Detailed statistics for app download and usage

TL;DR I think you just take the per-device percentages and guess at a total which makes all the per-device numbers work out to integers.

flocsy🤠 said:

Can you enlighten me how do you estimate the total downloads from the percentages of the devices (+ I guess, from the displayed downloads "bulk" - 1k/10k/..)?

I think this has been discussed before, but I assume that:

- this only works for apps which don't support very old devices [where per-device download stats aren't gathered] - i.e. pre-CIQ 3, such as FR235

- the dev selects the per-device download stats and presses "Show All", to see all available percentages

- the dev assumes that per-device download stats refer to installs and not updates [I'm not sure about this either way, to be honest, but this method would only work if this assumption is true]

- from the available percentages and the "estimated" total install number (that's shown under the app title) the developer can guess the actual total install number X by choosing X in the range given by the estimated total, such that all of those percentages work out to an integer number of installs (or as close to integers as possible).

Ofc this has to take into account the fact that the percentages themselves seem to be rounded to the nearest 2 decimal places, so you may not get an exact integer number of installs.

Unfortunately all my apps support old devices, so I can't try this method.

Based on what eau_de_vie said, it sounds like the numbers are normalized so that this method just gives you back the estimated total download number anyway. e.g. Say the total shown to the user is 10K+, but your real number of downloads is exactly 25000. Then all numbers would be presumably be divided by 2.5 (and perhaps rounded to the nearest integer), before the percentages are calculated.

If that's true, this method would probably not produce any additional information about the total installs than is already given. [Which would make sense, since Garmin probably thought of that.]

As a totally fake example, say I have an app which has "50+" downloads [which I assume to mean between 50 and 99, inclusive], and it's available for 3 devices, with the following download percentages

FR255: 20%
FR955: 22%
FR965: 58%

You can use excel or google sheets to try to figure out the total install number by guessing.

A1: total install guess [e.g. start with 50]
B1: =A1 * .2
C1: =A1 * .22
D1: =A1 * .58

In this case, I think I would find that 50 is in the only guess between 50 and 99 which produces integer install numbers for all 3 devices.

Obviously this would be more efficient if you wrote code that just finds the smallest number which produces the closest fit. And you would be a lot more confident about your guess if you have much more than 3 devices.

Anyway, I hope that's what the method is, and not something totally different that I didn't think of haha.

flocsy🤠 said:

Can you enlighten me how do you estimate the total downloads from the percentages of the devices

When you see a percentage like 20.67%, it comes from a rational number P/Q, whereby P is the number of downloads for this device and Q is the total download count. Only certain pairs of P/Q will produce numbers that round up to 20.67. Then move on to the next percentage. The P will change, but Q should stay the same. Rinse and repeat and eventually you will have the Q narrowed down to a single number, which will be the smallest possible download count that yields displayed percentages.

BUT, as I've mentioned above, Q will always end up being 10000, because Garmin appears to be normalizing download counts using 10k as a base before computing percentages.

Are you guys for real?! doing a tremendous work to scrap percentages and doing calculation so you can guess the download number? really?! wasting precious time for a basic functionality! Not all of us have such luxury!
All I see is that Garmin doesn't care about the developers and their needs which will only lead more of us abandoning their ecosystem
And That's why their store looks so empty despite having great hardware and API
Personally, I stopped publishing new Apps despite the fact that I have many new ideas
In the past months I only did bug fixing and user requests on my existing apps whenever I get contacted or notified by an user. that's all

They should consider shifting their focus on the developers if they want to survive in a competitive market

BenChaab said:

Garmin doesn't care about the developers

I am a relative newcomer to the ecosystem and this  ^  has become abundantly clear in a matter of weeks.

I had high hopes for the platform and lots of excitement when I just started messing with it. Devices are nice, docs are decent, development is not hard. But Garmin has ZERO interest in engaging with their dev community. They just don't give a damn. That much is now bloody obvious.

And that's without getting into the sorry state of the IQ Store overflowing with cookie-cutter crap from "prolific developers". Why bother creating anything for the platform if it will be swallowed by a tsunami of junk.

The state of affairs is really disappointing, as it is discouraging.

BenChaab said:

if they want to survive in a competitive market

Yeah, well, not sure who are their competitors though.

BenChaab said:

They should consider shifting their focus on the developers if they want to survive in a competitive market

I def share your frustration with Connect IQ problems (and Garmin problems in general). I'm probably one of their biggest critics (to the point where ppl tell me to stop complaining).

Having said that, most "serious" runners I know wear a Garmin, but the vast majority have never heard of Connect IQ. If they use a Connect IQ app at all, it's probably Spotify or a watchface.

CIQ apps are hobbled on purpose, and I don't think that's ever gonna change. I don't think CIQ is supposed to be a selling point for Garmin, I think it's just another marketing bullet point ("see, we have apps too").

flocsy🤠 said:

Yeah, well, not sure who are their competitors though.

Well it seems that their direct competitors (in the endurance sports niche) are smaller players like Suunto, Polar, and Coros.

As far a the regular fitness/smartwatch market goes, I think it's pretty obvious that Garmin is afraid of Apple Watch. Notice how, in recent years, Garmin added touch, music and AMOLED to almost all of its watches. They also released a watch with a square form factor (Venu Sq) which looks oddly like an Apple Watch, after years of releasing only round watches.

The Apple Watch Ultra surely hasn't gone unnoticed by Garmin, either.

I know plenty of casual runners who switched to Apple Watch, and plenty of people who started out with Apple Watch (especially people who only care about general fitness, and/or people who don't run or cycle religously). I also know lots of people who are baffled at why anyone would wear a Garmin (not just in 2024, but in 2019 and earlier). There's a reason WSJ published an article about the "cult" of Garmin. Non-Garmin users (the vast majority of people) don't really get it.

Even a lot of the fairly competitive runners I know only use their Garmin as a Strava syncing machine. If you aren't really using most of the features of the watch, or even looking at the watch during an activity, why prefer Garmin over Apple? Apple Watch is much better as a general purpose smartwatch, especially when it comes to apps.

I think most Garmin-using runners use Garmin because when they started running, all their runner friends were using Garmin. If someone were to start running today, or in 5-10 years, would most of their friends be using Garmin?

A lot of the coaches and age groupers I've talked to will openly say they don't use 99% of the features on their watch. Again, they're just using Garmin because everyone else uses it.

Let's just say that when I go running in a group, there's a good chance many people are wearing Garmins. In literally any other situation (e.g. pickup basketball), the chance that anyone else is wearing a Garmin is roughly 0. There's always a good chance of seeing Apple Watch in any given situation though.

FlowState said:

Suunto, Polar, and Coros

That's how I see it too. But those are not competition from the CIQ point of view as far as I know.

Apple is closing the fitness gap (some might say they're better in certain things). I don't think I'll ever try it, I and my whole family use Android phones, but certainly not before they'll have at least 1 week of battery.

Yeah I think Apple's dominance is largely a North American thing (I'm in Canada), to the point where some ppl think you're a loser if your text message bubbles are green (indicating that you used an Android to send a message to their iPhone). Yes, "serious" (American) tech sites have written earnest articles about how you'll get ghosted by dates or excluded from group chats if you have an Android.

I do know a handful of ppl under 25 who have an Android, but I think they're in the minority.

Apple isn't perfect, but I do like their usability-focused approach to design and functionality. They're famous for not introducing features (or products) if they think the usability will be bad.

Contrast with Garmin, which has a bunch of features that sound great on paper but just don't work properly irl (e.g. real-time settings for activity data pages are broken, volume for workout voice notes is too low, etc.)

I'm also thinking of the DCR Fenix 8 review where he records a voice note on a Fenix 8 which is lying on a table. He proceeds to play the note back, and the sound from the speakers is so low that he literally has to put his ear to the watch to hear it. Great unscripted moment.

Yeah, I think weak speaker volume is a problem on Apple Watch as well.

It is kind of telling that Apple Watch disables music playback from the built-in speaker though (it's said that they do so because they know the quality won't be good enough). They care more about usability (or their image) then they care about giving users a feature which some of them might want regardless of quality.

Garmin has the opposite problem where they'll give users features with bad quality, just to say that they have the feature.

My example of the Fenix 8 thing was just meant to illustrate the problem, not to insinuate that Fenix 8 has a worse speaker than apple watch, or to make an apples-to-apples comparison. But obviously the video was done in a quiet room, under ideal conditions. And whether or not it's fair, it's just funny to see a reviewer show off this cool new selling point of Fenix 8 (voice notes), but it doesn't seem to work as well as expected. He obviously wasn't expected to have to suddenly put his ear to the watch to hear the audio playback. The audio is noticeably low in the video, as well.

As far as an apples-to-apples comparison goes, I have tried recording and playing back a voice note on an Apple Watch, and the playback is audible at max volume in a quiet room, with the phone on a table in front of me. No need to put my ear to the watch. I can also hear it fine when I'm standing up with arms to my sides, wearing the watch on my left wrist.

The problem with low volume for workout voice notes applies to connected ear buds (I have an FR955 which doesn't have a speaker). It's bad enough that I just don't use the feature, although I was excited when it first came out.