When firmware developers add batery charge in %?

Sup4you said:

Don't be freelance advocate to someone's (firmware designer, it's obvious) fail.

I am not an advocate, I am making fun of it

However, unfortunately although it looks absurd, it is the reality - the evolution of software indeed goes in the opposite direction that one would expect - it is going to less and less customizable, and more and more primitive interfaces. Software is increasingly made for noobs, but in fact it is comprehensible, because it lowers the load on the support lines, because the more sophisticated, and the more customizable the software is, the more problems the support has to handle.

This is probably true. However, I would risk to say that most instinct users do know how to read.. and actually do like data, which is why they bought the watch in the first place. In a watch where the duration of the battery is a strong feature, allowing the users to better manage the usage and charges, would make perfect sense. Obviously Garmin knows all if this.

Actually, this might indicate that Garmin is concerned about exposing some issues with their product by empowering the users with data.

As other people said, the percentage on the app would be valuable.

How to initiate process of implementing user's desire to see % in App? Do someone know how to make Garmin start listening to their customers?

This is the best place to start.

www.garmin.com/.../

Sup4you said:

Do someone know how to make Garmin start listening to their customers?

The best way to do it, is by carefully reading product descriptions and reviews before you choose the product, and selecting only the one that meets your needs. If Garmin (or any other company) sees that there is no interest for devices missing certain features, they will be more inclined to do something about it.

Buying a product not meeting your needs, and expecting the manufacturer will retrofit it with all what you orginally wanted and did not pay for, is not very likely to happen.

trux said:

The best way to do it, is by carefully reading product descriptions and reviews before you choose the product, and selecting only the one that meets your needs.

1. While that is great advice for major features it's not practical to do so for all features, especially with something with as many features and settings as a smartwatch.

2. Even if you determine that a product has a particular feature it's not practical to determine that it works in a way that makes sense to you until you've bought that product and used it. 

3. Sometimes you don't realize that you need a particular feature until you've lived with the product for some time, days, weeks or even months later. 

trux said:

Buying a product not meeting your needs, and expecting the manufacturer will retrofit it with all what you orginally wanted and did not pay for, is not very likely to happen.

Making a request for a feature is not only reasonable but should also be welcomed by the manufacturer. After all the manufacturer doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. Listening to customers and acting on their suggestions can improve their product line, increase customer satisfaction and their competitiveness. Expecting them to retrofit that feature in a current model may well be unrealistic, but one shouldn't be criticized for asking. 

Bylo Selhi said:

Making a request for a feature is not only reasonable but should also be welcomed by the manufacturer. After all the manufacturer doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. Listening to customers and acting on their suggestions can improve their product line, increase customer satisfaction and their competitiveness. Expecting them to retrofit that feature in a current model may well be unrealistic. 

I agree to a point.  In this case, changing the battery life display; or giving the user an option on which to use, is minor and does benefit both the consumer and manufacturer.  But not every request benefits both.  A lot of request here on these forums are for features that may crossover product lines that doesn't benefit the manufacturer.  IE, request for VO2Max just because another watch has it, or because someone runs a lot with their Instinct and they feel it's essential.  Sorry, but those type of excuses don't cut it.  Garmin uses that feature for running watches (Forerunner series) or higher end models like the Fenix series.  If that feature is important to you, then buy the correct device.  This is just one example, but there are several request for features that are basically "I want all this, but I only want to pay for that".   

Of course, but it doesn't stop people from requesting features from higher end devices that their device is capable of supporting.  Add cycling power support to the 245 and you now have a 745 or 945 minus maps for a fraction of the price.  But why not?  It's simple to do and it'll make my watch so much better.  What good is VO2Max if you don't have training status or training load?  And if you have training status and training load you need running metrics from a Stryd or HRM-Run/Tri to train better or what's the point right?.  Well, I now have my running metrics from my Stryd and or HRM-Run/Tri, so I need running power.  Since I now have running power, I see no reason why I can't have cycling power on my new cheap Fenix, I mean Instinct too.  Where does it end?  I guess if one really, really wants something, they'll always find some reason why it should be added and we should buy into their reasoning.    Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for adding features, but only to an extent.

Bylo Selhi said:

Nevertheless the manufacturer should welcome feature requests

They do. You can submit your requests at Submitting an Idea to Garmin. Here on the user forum it is more or less useless, just annoying the regular visitors with ever repeating posts.

However, it is up to Garmin to see whether the development and support costs are worth of the change.