6th Generation VO2Max

I'm not surprised at all, given that the Fenix 5 Plus has (what has now become) the previous generation HRM and GPS hardware.

I know most people expects a major change when we talk about the Fenix 6 (or whatever it will be called), but I wouldn't be surprised if the Fenix 6 arrives sooner than expected and basically gets the same physical design but with Elevate V3 and Sony GPS chipset. I guess the hardware change is also why we now see the 945 and not a 935 Plus.

If my guesswork on what might be in the Fenix pipeline turns out to be correct, I fully understand why they won't upgrade the Fenix 5 Plus with new software features. What else could they possibly be putting into the Fenix 6 to make people buy that instead of buying or keeping an "upgraded" Fenix 5 Plus?

If my guesswork on what might be in the Fenix pipeline turns out to be correct, I fully understand why they won't upgrade the Fenix 5 Plus with new software features. What else could they possibly be putting into the Fenix 6 to make people buy that instead of buying or keeping an "upgraded" Fenix 5 Plus?

I suspect you're correct - but that does mean a 12 month obsolescence on the Fenix 5 Plus - I think that this is pretty grim. They should bring across a few of the features (not all - that wouldn't make sense financially for them) over the course of up to at least 18 months.

I don't have an issue with buying fairly expensive watches but a lot of people do and I'm sure this will start to mean people will be less inclined to upgrade as often due to the price point. This is already happening in the mobile phone market so it's not a stretch of the imagination.

I agree with you to some extent, but I think we need to differentiate between cutting support and getting new features added to "old" devices. Even if we don't get the new features, I would say that calling the Fenix 5 Plus obsolete isn't really true.

I think also a major point here is the change of hardware "generation". Even if the FirstBeat metrics probably aren't hardware dependent, I understand the logic behind if Garmin choose to use this hardware change as what we might call a bigger generation change. That would further mean that the 945 could get whatever new features the Fenix 6 might bring as they would belong to the same generation, still the Fenix 5 Plus didn't get the features from the 945.

I would of course like to get the new features as well, but I also understand that Garmin will do what they can to make me buy a new device.

I mean who doesn't use a chest based HRM anyway?

Actually, quite a few if we judge by the amount of rage around these forums regarding OHR accuracy :p

I agree with you to some extent, but I think we need to differentiate between cutting support and getting new features added to "old" devices. Even if we don't get the new features, I would say that calling the Fenix 5 Plus obsolete isn't really true.

I think also a major point here is the change of hardware "generation". Even if the FirstBeat metrics probably aren't hardware dependent, I understand the logic behind if Garmin choose to use this hardware change as what we might call a bigger generation change. That would further mean that the 945 could get whatever new features the Fenix 6 might bring as they would belong to the same generation, still the Fenix 5 Plus didn't get the features from the 945.

I would of course like to get the new features as well, but I also understand that Garmin will do what they can to make me buy a new device.

Actually, IMHO, It's starting to look like, with Garmin's apparent 6 month "new device" schedule, they're beginning to look like Apple's watch. Catch those with the need for the "absolute newest, and with the most features, no matter the cost" syndrome. Only difference I see is the cost, the Garmins are roughly two times the cost of the Apple Watches. Yes, I have both, a Series 4 AW, and a Fenix 5+, and I do wear the fenix much more than the Apple, actually thinking of selling the Apple, but still, do we REALLY need a new watch every 6 months? Just my 2c worth on the new stuff.

I guess people will buy these watches whatever the release interval! The number will drop and heaven help Garmin if anyone produces a decent competitor that's cheaper.

Anyway, I thought about getting the 945 but I think I'll wait at least 6 months due to the new Sony GPS chipset. That is sure to be not great for quite a while (just as the move to Mediatek from SirfStar was) I'd love the huge battery life for Ultramarathons but I'd rather the GPS was reasonably ok. The Fenix 5 plus is pretty good as it is (much better on distance accrual than my 5X)

I suspect you're correct - but that does mean a 12 month obsolescence on the Fenix 5 Plus - I think that this is pretty grim. They should bring across a few of the features (not all - that wouldn't make sense financially for them) over the course of up to at least 18 months.

I don't have an issue with buying fairly expensive watches but a lot of people do and I'm sure this will start to mean people will be less inclined to upgrade as often due to the price point. This is already happening in the mobile phone market so it's not a stretch of the imagination.

They are running into a bit of a problem - they are unable to add much of value hardware wise, not enough to justify their release schedule, so are having to add the value via software.

I think Garmin would be well advised to backport the software only features over to the F5 / F5+ / 935 but maybe take their time doing it, so their new devices have some "exclusivity" time.

This makes me dismiss the MARQ range entirely. If they will deliberately not backport new software only features to a 9 month old device costing $800-900, is there any guarantee they would bother with a $1500 watch.

The smart thing to do now seems to be to buy on the used market.

It is what it is, when a product matures they have to find any way possible to push new products. If they can't significantly bump hardware, they will artificially limit software functionality. It's wrong though as it will probably force people to extend their upgrade cycle to get more value for money from their purchase. I already upgrade my smartphones every 4-5 years instead of 2 because unlike the first smartphones where each generation represented significant leaps in processing power and capability, these latest ones all work the same and meet my needs. I can browse the web and run my programs just as efficiently on my 2015 Samsung S6 edge+ as I can on a new model, yet I save $1000. Same with these watches, how can they sell the fenix 6 if the upgraded 5+ does about everything identically? The correct outcome for consumers would be to switch the release schedule of watches to every 2-3 years and fully commit to them software wise like they do with the edge series bike computers, not this planned obsolescence nonsense of an eight month old in warranty product that is top of the line already superseded functionality wise by cheaper watches.

Had I known the software support was going to be this pathetic, I would have bought a used original fenix 5 as the training aspects are more important to me then music and other gimmicks. The rationale for buying the latest version was that it is newer and will get new software algorithms that make it superior to the original. Clearly I won't be making this same mistake again with buying a plus series unit in the future.

Launching a new product also allows them to increase the price, something that would be frowned upon on an older model (even with software upgrades), all in the name of increased profit margins. The value just isn't there and I would be a fool to buy a new 945 now, let alone a Marq for $1500. I simply have higher support expectations for a product that is priced at this level and marketed at top athletes.

Hopefully my edge 1030 will co-exist well with the now obsolete 5+, as it will have the newer algorithm package. I'm hoping that when the .fit files for my indoor biking sessions recorded on the 5+ are pushed to the 1030 via TrueUp that it will be able to provide training load balance and most of the new stuff by parsing the .fit file, otherwise what's the point of using the 5+ anymore for cycling even though it is more convenient, and I don't have to move my 1030 between 2 bikes constantly.

otherwise what's the point of using the 5+ anymore for cycling

I've never seen the point of having one device for running and another for cycling. I get the bigger form factor of the Edge devices offers up more information. However, I've never seen the need to have any more than what I can see on my 305/310XT/910XT/920XT/935 and soon 945. Each to their own of course. No need to justify your decision to do this to me. I get it. I just don't see the need...yet :-)

But then I have been primarily a triathlete not specifically a cyclist.

As for product differentiation? It is difficult. I see the 5+ models as an interim step to cover off some of the issues reported with the GPS tracking of the 5 series; not as a separate model entirely. We'll see that new model when the successor to the 5 comes out - F6 or whatever it will be called. Perhaps the 945 is giving us an idea of what the F6(?) will be? Many folk have said that the 935 is the F5 in a plastic body. Is the 945 the same thing?

Launching a new product also allows them to increase the price, something that would be frowned upon on an older model (even with software upgrades), all in the name of increased profit margins.

That might be the case. Garmin are in business to make a return on investment for their shareholders so I don't have a problem with that.

At the end of the day, it is us, the consumers that make the decision to purchase or not based on where we perceive the value proposition to be. If we don't see value, then we don't buy. Complaining about price and features suggests you don't see the value whereas others might.

Overall, I think Garmin do a great job of back-porting features to older devices as well as providing ongoing support updates. I would suggest there are 100s of thousands of users who agree. if they didn't Garmin would soon be out of business.