6 ms·

Sure they’re 5-10 years behind, but I wouldn’t underestimate Apple’s ability to create a thriving ecosystem. Any Garmin app developers worth their salt should

Sure they’re 5-10 years behind, but I wouldn’t underestimate Apple’s ability to create a thriving ecosystem. Any Garmin app developers worth their salt should be scrambling to port their existing apps to the Apple Watch platform. It’s currently an under-supplied market, and failing to tap into that opportunity is a bad business strategy. Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they extend the user repair program to this sector. Also, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that they sunset their products after 12 months. They might refresh them, but that doesn’t change the software support cycle.

exabrial 4y ago
Not at all, Garmin is not fashionware like Apple. You buy Garmin because you are an athlete that needs an actual complete product that is tested and bullet proof; where you own the hardware, and you’re not ‘renting’ it from Apple. If you want to flash how fancy you are to your coworkers and have a second iPhone, you buy the iwatch. Apple does not hold a candle to Garmin’s software for sports and training… they have everything from an actual desktop app that works (gasp) without an internet connection, an online portal where you can freely download all of YOUR data (gasp) if you choose the connected option, and the sports and training analytics is light years ahead of Apple. And besides, Apple can’t receive ANT+ signals from connected sensors, and BLE battery life is abysmal in comparison. The only thing Apple has on Garmin is the have app stores full on apps, but that’s it. Nobody is using their Garmin to play Candy Crush but that misses the point.
- infotogivenm 4y ago
  Eh... I think there is an enormous gap between “pro athlete” and “normal smartwatch user” that does not diminish to just “fashionware”. The battery life sucks tho, thats what keeps me from using one. I think the health and exercise features are more than fine enough for “non-pro athletes”. No idea what “renting from apple” means but it does not seem to be the watch for you.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    Garmin sensors are more precise, and the off the shelf analytics are better. Everything else in that parent comment is nonsense. Apple Health data is very easy to download and share with 3rd parties (say a 3rd party that has better analytics than Apple Health offers, for instance…). I don’t get the battery complaints either. I only ever charge mine while I’m in the shower, and I don’t really have any problems. The only instance I found it an issue was in 24+ hour ultras, but I don’t think that’s what most people are complaining about… Imo, the advantage that Apple has over the more well equipped Garmin models is that it’s comfortable to wear all day and sleep with. I never liked wearing the chunkier Garmins outside of training.
    - jojule 4y ago
      Any proof for Garmin sensors being more precise? TheQuantifiedScientist on his YouTube channel has great tests for many wearable devices and their sensors. His assessment has been very favorable for AW Ultra on HR, location and sleep when compared to Garmin devices: for sleep tracking Garmin is very inaccurate, for HR and location Fenix 7 and Ultra are identical. Fenix 6 and older are poor. Blood oxygen and temperature seems to be quite inaccurate on both.
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        Just my own anecdata I guess. I’ve always found heartbeat and location tracking to be a lot better with the Garmins. I haven’t trained with the new Apple Watches yet though, so maybe I’m completely wrong…
- renewiltord 4y ago
  The thing about Apple products is that no serious professional would use a Macbook, no one with a job requiring critical connectivity will use an iPhone, no serious photographer will use an iPhone. Until they do. They ate the business Thinkpad. They ate the Blackberry. They ate some portion of the SLRs. And each time they weren't serious.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
AmericanChopper 4y ago
> Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support Is the target market really concerned about this? I’ll chew through a $200-300 pair of shoes in 4-6 weeks, and I’m more-or-less a casual runner. The cost of attending events is much more than that. I probably would buy a Garmin if I was really taking things seriously, but the Apple Watch does what I need, and even if I brought a brand new one every year it wouldn’t have much impact on the costs of this hobby.
- r0fl 4y ago
  Top result on Google for how many km should running shoes last Experts recommend you replace your running shoes every 500 to 750 kilometers. That's roughly every 300 to 500 miles, which equates to approximately four to six months for someone who runs 20 miles a week. What are you doing replacing your shoes every 4 weeks?
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    I typically get around 400-600 kms out of a fresh pair of running shoes before the tread is completely gone and the energy return structure stops returning energy. I typically run about 100km/week. A bit less if I’m tapering, or injured (not very often), or on holiday. I also walk a lot, which I have different shoes for, but that adds an extra few pairs to the annual shoes bill as well. Edit: I probably go through shoes slightly faster than most runners, because I weigh a bit more than most runners. But I don’t think that’s a huge factor.
    - abstract_put 4y ago
      > I’m more-or-less a casual runner > I typically run about 100km/week This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".
      - 4y ago

exabrial 4y ago

Not at all, Garmin is not fashionware like Apple. You buy Garmin because you are an athlete that needs an actual complete product that is tested and bullet proof; where you own the hardware, and you’re not ‘renting’ it from Apple. If you want to flash how fancy you are to your coworkers and have a second iPhone, you buy the iwatch. Apple does not hold a candle to Garmin’s software for sports and training… they have everything from an actual desktop app that works (gasp) without an internet connection, an online portal where you can freely download all of YOUR data (gasp) if you choose the connected option, and the sports and training analytics is light years ahead of Apple. And besides, Apple can’t receive ANT+ signals from connected sensors, and BLE battery life is abysmal in comparison. The only thing Apple has on Garmin is the have app stores full on apps, but that’s it. Nobody is using their Garmin to play Candy Crush but that misses the point.

infotogivenm 4y ago
Eh... I think there is an enormous gap between “pro athlete” and “normal smartwatch user” that does not diminish to just “fashionware”. The battery life sucks tho, thats what keeps me from using one. I think the health and exercise features are more than fine enough for “non-pro athletes”. No idea what “renting from apple” means but it does not seem to be the watch for you.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  Garmin sensors are more precise, and the off the shelf analytics are better. Everything else in that parent comment is nonsense. Apple Health data is very easy to download and share with 3rd parties (say a 3rd party that has better analytics than Apple Health offers, for instance…). I don’t get the battery complaints either. I only ever charge mine while I’m in the shower, and I don’t really have any problems. The only instance I found it an issue was in 24+ hour ultras, but I don’t think that’s what most people are complaining about… Imo, the advantage that Apple has over the more well equipped Garmin models is that it’s comfortable to wear all day and sleep with. I never liked wearing the chunkier Garmins outside of training.
  - jojule 4y ago
    Any proof for Garmin sensors being more precise? TheQuantifiedScientist on his YouTube channel has great tests for many wearable devices and their sensors. His assessment has been very favorable for AW Ultra on HR, location and sleep when compared to Garmin devices: for sleep tracking Garmin is very inaccurate, for HR and location Fenix 7 and Ultra are identical. Fenix 6 and older are poor. Blood oxygen and temperature seems to be quite inaccurate on both.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      Just my own anecdata I guess. I’ve always found heartbeat and location tracking to be a lot better with the Garmins. I haven’t trained with the new Apple Watches yet though, so maybe I’m completely wrong…
renewiltord 4y ago
The thing about Apple products is that no serious professional would use a Macbook, no one with a job requiring critical connectivity will use an iPhone, no serious photographer will use an iPhone. Until they do. They ate the business Thinkpad. They ate the Blackberry. They ate some portion of the SLRs. And each time they weren't serious.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

AmericanChopper 4y ago

> Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support Is the target market really concerned about this? I’ll chew through a $200-300 pair of shoes in 4-6 weeks, and I’m more-or-less a casual runner. The cost of attending events is much more than that. I probably would buy a Garmin if I was really taking things seriously, but the Apple Watch does what I need, and even if I brought a brand new one every year it wouldn’t have much impact on the costs of this hobby.

r0fl 4y ago
Top result on Google for how many km should running shoes last Experts recommend you replace your running shoes every 500 to 750 kilometers. That's roughly every 300 to 500 miles, which equates to approximately four to six months for someone who runs 20 miles a week. What are you doing replacing your shoes every 4 weeks?
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  I typically get around 400-600 kms out of a fresh pair of running shoes before the tread is completely gone and the energy return structure stops returning energy. I typically run about 100km/week. A bit less if I’m tapering, or injured (not very often), or on holiday. I also walk a lot, which I have different shoes for, but that adds an extra few pairs to the annual shoes bill as well. Edit: I probably go through shoes slightly faster than most runners, because I weigh a bit more than most runners. But I don’t think that’s a huge factor.
  - abstract_put 4y ago
    > I’m more-or-less a casual runner > I typically run about 100km/week This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".
    - 4y ago