Hello,
I'm building some app and want to use Flashlight API for Instinct 2x that has flashlight. But i noticed that 2x has API lvl 3.4.0 and Flashlight API becomes available from 4.2.0. So I'm a little confused now. Is Garmin planning to upgrade API lvl for Instinct 2x?
With the way I've always written my code, I only do a has check once (in initialize) and set a boolean I use in my code, as checking a boolean is much cheaper that doing has all the time…
I'm confused not because of the System version or SDK version or API lvl. I'm confused because device (2x) has hardware abilities but i can't use this abilities programmatically because device does not…
I realize the forums and the products the company makes are disconnected and unrelated,
What you wrote earlier indicated that you thought the opposite.
Someone at my office…
(This is weird. Spreadsheets have one purpose and VS Code (IDEs) have a completely different and unrelated purpose. Spreadsheets also manage to encourage a very different way to think about problems. IDEs are just fancy editors.)
Fair, it's apples and oranges. I sorta anticipated this kind of reaction when I typed that originally, so I should've known better.
Maybe Word/Google Docs vs. VS Code/Notepad++/Sublime Text.
Look at all the panes and sidebars which can be configured in a modern IDE (or even an IDE from 20 years ago). That level of complexity and customization would not fly in most consumer software, because it would either scare people away, confuse them, or it would be unused by the majority of people.
The reason I chose Excel and VS Code is because I know a business analyst who primarily works with very complex Excel sheets, and one look at VS Code gave her an aneurysm. The kind of complexity that even "power [business] users" may want is not the same as what devs may want.
Same with how the command palette is very popular amongst devs and "power users" now, but most "regular users" would probably not want it (in that exact form).
The point is that different users need different things from their tech, and "power users" (like someone who wants the ability to have both infinite scroll of a discussion and the ability to instantly to any point in the discussion) are not the primary demographic for most tech.
For example, most social media has infinite scroll, but no ability to jump to a given point in the feed you're scrolling through (using the same scrolling UI). I've mostly seen "infinite scroll + jump to specific point" in modern-ish forum software, which is definitely a niche tech at this point.
It's cheap/easy to "identify stuff" you wish to be improved. And, many of the people making these suggestions can't "imagine" why those improvements aren't adopted. It's all "pros" with no "cons".
I sort of wish that people making suggestions would at least acknowledge there might be reasons not to do the improvements. (Another thing that "will never happen").
I'm acknowledging it now. You're absolutely right. It is very easy for me (or anyone else) to sit at our computer and whine / criticize decisions without knowing the details / be armchair quarterbacks.
So again, I'll just say the forums are not very good from a UI/UX perspective. Maybe this platform was chosen out of necessity, maybe it wasn't. I guess it's not really my place to criticize, plus it's nothing I haven't said before. I'm personally aware of all the workarounds I have to employ in the forums when certain things don't work, so it's fine.
I agree with you that oftentimes users / customers will make unreasonable pie-in-the-sky suggestions or demands.
(Choosing different forum software might not be as clear.)
It's not as clear to me since obviously the previous content was migrated from one platform to a completely different platform and a bit of content was lost along the way. So it doesn't seem to me that the choice of the current platform is a necessary consequence of the specifics of the previous platform / content, but I could be wrong.
I realize I'm not privy to all the behind-the-scenes considerations and decisions, but without knowing anything else, I don't see why a different platform couldn't have been chosen. I'm not saying this platform was objectively the wrong choice, I'm saying that without knowing more, I can't say it's *impossible* that another forum platform could've been used.
I agree with you that oftentimes users / customers will make unreasonable pie-in-the-sky suggestions or demands.
Like one common complaint from users goes along the lines of "Forerunner 265 has training load [or some other feature they want], so why doesn't Venu 3 have it? It's 'just' a software feature and Venu 3 has all the hardware to support it."
We don't have to agree with Garmin's market segmentation strategy, but that's not going to stop them from doing it, as it seems to work for them. For some reason users are ok with hardware segmentation but often draw the line at "artificial" software segmentation, even though every company (including Apple) does it to some extent or another.
Similarly, even if Garmin could've chosen a different forum platform, nobody says they had to. So I guess I'll stop complaining about it.
Note: the following does not pertain to your or anything you said!
“So, how many fairly-successful GPS companies have you managed to create?”
==================
I’d actually like to hear your suggestions (I’d just like to see some indication that you (anybody, not just you) might be missing something). I learned something from what you said.
===================
Regarding the UI/UX stuff, I think there might be something going on that people are not considering.
I think it’s pretty clear that Garmin’s strategy is to enhance/evolve existing products. Some customers want Garmin to “start from scratch” to fix things like UI/UX issues. Part of why they want that is being used to smartphones and expecting Garmin to (basically) create a smartphone.
Of course, given the limitations of the devices (slow computers and three buttons), maybe, what people want isn’t reasonable. Regarding the watches with buttons, I’m reasonably impressed with how the interface works.
I think the problem for Garmin is that a complete re-engineering of its product lines is a huge risk. And it won’t save money because they probably have to still upgrade their existing product line.
From what I can tell, Garmin’s car navigation line is no longer really viable. A friend bought one recently and it’s not a pleasure to use. It doesn’t compare to using a smartphone. There are still niche markets for them (for “height constrainted” vehicles and motorcycles).
Garmin did have an Android smartphone ( en.wikipedia.org/.../Garmin_Nüvifone ) for a short time but it wasn’t successful (apparently). One problem with making a smartphone is it has to be a least as good as Apple or Samsung (the two companies who clearly make money selling smartphones).
I believe Garmin had a nav app for smartphones too. It seems it would be very hard to compete with Google or Apple on smartphones.
For sure I personally couldn't do a better job than Garmin or any other successful company. I couldn't even begin to come up with a business plan or imagine a prototype in my head, except maybe for some terrible product that would appeal only to me.
We could even look at companies like COROS which have tried to compete directly with Garmin and (so far) haven't made much of a dent afaik. (I know someone who went from Fenix to Coros to Forerunner 965.)
Of course, given the limitations of the devices (slow computers and three buttons), maybe, what people want isn’t reasonable. Regarding the watches with buttons, I’m reasonably impressed with how the interface works.
I think the problem for Garmin is that a complete re-engineering of its product lines is a huge risk. And it won’t save money because they probably have to still upgrade their existing product line.
Can't argue with you there. I'm actually impressed with how far Garmin has come since I started using Forerunners in 2013. The UI at the time was very slow and clunky, and in some cases, the buttons were very hard to press and broke easily. I had a Garmin touchscreen watch at one point around 2015 (Forerunner 630), and the hardware / software was definitely not up to the task of delivering a usable touch experience (which was a problem since touch was mandatory for some things on that watch, like scrolling.) If I was doing a hard workout, I just didn't bother to try to scroll data pages.
Fast forward to 2023, and I'm pretty happy with my Forerunner 955 with (optional) touch and five buttons. I realize the 5-button interface may seem archaic to many, but to me it's actually a plus, because I can use the most important functions of the watch (to me) without looking - for me this means being able to start, pause and lap a run workout. It doesn't sound like a lot, but today that's not possible with an Apple Watch (especially with 3rd party party apps), because there just aren't enough physical buttons that are usable by apps, and because certain other gestures (like scrolling the crown) aren't detected by 3rd party apps when the screen goes to sleep. Sure, the action button on the Ultra and the pinch gesture on the new watches can mitigate that, but nothing beats dedicated start/stop and lap buttons for me.
For similar reasons, I never would've bought a Vivoactive 3 which required the user to swipe the screen to take a lap, since it only had one physical button. Garmin obviously noticed people didn't like this, since Vivoactive 4 has 2 buttons.
I even like MIP screens because it's important to me to be able to glance at my watch during a daytime workout and see certain stats without a deliberate wrist turn and a slight wait for the screen to light up. (I realize MIP screens have the same problem at night.)
I also like the monolithic software / online platform design where you get all the features in one device, as opposed to buying a ton of 3rd party apps a la apple watch, although I absolutely see that there's both pros and cons to that approach.
So it would probably be fair to say that for me, if Garmin watches became *too* modern, I would probably just switch to Apple, because if I'm gonna buy a modern product which lacks any of things that made Garmin appeal to me, may as well go thoroughly modern. Garmin can't compete with Apple Watch in making a pure smartwatch, especially since Apple won't allow them to tightly integrate with iOS.
That's why the obvious move to make AMOLED screens the "default" Garmin screen type is a step in the wrong direction for me (only speaking for myself). Having said that, I definitely understand why. MIP is just not impressive. It wasn't impressive in 2013 and it isn't in 2023. It "performs" better in daylight, but that's not going to sell watches. I have to admit that AMOLED Garmins are so much prettier, but I don't like the tradeoffs. I'm sure it's the right move for Garmin, and in time most customers will either adapt or just hang on to their old devices.
I guess this is Garmin's dilemma as a "legacy" tech company: they want to keep up with Apple (and maybe Samsung?) but they can't really compete on the same playing field. As you pointed out, they can't compete in the smartphone arena either.
So maybe they have to keep certain old-school traits in their products to keep existing consumers happy, while continuing to modernize in some respects (touchscreens, music, AMOLED) to attract new customers and sell new devices.
I guess when I complain about UI/UX, I usually mean within the constraints of the hardware and design. But I can definitely see that hardware and design constraints may affect UI/UX. Many people complained about how unintuitive it was to use the 5-button system to scroll through settings menus. At least touchscreens in newer watches have addressed that. Now I see the opposite problem in 955 where the map is basically unusable without the touchscreen (trying to pan the map using the buttons is a very frustrating experience.) Unfortunately, the 945 LTE shares similar software with touchscreen watches like 955, including the map behavior, but it lacks a touchscreen. Similarly, the newer watches have big transparent + / - buttons for zooming the map, which is ok since they're translucent, but the 945 LTE now has the same buttons except they're opaque, so they block a significant part of the map, and it's a step down from the previous firmware which had smaller buttons with a transparent background. For me, this is just a matter of attention to detail (*): I see the benefit of 945 LTE and 955 sharing similar software, and it's also a plus for 945 LTE users who get most of the 955 features. But then you have stuff that gets backported to 945 LTE which creates a worse user experience.
(* I realize I say "attention to detail" flippantly as if it doesn't cost Garmin time and money. I absolutely recognize that it does. I guess I'm someone who pays too much attention to detail, even at my own day job as a software developer. So I'll spend a ton of time fixing stuff that may not be a priority for managers. Def a counter-productive trait, since I trade unpaid overtime for a tiny bit of satisfaction in making some niche product infinitesimally "better")
From what I can tell, Garmin’s car navigation line is no longer really viable. A friend bought one recently and it’s not a pleasure to use. It doesn’t compare to using a smartphone. There are still niche markets for them (for “height constrainted” vehicles and motorcycles).
Probably older people too. My mom still prefers her Garmin. I've also seen Uber drivers use Garmins as a backup to their phone's nav app, although I doubt any taxi/rideshare driver would use a Garmin alone.
This is another meaningless anecdote, but I actually know a guy who wears a Fenix *and* an Apple Watch.
Like one common complaint from users goes along the lines of "Forerunner 265 has training load [or some other feature they want], so why doesn't Venu 3 have it? It's 'just' a software feature and Venu 3 has all the hardware to support it."
Actually Garmin does things like that. For example in last updates for instinct 2, they added morning report and training readiness features. But i think it was because instinct 2 is watch of 2022.
And the opposite situation: 2x has multiband GPS but does not have SatIQ feature for some reason. I hope it will be added later.
hat's why the obvious move to make AMOLED screens the "default" Garmin screen type is a step in the wrong direction for me (only speaking for myself). Having said that, I definitely understand why. MIP is just not impressive. It wasn't impressive in 2013 and it isn't in 2023. It "performs" better in daylight, but that's not going to sell watches. I have to admit that AMOLED Garmins are so much prettier, but I don't like the tradeoffs. I'm sure it's the right move for Garmin, and in time most customers will either adapt or just hang on to their old devices.
I bought first Garmin watch in 2022. And it was instinct 2 solar. Before that i only used a long time Oregon 450. And one of the requirements for the watch was the presence of a transreflective display. Before garmin i did use watches with AMOLED display. And then my dad gave me an Amazfit bip and i fell in love with a transreflective display. But bip was very old and morally obsolete so i choose Garmin.
morally obsolete
Err. What?
For sure I personally couldn't do a better job than Garmin or any other successful company.
(Again, not about you or what you wrote.)
The point is to have critics take the success into consideration as to why their criticism might not be such a good idea.
If they don’t want to (indirectly) accuse the company of being some form of “stupid”, people have the option of accusing the customers of being “stupid” (“fan bois” or “sheeple”).
Probably older people too. My mom still prefers her Garmin. I've also seen Uber drivers use Garmins as a backup to their phone's nav app, although I doubt any taxi/rideshare driver would use a Garmin alone.
I think I’m pretty safe in calling products preferred by old people as “not viable” (for long)!
I know some older people don’t take advantage of the “smart” features of their smartphones. I could understand that they prefer what they are used to. But I don’t see why someone used to using an app for navigation would prefer the Garmin given the overly fussy and overly slow input.
The person who bought the Garmin instead of using their phone isn’t exactly old but seemed to think that using a Garmin was sort of “required”. They used apps but didn’t quite get the concept of using them in their car. Old(er) people might have some idea of “Garmin for navigation”. Young(er) people probably don’t.
—————————-
No doubt it happens but I don’t think I’ve been in an rideshare that used a Garmin. It’s fairly common to see them use two devices.
Actually Garmin does things like that. For example in last updates for instinct 2, they added morning report and training readiness features. But i think it was because instinct 2 is watch of 2022.
And the opposite situation: 2x has multiband GPS but does not have SatIQ feature for some reason. I hope it will be added later.
Interesting! But I just mean the general rule is Garmin doesn't bring all the software features to a given model "just because the hardware can support it". I don't think they have to, but some users think they should, because they see the newer business model of Apple (for example), where all current models typically have all the same software features. (But ofc there's exceptions.)
I mean if Garmin did that, there'd be no reason to have both 265 and 965, since the major differences are in software. That's why Garmin has 100+ watch models (not even including certain size variants) which support CIQ (released 8 years ago), and Apple released about 14 Apple Watch models in the same time period.
Obviously Garmin thinks they can make more money this way though, and I can't fault them for that. I realize that's very annoying to customers when a more expensive watch lacks a feature found in a less expensive watch because it's marketed differently tho (like going from a cheaper Vivoactive 3 to a more expensive 245 and losing the baro.) Now the 255 and 265 have a baro, but they're also more expensive than 245.
And one of the requirements for the watch was the presence of a transreflective display.
Yeah, I just don't think MIP is cool. You and I may like it but I don't think the it's what the majority of Garmin users want (or maybe prospective new users?). At least that's what Garmin's marketing team has determined.
I've been hearing ppl complain about it for 10 years: it's washed out, it looks old, "it doesn't look real" (real quote from a waitress around 2015 or so, before Apple Watch became ubiquitous), etc. Speaking of Connect IQ, many users would complain that a CIQ watchface looks a lot better in store screenshots compared to real life (on a MIP display), even though the both the screenshot and the real device are displaying the same 64 colors.
On reddit I see ppl saying that those who are opposed AMOLED are stuck in the past and it's the same as ppl who resisted touchscreen phones, etc.
My favorite metaphor for this is Garmin is to Apple Watch as Kindle is to iPad, but so far it hasn't convinced a single person I've talked to.
It's just like how touchscreen controls in cars are objectively worse than buttons and knobs but they're not going anywhere (I know one manufacturer has vowed to return to physical controls tho.)
It's also funny that Garmin tried market MIP as follows:
https://www.garmin.com.sg/minisite/garmin-technology/wearable-science/chroma-display/
Garmin Chroma Display is built to withstand the rigors of the outdoors. Focused on aiding performance rather than distracting brightness and superfluous colour, this display is easy to read under the harshest sunlight and has ultra-high battery endurance, allowing it to reliably function in the most challenging conditions.
But now they are doing a 180 and marketing a bright display with lots of colors, and ignoring the fact that it can't be read under sunlight without turning your wrist and waiting a split-second for the screen to light up. Speaking of UX, I see complaints that Garmin's wrist turn gesture detection isn't as good as Apple's, and I also see bug reports about how the gesture sometimes doesn't work at all.
Maybe Garmin will keep MIP as a niche for one or two product lines going forward, but as DC Rainmaker said, Forerunners aren't going back to MIP. "That ship has sailed."
It's also funny to me that I saw so many arguments on Forerunner 265/965 forums about this: "Just because the latest watches have AMOLED it doesn't mean MIP is going away. 265 is simply an 'AMOLED 255'!!!" People are either being disingenuous or living in denial. How would Garmin market a 975 MIP alongside 975 AMOLED?
- "AMOLED looks great and we figured out how to deliver decent battery life but here's an ugly old MIP option because reasons"? They spent all this energy convincing ppl that AMOLED is better than MIP (not that anyone needs convincing) but now they'll have to convince ppl that there's some reason to get MIP instead? That would be like admitting AMOLED is a mistake and telling people not to buy their AMOLED variant.
I'm guessing eventually MIP will only be available on Enduro and maybe Instinct.
Anyway it makes sense: Garmin devices are very expensive and Garmin needs a way to get ppl to buy the next model. (Probably doesn't help that so many people keep their Garmin device for 5-10 years.)
But when I got my 955, it was the first time I bought a Garmin device from an older generation, and it was because I wanted a MIP screen. So in a sense, Garmin has left users like me behind, and I guess I have to accept that. If it was almost any other device, I would def want a pretty AMOLED (or miniled/microled) display. Maybe one day watches will use microLED so they can stay at a brightness that's easily readable outdoors for longer periods of time (like for a whole 30 minute to 3 hour activity?).
But I don’t see why someone used to using an app for navigation would prefer the Garmin given the overly fussy and overly slow input.
It goes back to UX. But then again it also goes back to your point that it's probably not worth it for Garmin to revolutionize their legacy products when it might not pay off. (Because they can't directly compete with smartphone apps no matter what they do, the same as Garmin watches cannot directly compete with Apple.)
I think I’m pretty safe in calling products preferred by old people as “not viable” (for long)!
Agreed. That's why Garmin has to change or die. I've felt for the past few years that Apple could absolutely destroy Garmin in a heartbeat if they wanted to. Then again, I have seen a few runners go from Apple Watch to Garmin. I'm not sure if they did it because all their friends use Garmin (which is the main reason runners choose Garmin, IMO), or if it's because there's something that the genuinely disliked about Apple Watch.
Up until AMOLED, I've been pretty happy with all of the changes (if not the associated bugs). If I wanted a pretty display at the expense of functionality (being able instantly glance at a readable screen during a hard workout without doing a deliberate gesture which is poorly detected), I'd just get an Apple Watch. If I didn't run, that's the watch I'd get (if I wanted a watch.)
The point is to have critics take the success into consideration as to why their criticism might not be such a good idea.
If they don’t want to (indirectly) accuse the company of being some form of “stupid”, people have the option of accusing the customers of being “stupid” (“fan bois” or “sheeple”).
Since you brought it up, fanboyism is something that directly benefits companies, and they definitely encourage it through marketing. I think this has been going on since the 90s or even earlier.
Most recently, there's the discourse in North America about how you're a loser if you don't use iPhone. A popular tech site (which I won't name) has run more than one Very Serious Article about how people will ghost their friends and dates because they get green text message bubbles (which happens when an iPhone receives a text from a non-iPhone.) I have a cousin who says his sister shames him because he has an Android and it messes up the family group texts (she's married with a kid). I have an iphone but I try not to make it my identity.
Further in the past (but still on-going), there's the console wars: Sony vs Xbox.
Even in tech circles: Chrome vs Firefox. Intellij vs. VS Code. vi versus anything
Instead of simply using the product they like better, people tend to shame others for not liking the same stuff and/or suggest they're smarter / cooler / morally superior to people who chose a different brand.
I see the same thing with the 265/965 AMOLED vs MIP discussions.
- "If you dislike the move to AMOLED, you're a boomer who's stuck in the past"
- "If you dislike MIP you must be a superficial Apple fanboy who values form over function"
I'm obviously not immune to this stuff either.
Companies want us to make our identities about the products we consume, so they can't turn around and accuse of us being stupid on that basis. They want us to be stupid ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. (Not that we, including me, need any help from them.)
They don't sell products or even lifestyles anymore, they sell identities (just my opinion).
I don't disagree with any of your points in principle though.
