edge-like product that was only a head unit for a smart watch, didn't have its own gps radios, that would be ideal for me.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#122

Post by hedora »

hx833001 wrote: post #4
maskull wrote: post #2

I'm amazed apple has got by with a 3/4 day charge for 10 generations while garmin has had products with a 7+ day charge for years.

Ultra has better battery life, most people don’t wear a watch while sleeping, so it’s easy to charge at night like you do with a phone anyway. It also enables you to do almost everything essential in terms of communication without a phone if you want to leave it. Garmin watches do not.

My non-ultra gets at least 28 hours, and over 48 in low power mode.

I leave it in airplane mode (this leaves bluetooth on, so it doesn’t impact functionality when my phone is nearby) and disabled the always on screen.

I agree about the questionable value proposition though. A $35 Amazfit band is surprisingly competitive with it, and has much better battery life.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#124

Post by DebtDeflation »

I do a lot of deep wilderness hiking. I have two Garmin products - an InReach Mini 2 and a Fenix 6X watch. There are a couple of big benefits over the Apple/Android ecosystem. 1) Battery life. 21 days (more with the newer models). 2) No dependence on cellular/wifi data availability (though they have been doing their damnedest to require it for syncing you watch to your Connect app). I'd love to see them merge the functionality of the two devices (provide satellite messaging direct from the watch). I have zero desire for some of the other stuff they've added (music player, payments, etc.), they're just battery drains.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#125

Post by gausswho »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #75
sylens wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apple Watch is also a terribly designed device for running. Too much of its functions rely on interacting with the touchscreen, something you are either unable to do with sweaty hands when running or don't want to do as it draws your attention away for a prolonged amount of time and hurts your form. Garmin's unwavering commitment to physical buttons and how you can customize what they do is what makes them the go…

As a non-Appleista, what strikes me most is their "silo" mentality. Most of the iPhone /iWatch using fitness types I know log their stuff inside the Apple cloud, and do not crosspost to Garmin Connect or Strava so the non-Appleistas don't see their stuff. Whereas the Garmin/Strava world is relatively open. I can for example take the original Forerunner (pictured in the article) and upload stuff from it to the Garmin…

They may be less gatekeeping than others, but they don't let you get data off the device without a cloud account, at which point all your biometrics are for sale.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#126

Post by spchampion2 »

I have a Garmin Descent Mk2i which I use for scuba diving, and it's a fabulous all-purpose fitness and adventure watch. I've used to for hundreds of dives, navigation on multiple backpacking trips, cycling, and tons of other stuff. I even wear it daily, and it nicely supports notifications from my phone.

When Garmin originally launched a scuba watch, I was kind of surprised. It's a small market, and there were a lot of established "good enough" players in the space. Everyone already had a dive computer. Who would want an expensive one from Garmin when they could buy an expensive one from Shearwater? But Garmin showed up with a good product, iterated by adding their sonar based SubWave for air integration, and eventually took a lot of marketshare by including fitness and smartwatch features the competitors lacked. Now I see tons of Garmins on dive boats. People love them.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#127

Post by zelos »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #94
sylens wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might have changed in recent years - I can import workouts to Strava that are recorded by my Apple Watch

With maps? The only Appleista that I know that crossposts to Strava always ends up with stats, but no map trace.

It used to be a fairly unintuitive manual process but Strava enabled auto-import with full GPS and heart rate import recently.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#128

Post by jeffbee »

salviati wrote: post #47

Sorry to pick on this detail, but I don't understand why TFA uses 2008 as year of Google Maps release. My memory (and Wikipedia) say 2005. I think I figured it out : in October 2009 Google maps introduced turn by turn directions.

A lot of people are not aware of the fact that there were mobile apps before the iPhone. First time I used gmaps was on a j2me platform.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#129

Post by goosedragons »

jmull wrote: post #77
NoboruWataya wrote: post #14

Interesting article. My partner bought an Apple watch a couple of years ago and I was shocked at what a poor value proposition it was. Very expensive and wouldn't even hold a charge for a day. I guess you get used to it but having to charge my watch every day would drive me mad. Obviously there are things it will do better than a Garmin (and things it can do that a Garmin simply can't) but overall it didn't make sens…

From my perspective -- someone who wants the things a smart watch does -- I can't figure out what a Garmin is for. They don't really do the job of a regular smart watch and aren't designed for wearing all the time, so it becomes a secondary device you need to manage and charge separately, not to mention pay for. Meanwhile, an Apple Watch can do all of it. IME, the battery life of Garmin's isn't a game changer... if y…

What things do you want from a smartwatch? For the basics, notifications+, music controls, fitness tracking, Garmin handles well. It does not have an extensive ecosystem of apps but what apps do you need?

And for fitness Garmin is very very good. Today was below -10 C on my run and my watch was 100% usable with gloves. Garmin actually tells me when I get a GPS lock and it works ANT+ devices.

I use the GPS all the time on my Fenix, it's 6 years old and I'm still charging roughly once a week. I think a 6 year old Apple Watch would struggle to get a day, if that.

+On a non-Apple device.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#130

Post by cozzyd »

dhosek wrote: post #97
chikere232 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you have a good routine, but it's pretty nice to just have to charge once a week or something

The ideal charging cycles are either daily or never. With some non-daily cycle, I need to add “does my watch need recharging?” to my cognitive load.

you can still charge it daily if you want...
Post reply on HN