Software Update

Talk about timing, I’m really not stalking these forums...

...on 5/1/18 they released 2.50. There was a bug with the Mk1 and being on an airplane, so on 6/25/18 they released 2.60. So, they have the ability of releasing “quicker” updates.

With it now heading towards the 6 month mark since the last update, no end in site for the problems that exist and no official communication, then I have to assume that this project called the Mk1 is done. They may release a 2nd version but under the MARQ series.

As someone who was a software developer for 20 years I can tell you that while testing is important, defects should be eliminated much earlier in the development phase than testing.  Additionally, there are multiple phases of testing (unit, function, system and production) and again defects should be detected and eliminated early in those phases rather than later.

Testing is only limited in what it can find and you can't test all situations, especially with a production test.  i.e. once you've got the software on the watch, how can you test for all possibilities of depth profiles, varying NDLs, ascent rates, etc. It just can't be done. 

From what I can see from the sorts of defects that have surfaced, Garmin development do not have not follow a rigorous process at all.  For example, reintroducing defects that were already fixed is one of the worst things a development team can do.  First of all, the source code version control system should prevent it from happening.  Second, there should have been test cases for the fixes to the defects added at all stages of testing and the reintroduced defects should have been detected very early in the development.

I'm even astounded at how long it takes for support/development to even understand the defects being described to them.

When I first got my Mk1 I had no trouble recommending it as a primary (and only dive computer).  Now I would only recommend it as a secondary/backup.

I am pretty much in the same boat, and while I do not discourage my students from buying the Descent I do not really give it a strong endorsement. I tell them it has a few issues and Garmin needs to address those issues before I would recommend it as a primary dive computer. 

speculation

I have been thinking about the differences between Shearwater and Garmin with respect to the development environment each uses.

I would expect that Shearwater, as they ONLY make dive computers, would have an environment very specific to building and testing dive computers. They'd have all sorts of software and hardware simulators that allow them to create specific conditions allowing them to simulate any dive condition they require. I would imagine they'd even have pressure chambers so they could easily send a computer to 30m if required. This would allow them to quickly and easily verify any changes and fixes.

Garmin build all sorts of different devices with GPS being their main feature. Do Garmin have the same sorts of things?  Can Garmin easily simulate a dive to 30m?  One would hope they could but I somehow doubt it.  Perhaps this is why it takes so long for updates.

/speculation

Well, regardless of what Garmin’s “testing procedures” are for this watch, the explanation or lack of, or the lack of updates and/or even beta’s for this watch is pathetic. See, this watch and it’s internals are based on the 5x with some differences due to diving. From an “Activity” standpoint, you have a few that are specific to the Mk1...obviously but otherwise is exactly the same. The explanation of “We need time to properly test, due to this sport of diving” is weak at best.

I haven’t seen one person post this, but why is it that all the other variations of the “5” or MARQ families have beta’s? They all have one common “Activity” that could also be considered a dangerous or “Life Support” activity....Jumpmaster (Skydiving). Would it be safe to assume that if changes were made, that it could indirectly affect this “Activity” like they claim with Diving? Would it be safe to assume that if someone was using this watch to Skydive, that if the information was incorrect that it could directly contribute to an accident?

Now, I’m not a Skydiver. So I’ve never used that Activity but it’s based on the same principles of keeping you safe with the correct information. Again, based on this principle any watch with this activity should be tested and should not have beta’s and should take a lot longer to put forth an update. 

Hmm...

We have a significant software update planned to release in the near future. Sorry for the radio silence regarding the upcoming update, I have taken over for Heath on the Descent forums so we can have a stronger Dive support for the Descent on these forums. We will post an update with more detailed information regarding the software update as soon as it is available.

Garmin-Nate, 

There are a number of dive professionals on this forum, most of us have been here since shortly after the Descent was released. While the support has improved, the bar was so low early on that someone who knew how to spell Scuba might have been an improvement. We are approaching 6 months since the last update, and major bugs that have been in the Descent since it's release are still not fixed. 

I understand the need to fully test the software, but as someone who has written and executed software test plans in a previous life, I am really not sure this is being done. Some of the bugs are so glaring that even simple testing or user feedback would have caught them. Garmin is also fairly non-responsive to users when bugs are reported and then verified by other users. For a product that divers are trusting their life to, I find this completely unacceptable. Pretty much every other dive computer manufacturer is able to quickly address bugs when they arise.  

Given my experience with the Descent, I have a hard time recommending it to my students as anything more than a secondary dive computer. I have also sold several dozen Shearwater dive computers in the last 6-months because I give them a strong recommendation. Why? because they just work, the company is extremely responsive, and when in the rare times a bug does arise they address it quickly. 

I was asked by someone at Garmin months ago what it would take to make me want to buy a Descent Mk2. My response was it really depended on how Garmin supported the Mk1 going forward, and that actions speak louder than words. Today I would have to say Garmin's lack of action has been deafening.

Mark

Hi Nate, I appreciate you coming on and giving the Descent owners an update. That’s an “Un-Garmin” like move. Thank you.

Here’s the issue with this type of update schedule and  these “significant” updates every 5-6 months. If you are releasing 30 adds/fixes/changes, half of them could have been released 3 months ago. So when there are issues with THIS update (which don’t be fooled, there will be), then we now have to wait ANOTHER 6 months for a resolution. 

There was “extensive” testing done with the 6.00 update, yet that rendered numerous problems once it was made live. Thought has to be given to this update model for the Descent, as it’s very much ostracizing its current customers. Future customers that will be spending $1k+ for this watch, will do their due diligence beforehand. Should their research bring them here, well yea...Shearwater, ScubaPro will gain another customer.

Hey guys, I just wanted to let everyone know there is a sensor hub update that was just released for the Descent. While we are still working on the main software update we wanted to release the sensor hub update first to fix an issue that is outlined in the change log.