Non-X Fenix 5 and maps: can Garmin be influenced not to dumb-down the watch?

Which app from Connect IQ do you mean? Which one has/delivers apps?

While I would have loved for the 5/5s to have built in maps, the stock navigation isn't too bad. Check out the app store, there is a wonderful app that will give you the maps that you are looking for. YOu may need to be a premium member, buit it's only a couple of dollars.

Thanks, but which app are you referring to here? My point in the OP is not that the 5/5s should have had built-in maps (even though I would of course have loved that too) but (i) that the POSSIBILITY to download maps, e.g. through the Basecamp 'send to device' option should have been there from the start and that (ii) even if Garmin did not actively support this option, they should allow for apps to use the available space so that 3rd parties can build apps which use real maps. (Note also that ability to download custom maps, rather than relying on say google maps, are really important for us hikers, since many remote areas are badly covered on standard maps. So 'the maps that you are looking for' is a very bald statement, I am afraid.)

EDIT: I now see that you have linked to dwMap. In that case I can for sure tell you that this is not what I mean. What I lack is mainly offline support viable for hiking, and what dwMap supplies is google maps when you have a phone connection. While that may be useful, it is not something to rely on when hiking in remote places. (Of course, I would not rely only on the tiny watch screen for navigation in any case. Hiking in remote places = real map required.)

No offense but honestly, the business strategy of Garmin is not something you can possibly judge misguided, lousy or even immoral. You bought the watch the way it is and it is clearly stated that this feature won't be included in the version you purchased. Even if its just their business strategy that the X Version is the only one getting the map option just by means of software this is something a lot of companies choose to do with a whole variety of products from Coffee machines to TV sets. Its called product portfolio strategy or in other words: doing business. I can see people complaining about features which are avertised but are not working as expected (GPS or WHR or Sleep tracking) but what you are complaining about is just more than you paid for. If you don't like their strategy (like i don't like the strategy of Nestle) just don't buy their products. But buying something and then complaining about the things you were fully aware while buying it is just stupid.

Maps require:

* a physically larger screen to make detailed map info visible
* a more powerful (and therefore battery hungry) processor to handle the extra graphic demands of rendering maps
* more memory to store the maps

This is not market segmentation by Garmin in deactivating some features in the software (although certainly they are guilty of that with some other models), but fundamental hardware design differences between the F5/F5S, and the F5X.

In short, the fundamental assumption in your post is, well, wrong.

Maps require:

* a physically larger screen to make detailed map info visible
* a more powerful (and therefore battery hungry) processor to handle the extra graphic demands of rendering maps
* more memory to store the maps

This is not market segmentation by Garmin in deactivating some features in the software (although certainly they are guilty of that with some other models), but fundamental hardware design differences between the F5/F5S, and the F5X.

In short, the fundamental assumption in your post is, well, wrong.

These are very interesting points, although I suspect that you are wrong on all three accounts. First, I would say that it is the resolution, not the physical size of the screen, which is important, and here the difference between the models are not big enough to make your first point valid. Secondly (or should I say 'thirdly'), as I have already stated, there is plenty of space to store maps already, and the memory of the devices are hardly crucial given the small map area that can be shown on the screen. Looking at my custom maps on Garmin Basecamp, I can see that 10 MB worth of maps will be much more than needed for a week-long hiking trip. Of course, I cannot have whole worlds stored in the watch, but for on-demand usage, there is plenty.

This leaves the second point. Here you might be correct. If that is so, then there is indeed a good technical reason for not allowing maps on the non-X models. If this point can be substantiated, I stand corrected, and promise to stop complaining. But I have not managed to find any tear-downs of watches or seen any CPU specifications supporting that conclusion, and the app developers I have talked to do not think that map rendering is impossible on the non-X models. So from what I can tell, it is not a technical issue in this case.

Which app from Connect IQ do you mean? Which one has/delivers apps?

Sorry, I thought I copied the link to the app. dwMAP is the app.

Space is an issue. The f5x has 14gb of total storage, and the f5 has a total of 54mb On the f5x, the standard maps take gigabytes.
Things like dwMaps can be used to download a specific map on the f5/f5s that's only available to that app, and that's about it.

Space is an issue. The f5x has 14gb of total storage, and the f5 has a total of 54mb On the f5x, the standard maps take gigabytes.
Things like dwMaps can be used to download a specific map on the f5/f5s that's only available to that app, and that's about it.

By the way the information about the storage capacity is directly listed on the official garmin product homepage which can be found by just googling "fenix 5" or "fenix 5x". Maybe it's something you should consider before buying anything and later crying about it afterwards, Someone who is not even capable of doing this simple step really should not file that kind of complaints. Not even speaking about using infamous words like "immoral" or "lousy" without knowing the first thing about the fact of the matter.

Fenix 3 had a processor with 180 MHz max frequency and 256 KB SRAM working as a RAM. 180 MHz is in HSRUN mode and consumes a lot of power. So it probably never works at that frequency. Than it can run at 150 MHz without high speed run mode but that consumes lots of energy too, so it's maybe running at less frequency. Also it had another processor with 25 MHz frequency and some kilobytes ram. Garmin Epix, the first watch with mapping capabilities had a processor running at 120 MHz and 32 MB RAM chip and 8 GB storage for maps. However, some CIQ benchmarks showed Epix scores higher than Fenix 3 though it has a slower processor. Probably Fenix 3 processor was set to lower speed than Epix to save power.

Now, Garmin Fenix 5X uses the same processor with Garmin Epix. Also has 32 MB RAM and 16 GB flash storage chip. Also these newer watches has another Cortex M4 processor by Maxim and it probably replaced the old 25 MHz Texas Instruments processor. I think that processor works for daily life like watchfaces, widgets general menus etc. And the other processor runs the GPS activities etc. Also CIQ benchmarks of Fenix 5X decreased after 6.xx update, apparently Garmin slowed down some processor.

Now, I think Garmin uses a similar system with Fenix 5 series too. They may be using the same Fenix 3 Freescale processor with the new Maxim processor. Then these each processor have 256 KB SRAM memories. Yes, 60 MB storage doesn't mean a big map but it'll still need some RAM space to load the map data, to process, to render and hold the rendered image. Even turning right on the map screen means re rendering the map or turning the image 90 degrees which still require a memory. I'm sure this amount is higher than the available amount on these non X watches. But then as I know first or second Fenix series had some basic map capabilities with mono colour displays. Then apparently there is some solution for this, like cropping the maps to a very small area with very little detail etc. A non detailed map like a background image may be good for simple use. But it seems Garmin preferred the other way and enables the map feature just for X series with full mapping capabilities. I find this logical too. I have the complete map in the watch and can use it whenever I want. I don't have to download some maps, crop them and copy them to watch. I can even use OpenStreetMap maps which are even more detailed and watch still can handle them as it has enough processign power and RAM capacity. More modern aproach than finding maps, cropping them, transferring to watch. And we wanted mapping for Fenix 3 and they didn't give it with updates, instead they gave Fenix 5X. Then I'm sure they won't do it with Fenix 5 too.

Sideloading the Map on the Fenix 1 and 2 was possible, but nut something wich could be called usable. I tried it and you couldn't recognise the track anymore if there where just a bit to much detail. So off the maps went.