Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it's mangled, but it's clearly a dash (–) and not a minus (-).
Is this sarcasm
I think just a dash.
Garmin's –$40B Pivot
81–90 of 317 posts
Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#82Interesting 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 go…
> 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.
Most people may be unaware that Garmin has a strong foothold in the stringently regulated avionics industry, in particular in flight instruments, displays, deck and others human-machine interface products. In turn, specific regulations informed by ergonomics research are unambiguous in prioritizing safety and unanimously contain minimum usability requirements.
As an example, an AC [1, Ch. 7] advises on (electronic display) control devices, and another AC [2] advises on design and evaluation of controls and displays. The software-defined counterparts have immensely harder requirements that must be satisfied, which, in my reading, is incompatible with pure touchscreen devices.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/...
[2] https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/...
Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Ultra is the most bizarre in the lineup. It's marketed at extreme adventurers, mountaineers, extreme hikers, etc. For that demographic, battery life of less than at least a week is a non-starter, not to mention 100% button navigation as opposed to touchscreen + dial. Those are really hard to operate whilst wearing thick gloves.
This is a bit silly. I was gifted an Ultra, and as a climber/skiier/trail runner, it serves my purposes extremely well. The maps using WorkOutdoors are far superior to what I've seen from Garmin devices (although I haven't tried) and I can always get all-day battery and charge within 30-40 min before bed. Yes, I wish the battery lasted longer but it's a tradeoff I'd always take for a more responsive and usable interface.
One gripe is that the functionality with gloves is a little annoying since you can get false positive screen taps from sleeves/cuffs. A second is that the main button is pressed when doing a pushup or in some situations while climbing, which triggers the emergency alarm mode by default (but is configurable to turn off).
Most adventures are not many days long without sleeping (for me) and this watch works pretty well.
Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#84Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#85I used to have an Android Wear watch, when it was still called that. I thought it was really cool, a small computer on my wrist, ready to use instantly. I looked for more things I could use it for. But after a while, I noticed that I almost always preferred to take my phone out of the pocket if I needed to interact with anything. So the watch mainly got used for notifications, changing songs, and logging run workouts. My current Garmin can do all that, and the battery lasts a long time so I never have to care about it, and it has buttons. A WearOS watch is slow and unusable with less than 1 GB of RAM, there's something very wrong with that.
I worry that Garmin isn't well placed to compete with the new generation smart watches though. Google and Apple can make watches with connected voice assistants and phone calls. Garmin uses their own OS on hardware an order of magnitude less powerful. That's their strength and weakness, and it will be interesting to see what the market chooses. My next watch will also be a Garmin, I don't need or want a wrist computer, but I can see why others would want that.
Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#86I 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.
TomTom is now an app on smartphones. I still use it I can't stand Google maps and their annoying ads.
Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#87Interesting 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…
can you elaborate on " aren't designed for wearing all the time"?
I wear my Epix 2 every day and it does all I want from a smartwatch - see incoming texts and calls while it tracks my health stats day and night. Yes, apple watch or Samsung ones may have more features, but I am not missing anything.
Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#88Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Ultra is the most bizarre in the lineup. It's marketed at extreme adventurers, mountaineers, extreme hikers, etc. For that demographic, battery life of less than at least a week is a non-starter, not to mention 100% button navigation as opposed to touchscreen + dial. Those are really hard to operate whilst wearing thick gloves.
I know the Ultra has an extra button, but I wonder if you can start a run on it in the rain (ie without using touch). That was what finally pushed me away from Apple Watch, and the marketing of the Ultra is quite funny if it doesn't solve it.
plus, no support for ANT+ is a dealbreaker.
Re: Garmin's –$40B Pivot
#90Earlier 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…
That might have changed in recent years - I can import workouts to Strava that are recorded by my Apple Watch