Connect IQ Store app from Garmin

I suspect there could be non-public API's involved or you'll never be told the process.  Imagine if a 3rd party dev started to  install other apps they developed when the first one is installed.

Why this app is only for newest devices? As is the CIQ  app should run on e.g. f6.

I didn't expected that new feature

forums.garmin.com/.../get-your-app-ready-for-the-updated-connect-iq-on-device-store

 is connected with CIQ app it should be rather implemented in firmware. Strange.

My guesses:

1) they decided that user experience would be best on the latest devices with the fastest processors 

2) they want you to buy a new device 

1. Maybe, all device are 4.x...

2. Do you really think that such app force somebody to buy a new watch? Really? 

1. yeah maybe there’s something in 4.x which is a prerequisite for the store 

2. it’s not about what I think, it’s about what garmin’s marketing team thinks. Garmin (and other companies) hold back little features from older devices all the time, when they could easily add them (this is in cases when older devices are still getting software updates). Look at stage manager on iPad. And as far as Garmin goes, I think we can find lots of threads where users say stuff like “why doesn’t Garmin port feature X back to my device? It would be easy to do so!” I think ppl are still asking whether 735, a six year old device, will be getting updates    

And ofc I should’ve expanded on my reasoning:

2b. They don’t want to spend time and money developing and supporting a new feature for older devices because they want you want to buy the new device. From their pov, the on-device connect iq store adds value. Must be true from the customers pov as well, otherwise why would we be talking about it? So why should Garmin add value to an older device when they’re not going to make money out of it? It doesn’t mean that a 945 owner will run out and buy a 955 solely bc of this one new app. It just means the 955 is made slightly more valuable and gives a user looking to upgrade one more reason. Even if it cost them $0 to add it to old devices they might not want to do it. I could ask why 945 LTE isn’t getting CIQ 4 even though it’s getting a lot of the new features from 955 / Fenix 7. I would bet that it’s not hardware limitations but they want me to buy the newer device if I want CIQ 4 

also, not to state the obvious, but adding new features to old devices gives ppl one less reason to upgrade. 

Actually, there are HW differences with devices that support 4.x.y.  The GPU for instance, and with some, the GPS system (All satellites and multiband)

jim_m_58 said:

with some, the GPS system (All satellites and multiband)

If it only applies to some CIQ 4 devices, that's not really a good example.

jim_m_58 said:

The GPU for instance

Fair enough. If, by definition, CIQ 4 requires the GPU, then that's a valid reason that older devices can't have it.

A different example is super apps. I bet they could've brought them to a device like 945 LTE if they wanted to, but decided it's not worth the additional effort. Nobody would argue that a user will buy a CIQ 4 device because they want super apps.

My overall point is decisions about what features are added to which devices are often not based on hardware limitations, but are sometimes based on marketing concerns (specifically market segmentation and the desire to drive people to buy new devices.) And concerns about efficient allocation of time and money.

Case in point:

- this thread

- all the other threads asking "why won't old device X get new feature Y?"

Actually, the ohr and o2 sensors is another reason.  While EGC is coming to the V2+, I doubt that will come out for the v2.  Even Android and Apple have stopped updating the OS on older devices.  When CIQ3 came out, many devices were updated to that, but a few were left behind, like the va-hr and 735.

jim_m_58 said:

Even Android and Apple have stopped updating the OS on older devices.  When CIQ3 came out, many devices were updated to that, but a few were left behind, like the va-hr and 735.

That's why:

- I specifically said: devices which are still getting software updates may not get new features

- I gave the example of 945 LTE, which is getting most of the new features from Fenix 7 and 955, but not all of them. (e.g. 945 LTE won't get super apps, which is CIQ 4 only, but that doesn't seem to be due to hardware limitations, although I could be wrong)

- As far as Apple goes, I gave the example of Stage Manager, which was only available to newer iPads (with the M1 chip), and has been purposely excluded from slightly older iPads (even though they are still receiving software updates). Yes, I know they recently reversed that decision (following customer outcry), but it proves my point that sometimes features are held back for marketing reasons and not hardware reasons

I've worked at a company that makes embedded systems with dozens of variants (just like Garmin), so I know how this stuff works. It's funny bc even my own co-worker said that the prices for our competitors were unfair ("2X the price for the pro model but not 2X the features???") even though he should've known better, given the way our own products were developed and priced. Ofc companies just design the Pro model first, then strip out a bunch of features and sell the Standard model at a lower price. The price difference isn't justified by the difference in cost of developing the software for Standard vs Pro (it doesn't cost a lot to remove features), but it's based on what people are willing to pay. The price difference also isn't fully justified by the cost of the additional materials for any hardware difference. (The cost of materials for a device is usually pennies on the dollar compared to the retail price of a device anyway, since you're paying for marketing, design, development, etc.)

IMO it's a similar principle when you're talking about the Standard vs Pro versions of a product, or an older product versus a newer product, although ofc it's not exactly the same thing.

For example, why not bring Track Mode to all older Garmin watches, like FR235, Fenix 5 and FR935? That's probably not due to hardware limitations, but they just don't want to (and I can understand that.)

I'm not a marketing or business expert, that's just my lay person's perspective.

"- I specifically said: devices which are still getting software updates may not get new features"

Actually mist people in the forum would be happier if Garmin would only fix things without trying to add new features... *

But the sad thing is that it's probably easier to add a new feature than to fix a bug, because all you need to do is to "remove an excludeAnnotation". Unfortunately in some cases they really only do that 1st step and forget about the 2nd step: qa and 3rd step: fix issues that were found by users.

*) Specifically as I wrote in another thread earlier today, the on-device store is the most unuseful "feature" they could think about. I guess most reasonable employees realized that but they were probably too much invested into it to drop it. I just wish they would spend their time on some other more important things like fixing bugs, or if that makes marketing department happier then there are a few features requested by many people that could've been added way easier (display the watch's battery state in the GCM app for example, but the most requested is to add sleep related features - at least to the SDK or better have a mode to wake you up when it's best for you - which probably is not that easy as the other 2 i mentioned)