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

61–70 of 317 posts

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#61

Post by scarface_74 »

iechoz6H wrote: post #48
scarface_74 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With my Apple Watch, I don’t need my phone when I’m running, swimming or at the gym. I can receive and return texts, make and receive calls and listen to music either stored on the watch or streamed over cellular.

How do you receive calls without a sim? Or does it have a dedicated sim with a different number to your regular phone?

The Apple Watch has had a cellular option since 2017 with a built in eSIM.

There is a separate number as far as billing. But the cellular carrier pairs your cellular watch with an iPhone on the same network. So calls come in and go out as if they were coming from your iPhone’s number. Whenever someone calls your phone - they both ring.

If your phone is on and close enough to your watch so they are connected via Bluetooth (or WiFi?), all data and voice communication is relayed through your phone to save battery life.

If your watch isn’t connected to your phone, the Watch uses cellular.

Roaming support for Apple Watches was just announced in 2022 and is still not ubiquitous

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#62

Post by doix »

kadoban wrote: post #44
LandR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought resting heart rate while sleeping was a pointless metric ? YOu can have a resting heart rate while sleeping in the 30s, yet your real resting heart rate in the 60s. I don't need a watch to tell me if I was sleeping or not, I was there, I know if I was sleeping... I also don't see the point if it telling me if I got enough sleep or not. Again, I know if I didn't get enough sleep as I'm tired... I also…

Sleeping heart rate is useful because it gives you a good "resting" value. Resting heart rate will tell you if you're getting sick, before you have any real symptoms.

Yeah, I first learned that from the "HOW TO SKATE A 10K" ebook[0] that was posted here[1] a while ago. He talks about how he tracked heart rate to figure out when he was going to get sick.

I then started looking back at my historical garmin data, pretty much everytime I was sick, my HRV would drop a few days before. I then started monitoring my HRV closer and taking it easy whenever it dropped. Anecdotal data from one person here, but I found that I get sick less and when I do get sick, it's usually not as bad.

[0] https://www.howtoskate.se/

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30320639

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#63

Post by Lio »

LandR wrote: post #29
KeplerBoy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the sleep tracking and resting heart rate tracking is one of the most important features of a smartwatch. pretty sure most garmin users wear them at night for these reasons.

I always thought resting heart rate while sleeping was a pointless metric ? YOu can have a resting heart rate while sleeping in the 30s, yet your real resting heart rate in the 60s. I don't need a watch to tell me if I was sleeping or not, I was there, I know if I was sleeping... I also don't see the point if it telling me if I got enough sleep or not. Again, I know if I didn't get enough sleep as I'm tired... I also…

I find sleep tracking to be really useful.

One thing that surprised me has been seeing the affects of either alcohol or caffeine on the type and quality of the sleep I get.

Even if the absolute numbers aren't 100% accurate the watch definitely spots when I've had even 1 beer during the evening.

I also find heart rate variability interesting. I can't put much spin on the absolute numbers but after either heavy exercise or if I've been unwell I can see the variability rate really drop.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#64

Post by NoboruWataya »

infecto wrote: post #46
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…

People value things differently but the battery life is always interesting to me. Certainly if I was backwoods hiking I get it but for my day to day I only take it off post workout in the morning as I shower and get ready for the day. It’s charged so quickly that I throw it back on as soon as I am done.

Ultimately I charge my phone (almost) every day, so I'm sure I could charge my watch every day as well. But it's still another habit I have to build, another way I have to adjust my routine to accommodate the things that are supposed to make my life easier.

The other thing is, battery life degrades over time, which is relevant if you don't want to be buying new devices every couple of years. When I got my Garmin it probably held a charge for 6-7 days. After four years, that is probably closer to 4 days, which is still pretty good. If less than a day is the starting point, I can imagine that after 3+ years the battery life will be poor enough that you regularly end up wearing a paperweight on your wrist for some portion of the day.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#65

Post by cft »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #64
infecto wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People value things differently but the battery life is always interesting to me. Certainly if I was backwoods hiking I get it but for my day to day I only take it off post workout in the morning as I shower and get ready for the day. It’s charged so quickly that I throw it back on as soon as I am done.

Ultimately I charge my phone (almost) every day, so I'm sure I could charge my watch every day as well. But it's still another habit I have to build, another way I have to adjust my routine to accommodate the things that are supposed to make my life easier. The other thing is, battery life degrades over time, which is relevant if you don't want to be buying new devices every couple of years. When I got my Garmin it p…

There's a difference: I wear my watch, and I expect it to always work, and be accessible even at night

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#67

Post by tcbawo »

infecto wrote: post #46
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…

People value things differently but the battery life is always interesting to me. Certainly if I was backwoods hiking I get it but for my day to day I only take it off post workout in the morning as I shower and get ready for the day. It’s charged so quickly that I throw it back on as soon as I am done.

My preferred alarm clock is the vibration from my fitness band. I wanted something extremely light with a long battery. Unfortunately, no modern fitness bands target this functionality. The vibration is weak, band is heavier, and the use large display. The best ones I used are probably 6-10 years old now.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#68

Post by tacker2000 »

xnorswap wrote: post #55

I found it interesting that they mention Tomtom as being a footnote. In the UK, TomTom was much bigger than Garmin for in-car GPS: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=g... It guess they didn't have the same market penetration / dominance in the US market.

Same on the continent. They were a dutch company, so i guess they didnt have time to really expand much in the US until they got killed by smartphones.

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#69

Post by marliechiller »

scarface_74 wrote: post #9
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.

I can just leave my phone at home when I’m running or in the gym and get phone calls, send messages, and stream music from my watch. I have a stand by my bed that I just plop my phone, watch and AirPods on and they all charge wirelessly and use MagSafe so I don’t have to worry about placement.

If you have to charge overnight, you miss out on all the benefits of sleep tracking which personally, has been essential in managing recovery and also illness

Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot

#70

Post by sylens »

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…

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 gold standard in this area for me.

Post reply on HN