Instinct 2x has API lvl 3.4.0 instead of 4.2.0

Another "old-school" thing I like about Garmin devices is they can be used completely offline.

Contrast with an Apple Watch where you can't even see your workout history on the watch itself. I also saw some stat about how the vast majority of Apple Watch users always have their phone with them, so most app devs don't even bother supporting LTE. This suggests to me that AW users either don't run a lot, or they take their phone with them when they run.

For me the whole point of wearing a Garmin is so I don't need to take my phone with me on runs. (Yeah, I realize the LTE features on Garmin which even have LTE are slim to non-existent, but my point is more about how Apple users and Garmin users may have different needs or usage patterns, for the moment.) To be fair, lots of Garmin users take their phone with them on runs too, so I may just be in the minority.

So I guess I kinda have two minds about this stuff. There's a handful of old-school things I like about Garmin devices, but there's a bunch of old-school stuff that really aggravates me, too (especially around the Connect app and website.)

I will say that I have tried Apple Watch, and it's def a joy to use with a pretty display. Little things like gesture detection and scrolling are subtly better than Garmin (but it all adds up to a more enjoyable UX). It just doesn't meet my needs for running. But who even actually "needs" a smartwatch for running? Some elites prefer to use a timex, for reasons which seem to pretty valid to me (one elite complained that trying pace their race based on unreliable GPS pace was worse than pacing based on a simple stopwatch).

dpawlyk said:

Err. What?

I'm sorry, I didn't express myself well. I meant that the functionality of the beep is very outdated, or has remained at a primitive level. And that it is not suitable as a sports watch. Unfortunately.

FlowState said:

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.

You are missing the point.

Some people tar all Apple customers as "fanbois" or "sheeple" (my point is that this is as wrong as implying the company is "stupid").

Sure, there are some of these sorts of people might exist but it's not likely that Apple is successful because of them. Pretty much all companies sell their products as part of a "lifestyle". Including Garmin.

FlowState said:

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.

You are likely being played here, unfortunately.

I read the same crap and wondered what the heck they were talking about.

Another rule is to not derive statistical conclusions from what you read in the media.

I suspect a very strong majority of Apple users don't care about this. The media is designed to take a few "interesting" examples and suggest that it's typical or the norm.

FlowState said:

Even in tech circles: Chrome vs Firefox. Intellij vs. VS Code. vi versus anything

An ocean of people exist who don't do this. And you are talking about a few drops.

FlowState said:

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.

How many people are actually doing this? Or are there a bunch of people who quietly don't that you are ignoring?

dpawlyk said:

A lot of content was lost (all the 800 and 810 content).

What a pain.

dpawlyk said:

An ocean of people exist who don't do this. And you are talking about a few drops.

dpawlyk said:

I suspect a very strong majority of Apple users don't care about this. The media is designed to take a few "interesting" examples and suggest that it's typical or the norm.

That's fair but I do know "normal" people who do think like this. I realize "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" tho.

The iphone thing is definitely localized to North America, as far as I know. Androids are actually more popular worldwide.

dpawlyk said:

You develop IQ apps. You don't like the "monolithic software platform" that much!! Smartphones (and the better smartwatches) are more of general computing devices. Garmin devices are less so.

Yeah, only for Garmin devices (and arguably only because I'm used to it and I'm locked in.) I do sync with Strava and I use quite a few 3rd party sites/apps which sync with either Garmin or Strava, so I don't like being totally locked into Garmin. I also have local backups of my data.

If I started running today, it's not clear to me that I would necessarily use a Garmin. (Although a lot of the more "serious" hobby jogger groups tend to use Garmins. Again it's not clear whether it's only because that's what everyone else is already using and/or it's the watch they already own. People do seem to tend to keep their Garmins for a lot longer than they'd keep a phone or a smartwatch.) I have a 955 but I know people who still use a 235 (and tbh I don't really need anything better than that.) The earlier Forerunner 2xxs kinda sucked for me though (e.g. no wrist HR or wrist cadence, stiff/unresponsive buttons that break easily etc.)

I just rationalize my continued use of Garmin devices with the following points:

- they're not perfect but they still do stuff I like which Apple Watches can't deliver yet (or maybe ever)

- all my data is already in Garmin Connect

This discussion reminds of the WSJ article entitled "The Cult of Garmin" (or something similar), which tried to explore why endurance athletes love their Garmins, much to the bafflement and astonishment of outsiders.

It's pretty funny since Apple fanboys have been described as cult followers for a long time. I remember when Steve Jobs died and some ppl commented that they felt a greater loss than if someone in their own extended family had passed. (Yeah, more anecdotes haha.)

When I started running in 2013, I did think it was nuts that people would wear a GPS watch on their wrist to run, but after awkwardly running my first 5k race with a phone, I realized that it made sense, at least for running. I could stop manually entering runs in an Excel sheet, plus I'd be able to record all my long run routes (since I hate trying to memorize stuff like that.)

As usual, Apple took a niche concept (wearing a gps computer on your wrist) and made it popular.

FlowState said:

This discussion reminds of the WSJ article entitled "The Cult of Garmin" (or something similar), which tried to explore why endurance athletes love their Garmins, much to the bafflement and astonishment of outsiders.

It's pretty funny since Apple fanboys have been described as cult followers for a long time. I remember when Steve Jobs died and some ppl commented that they felt a greater loss than if someone in their own extended family had passed. (Yeah, more anecdotes haha.)

The NYT often reports things that a couple of rich people in the Hamptons do is "a trend".

If you believe what the press says, everybody is getting stabbed on NYC subways.

Is "cult" even a fair word to use? Apple has a lot of customers. It shouldn't be a surprise that some of them are "out there".

More work (much more work) would need to be done to establish that these sorts of cases were common or typical. The media rarely (never) does this work.

Again, one should be very wary about drawing statistical conclusions from stories in the "newspaper".

FlowState said:

When I started running in 2013, I did think it was nuts that people would wear a GPS watch on their wrist to run, but after awkwardly running my first 5k race with a phone, I realized that it made sense, at least for running.

Seems fairly obvious that a watch would be better than a phone here. Of course, there's also some sense in using the device one already has rather than have to buy another.

(I read an analysis a long while ago that the weight of a phone could have an impact on winning/losing a marathon.)

DC Rainmaker:

www.dcrainmaker.com/.../garmin-vivoactive-5-in-depth-review-now-with-an-amoled-display.html

To the surprise of many, Garmin has just announced the Vivoactive 5 – which is essentially a mini-Venu 3 (both in price and features). Garmin has killed off the MIP-based display of the previous Vivoactive series, instead adopting a more modern AMOLED display.

This proves my point about MIP vs AMOLED. The perception is "MIP is old, AMOLED is new" and the reality is that Garmin will continue to get rid of MIP screens wherever they can.

I'm sure DCR is a nice guy, but just like everyone else, he'll gloss over the disadvantages of AMOLED ("it's great once you get used to turning your wrist!"), except to state that it probably isn't good for cyclists who want to mount their watch on the bike since they can't glance down and read the screen.

To be fair, the majority of people are probably pretty happy with AMOLED.

dpawlyk said:

Seems fairly obvious that a watch would be better than a phone here.

As a new runner in 2013, it sounded weird to me that people would wear a GPS on their wrist. That's all I'm saying. Didn't say I was right or it made sense. The fact that I soon bought a Garmin demonstrates that.

But then again, some elites prefer to use a Timex.

The Fenix 7 pro devices, released just a few moths back, are MIP

FlowState said:

This proves my point about MIP vs AMOLED. The perception is "MIP is old, AMOLED is new" and the reality is that Garmin will continue to get rid of MIP screens wherever they can.

I tried to do my part!

forums.garmin.com/.../display-quality