But in absolutely no way, should they do so just because it may be something as simple as a software update.
I understand that some feel that it is not is Garmin's best interest to upgrade the features on the Fenix line but I dont agree. The issue is that Garmin is still selling this line of watches and unlike other tech like iPhone, when they make a product enhancement, they typically port over some of those features to the older models to retain sales of those older products.
My assumption is that with the new addition of the 945, they will no longer be able to sell any of the Fenix line. But by providing some of the software features found in the 945, they can still maintain the sales of the Fenix line while still selling the 945.
This is a business but a good business person doesn't cannibalize their top tier product line with a less expansive product with more features and expect to retain sales of older models. I would recommend updating the software to provide features found in the 945 to the current line of watches that would support the updates for free on new watch sales while providing the update as a paid upgrade for existing owners. Lifetime value of the customer is the way to look at sales, otherwise, like some have said, due to the high switching cost of getting the new features, customers will wait longer to replace their watch. We have seen this will iPhone sales slowing due to a lack of functionality upgrades to newer products.
bclayton You make a lot of good arguments, and it makes no difference to me if any additional features are added. I would never refuse any freebie's and I too hope that I get them. There's nothing wrong with requesting additional features using proper channels. That's what the product suggestion website is for, not the forum. What I hate is when a topic like this comes up; and not excusing you of this, but it leads to comments like "Garmin should", I feel "cheated", "lesser devices have it", I paid for a "premium watch", "customer loyalty", etc... If you look at these comments from a neutral point of view, anyone can see none of these are required, therefore false. But, you have you're "entitled" group who make those comments. They only see thing's their way because they're wearing blinders and have nothing but self interests in mind and they respond back with comments like "Garmin supporter", "you must be paid by Garmin", etc... Nope! I feel this way about every company. It's irrelevant if Apple, Sony, Samsung, whomever, did so in the past. That great. Were they required? No. So, why should Garmin be required? If they do so, that's also great. Anyway, I'll continue to remind people that they are owed nothing because like them, I'm posting my opinion too.
