5 ms·

> But it lets you leave your phone at home when you go for a run, or in your locker while you’re at the gym, or in your hotel while you go to the beach, and not

by js2 9y ago

> But it lets you leave your phone at home when you go for a run, or in your locker while you’re at the gym, or in your hotel while you go to the beach, and not worry in the least that you’re out of touch. I'm a big fan of Apple. I own their stock, and I can count at least 10 Apple devices in my house at this moment. But the Apple Watch is not for me. I tried. When I go for a run, I want to be out of touch. The only reason I ever take my iPhone on a run is so that I can take pictures or that I can reach someone else if I have an emergency. Mostly I don’t take my phone and when I do, it’s in do not disturb mode. I'm a serious runner. I tried the first Apple Watch as running watch. It was inferior in that role to my Garmin at the time. But that Garmin wasn't a proper watch, it was really just for running. I liked the Apple Watch's fitness tracking features and that I could wear it all the time. But it just wasn't suitable for running with. So I would take it off when I went for a run and put on my Garmin, which means Apple didn't think I exercised at all. That was a bummer. When Garmin came out with the 230, I immediately bought it. It could replace my existing Garmin for running, it was the size of a proper watch, battery life that lasts a week or more, and fitness tracking. Notifications if you want them. I've since upgraded to the Garmin 935 and I love it. I don't see anything about the Series 3 that would compel me to purchase it. The touch screen is still an inferior interface to physical buttons if physical buttons will do the job. (In fact, the thing I hate most about taking my iPhone with me as a camera is that I can't take pictures with it when my hands are covered in sweat, which when I run, is mostly the case.) The ironic thing is that it's the Apple Watch which got me used to the idea of wearing a watch all the time, and that made me realize the important of physical buttons, and that I don't want notifications on my watch.

taloft 9y ago
Also have a Garmin 735xt for the same reasons. Another big issue is battery life. Garmin can go for a solid week or more between charges, while Apple Watch is about a day.
- melling 9y ago
  Can someone describe the other benefits of a Garmin over an Apple Watch for jogging? I use my Watch for light jogging, monitoring heart rate, pace, and distance. Recently, I’ve been trying to increase days, and will up my mileage in a couple months, after I lose a little more weight.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Having used both: I have no idea. The Apple Watch is at least as good in everything the Garmin does.
    - js2 9y ago
      I sometimes run races of up to 24 hours. The Garmin will record an activity that long, and longer if you charge it during the activity. This is an extreme case, but the Apple Watch can’t do either of these things. My Garmin connects to a foot pod. This gives more accurate cadence info than from your wrist. It also gives more accurate instantaneous pace and more accuate distance if you’re running somewhere that GPS is insufficient. There are high tech accessories that track additonal metrics that work with the Garmin, such as the Stryd foot pod. The Garmin display is always on. I prefer this to the Apple display. The Garmin uses its physical buttons for all operations of the watch which means I can use it no matter how sweaty my hands are or whether I’m using gloves. The Garmin battery lasts 7-10 days. Garmin Connect syncs my runs to Strava and Smashrun. I can also download all my runs to rubiTrack. Those are a few of the reasons I prefer my Garmin.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        Everything other than always on & battery life is quite possible with an Apple Watch. I’ve tracked things for 8-10 hours and had 50% left so I can see if working for you, even in your admittedly extreme use case. I feel like you’re being rather unfair to it and other than always on & the hardware buttons you mentioned, it sounds like my original statement is true for the vast majority of people.
  - kikkoman23 9y ago
    I have the Garmin 230 and like others have mentioned, the battery life, always on, and its supposed to be a bit more accurate GPS wise than the Apple watch. But I'm not sure if it matters too much unless you're training and really need to be spot on, but know there will always be little differences between any gps watch. I run with both watches just to compare distance, etc. but one of the main reasons I got the Apple watch 2 was for the GPS and ability to store up to 2GB of music. This way I can stream my music while running onto my Jaybird 2 wireless headphones. Another cool and funny thing is that while running one day, with the Nike+ app, when I hit a certain distance, Kevin Hart started talking and cheering me on. I thought that was pretty neat and kinda motivating. I'm sure they have other celebrities doing that as well, but just a little something. I also noticed on Apple watch, the Nike+ app doesn't have metric for Avg. Pace, it does show Current Pace, Distance, and Time. Every mile it will speak and tell you your Avg. Pace. But there is the Workout app on the watch that does allow you to see up to 5 metrics for Current Pace, Avg. Pace, Heart Rate, Distance, Duration, Active Calories, Total Calories. For me I like to have Current Pace and Avg Pace shown together along with Distance and Duration. Now with the Apple watch 3, I do like being able to leave your phone behind in case an emergency does come up and someone needs to contact you, but I can also see how a random non-important call can throw off your run/workout session.
bgun 9y ago
> The only reason I ever take my phone is so that I can take pictures or that I can reach someone else if I have an emergency That doesn't sound like you really want to be "out of touch" at all. When I go for a run, I want to become fitter, healthier, and a better runner. Apple isn't suggesting that the purpose of the device is to let you surf Facebook while you run; it's to do exactly what you said - have access if you need it.
- js2 9y ago
  Having access isn't by itself compelling enough. The Apple Watch still isn't a camera and is still worse than my 935 for running. And I'm even doubtful about using it for emergencies: the cell signal in many of the places I run is weak.
  - dkonofalski 9y ago
    What makes it worse than your 935? I'm not familiar with the Garmin watches but every test that I've done against GPS and step-trackers has been pretty even or in favor of my Apple Watch.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      Garmins are generally much more expensive than smart watches (i.e., the relatively basic Garmins cost $200-300), but if you're an outdoor athlete, they're worth the premium. A typical Garmin watch has better GPS accuracy than an Apple Watch (US and Russian geosat networks), mobile alerts if you really want them (but no reply functionality), music player controls, camera controls (for Garmin cameras), and multiple dedicated specialty sensors. The newer low-end watches (ending in 5, i.e., 235) and the higher-end watches have best-in-class wrist heart-rate monitors that are accurate to within 2 beats of chest-based straps even on dark-skinned individuals. Almost all Garmins, except the new activity trackers, are "water-proof" and can be used in most water-based activities except for SCUBA diving (which voids the warranty since they're not rated for those depths). Oh, and they literally last for 2 weeks on a single charge for normal watch use, or roughly 8-24 hours with GPS in constant use, depending on the model. My Garmin Fenix 3 lasted through a 16 hour hike with battery to spare, and that's before I even tried using the battery-saving features. (My biggest issue with the battery is remembering to charge the watch because I need to do so infrequently that it's not an ingrained habit.) In another comment I noted some of the problems my friends had with their earlier-model iWatches. Basically: bad GPS, poor battery life (in many cases dying before the end of a marathon, i.e., <5 hours), essentially unusable during sweaty activities or during water-based activities due to the poor touchscreen functionality.
heartbreak 9y ago
If you can sweaty-hands the Camera app open with the side swipe, you can use the volume up physical button to take a picture.
- js2 9y ago
  Sometimes that will work, but often the phone won't even respond to my swiping it. I really wish iOS had a way to activate the camera from the buttons.
  - eridius 9y ago
    "Hey Siri, open the camera" I just tested it, it works.
    - js2 9y ago
      Whoa, thanks! Facepalm.
rconti 9y ago
Don't you have two wrists? Why not wear both? That's what I did when transitioning from Suunto for running to Apple Watch. I'm not a serious runner or athlete really, so Strava suffices for my daily bike commute and occasional runs, but I agree the touch interface is bordering on unusable at times, and autopause is not good enough to trust. (and, overall, optical HR sensors don't handle intervals (recovery) well. My wife has a Forerunner 235 I bought for her and she LOVES it. For serious runs (eg, half marathon or something) I still take the suunto just to have the 'real' data but I do that less and less.
- photojosh 9y ago
  I do this. Looks like I'm an idiot to onlookers, but I don't care. :)

by js2 9y ago

taloft 9y ago

Also have a Garmin 735xt for the same reasons. Another big issue is battery life. Garmin can go for a solid week or more between charges, while Apple Watch is about a day.

melling 9y ago
Can someone describe the other benefits of a Garmin over an Apple Watch for jogging? I use my Watch for light jogging, monitoring heart rate, pace, and distance. Recently, I’ve been trying to increase days, and will up my mileage in a couple months, after I lose a little more weight.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Having used both: I have no idea. The Apple Watch is at least as good in everything the Garmin does.
  - js2 9y ago
    I sometimes run races of up to 24 hours. The Garmin will record an activity that long, and longer if you charge it during the activity. This is an extreme case, but the Apple Watch can’t do either of these things. My Garmin connects to a foot pod. This gives more accurate cadence info than from your wrist. It also gives more accurate instantaneous pace and more accuate distance if you’re running somewhere that GPS is insufficient. There are high tech accessories that track additonal metrics that work with the Garmin, such as the Stryd foot pod. The Garmin display is always on. I prefer this to the Apple display. The Garmin uses its physical buttons for all operations of the watch which means I can use it no matter how sweaty my hands are or whether I’m using gloves. The Garmin battery lasts 7-10 days. Garmin Connect syncs my runs to Strava and Smashrun. I can also download all my runs to rubiTrack. Those are a few of the reasons I prefer my Garmin.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Everything other than always on & battery life is quite possible with an Apple Watch. I’ve tracked things for 8-10 hours and had 50% left so I can see if working for you, even in your admittedly extreme use case. I feel like you’re being rather unfair to it and other than always on & the hardware buttons you mentioned, it sounds like my original statement is true for the vast majority of people.
- kikkoman23 9y ago
  I have the Garmin 230 and like others have mentioned, the battery life, always on, and its supposed to be a bit more accurate GPS wise than the Apple watch. But I'm not sure if it matters too much unless you're training and really need to be spot on, but know there will always be little differences between any gps watch. I run with both watches just to compare distance, etc. but one of the main reasons I got the Apple watch 2 was for the GPS and ability to store up to 2GB of music. This way I can stream my music while running onto my Jaybird 2 wireless headphones. Another cool and funny thing is that while running one day, with the Nike+ app, when I hit a certain distance, Kevin Hart started talking and cheering me on. I thought that was pretty neat and kinda motivating. I'm sure they have other celebrities doing that as well, but just a little something. I also noticed on Apple watch, the Nike+ app doesn't have metric for Avg. Pace, it does show Current Pace, Distance, and Time. Every mile it will speak and tell you your Avg. Pace. But there is the Workout app on the watch that does allow you to see up to 5 metrics for Current Pace, Avg. Pace, Heart Rate, Distance, Duration, Active Calories, Total Calories. For me I like to have Current Pace and Avg Pace shown together along with Distance and Duration. Now with the Apple watch 3, I do like being able to leave your phone behind in case an emergency does come up and someone needs to contact you, but I can also see how a random non-important call can throw off your run/workout session.

bgun 9y ago

> The only reason I ever take my phone is so that I can take pictures or that I can reach someone else if I have an emergency That doesn't sound like you really want to be "out of touch" at all. When I go for a run, I want to become fitter, healthier, and a better runner. Apple isn't suggesting that the purpose of the device is to let you surf Facebook while you run; it's to do exactly what you said - have access if you need it.

js2 9y ago
Having access isn't by itself compelling enough. The Apple Watch still isn't a camera and is still worse than my 935 for running. And I'm even doubtful about using it for emergencies: the cell signal in many of the places I run is weak.
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  What makes it worse than your 935? I'm not familiar with the Garmin watches but every test that I've done against GPS and step-trackers has been pretty even or in favor of my Apple Watch.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Garmins are generally much more expensive than smart watches (i.e., the relatively basic Garmins cost $200-300), but if you're an outdoor athlete, they're worth the premium. A typical Garmin watch has better GPS accuracy than an Apple Watch (US and Russian geosat networks), mobile alerts if you really want them (but no reply functionality), music player controls, camera controls (for Garmin cameras), and multiple dedicated specialty sensors. The newer low-end watches (ending in 5, i.e., 235) and the higher-end watches have best-in-class wrist heart-rate monitors that are accurate to within 2 beats of chest-based straps even on dark-skinned individuals. Almost all Garmins, except the new activity trackers, are "water-proof" and can be used in most water-based activities except for SCUBA diving (which voids the warranty since they're not rated for those depths). Oh, and they literally last for 2 weeks on a single charge for normal watch use, or roughly 8-24 hours with GPS in constant use, depending on the model. My Garmin Fenix 3 lasted through a 16 hour hike with battery to spare, and that's before I even tried using the battery-saving features. (My biggest issue with the battery is remembering to charge the watch because I need to do so infrequently that it's not an ingrained habit.) In another comment I noted some of the problems my friends had with their earlier-model iWatches. Basically: bad GPS, poor battery life (in many cases dying before the end of a marathon, i.e., <5 hours), essentially unusable during sweaty activities or during water-based activities due to the poor touchscreen functionality.

heartbreak 9y ago

If you can sweaty-hands the Camera app open with the side swipe, you can use the volume up physical button to take a picture.

js2 9y ago
Sometimes that will work, but often the phone won't even respond to my swiping it. I really wish iOS had a way to activate the camera from the buttons.
- eridius 9y ago
  "Hey Siri, open the camera" I just tested it, it works.
  - js2 9y ago
    Whoa, thanks! Facepalm.

rconti 9y ago

Don't you have two wrists? Why not wear both? That's what I did when transitioning from Suunto for running to Apple Watch. I'm not a serious runner or athlete really, so Strava suffices for my daily bike commute and occasional runs, but I agree the touch interface is bordering on unusable at times, and autopause is not good enough to trust. (and, overall, optical HR sensors don't handle intervals (recovery) well. My wife has a Forerunner 235 I bought for her and she LOVES it. For serious runs (eg, half marathon or something) I still take the suunto just to have the 'real' data but I do that less and less.

photojosh 9y ago
I do this. Looks like I'm an idiot to onlookers, but I don't care. :)