Devs at GARMIN, do you test software before releasing it?

philipshambrook said:

4989262 said:

GARMIN cant do stable firmware without problems?

What company can? What company does?

Tyrese said:

I agree with this post. A lot of people don't seem to understand that there's no such thing as a "perfect" electronic with perfect software. It simply doesn't exist.

Yet Garmin has a worse reputation for software quality and usability compared to certain other companies. Say what you want about Apple (I used to be a huge Apple hater, but I've come around in recent years), but they won't even incorporate certain technologies or make certain products unless they can get the UX right. Yeah, they've had famous missteps too (cough cough butterfly keyboard cough cough), but at least people talk about their issues. Wonder why zero endurance tech influencers or reviewers seem to be talking about the current optical HR issues, even the clickbait-y bloggers who love to post leaks?

I also think it's such a cop-out to say "pobody's nerfect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" as a response to any and all criticism of anything whatsoever. It's such a common theme online. I realize it's an overreaction to the obvious thing where people usually don't post unless they have something to complain about.

For the past 7 years (if not longer), every new high-end Garmin watch has released with a ton of bugs at launch, leaving early adopters as de facto unpaid beta testers.

More recently (maybe 2-3 years ago), DC Rainmaker mentioned that the Garmin testing process has gotten a lot better, and they've managed nip more bugs in the bud. Clearly that's an admission that at some point in the past, Garmin's software quality was unacceptably bad.

Well, what some people are saying is that it *still* isn't good enough.

Wonder why it's acceptable for a company to say "we had issues in the past", but it's never ok for customers to say "you have issues now" without a ton of backlash?

The irony is that even some of the biggest Garmin defenders on the forums will admit that Garmin has a reputation for being good at hardware and not so great at software. The implication is the software/UX part isn't so important.

[https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/06/competitor-software-instability.html]

To the casual observer, one might assume Garmin’s biggest competitors are Apple, Fitbit, and in certain cycling circles – Wahoo. But in reality, I’d disagree. Garmin’s biggest competitor is themselves. Or more specifically, their lack of focus on solving bugs that ultimately drive consumers to their competitors. In effect, my bet is the vast majority of time a person chooses a non-Garmin product over a Garmin one is not because Garmin lost the features or price battle. It’s because that person has been bit one too many times by buggy Garmin products.

And sure – that intro paragraph might seem unfair, after all I do record the vast majority of my own workouts on Garmin products without issue. But the reality is that the ‘Garmin bugginess’ is also true, and everyone knows it. The sole reason Wahoo has slowly gained market share in cycling GPS computers isn’t because they have a technologically more feature laden or better priced product (they don’t). It’s because they have a product that seemingly has less bugs (and also as everyone points out, because you can configure your data pages via phone app).

Yes that post is from 2019. And I guarantee you that in 2019, when people were complaining about Garmin, there were always defenders who would say:

- pobody's nerfect

- you only hear from people who have negative stuff to say. satisfied customers don't post

- it's your choice to buy garmin products

etc.

Tyrese said:

However if you choose to pay the asking price than that's on YOU.

Obviously there's stuff everyone here likes about Garmin products (some of us may be locked in, in one way or another) otherwise we would've all just switched to Apple Watch like most normies. We just wish Garmin was better.

Yes, it's on us that we keep buying Garmin products. From my POV, Apple will never release a product that's even close to a 5-button Garmin running watch, and none of Garmin's direct competitors deliver quite the same package. For example, afaik, none of Garmin's "classic sportswatch" competitors has spotify, except for older Suunto models.

Or do I have to buy marq series to have something solid?

Tyrese said:

So asking if the Marq series is a better option seems to be setting oneself up for an expensive disappointment if you've already concluded that Garmin has little to no interest in their software being functional...which is obviously not true. 

I agree that it's ridiculous to expect the most expensive Garmin devices to have better software quality simply because they cost more, since:

- the high price is pure marketing. ofc they have to change certain tangible things, like aesthetics, outward design and materials to "justify" the cost in the mind of the buyer, but it's not like they're going to reserve the "good software" for marq and leave the cheaper devices with the "bad software" (more on this below)

- the software used for MARQ is similar to the software used for lower priced devices. Fenix, Forerunner, Epix, and Marq all share a similar codebase, right?

- if Garmin can't produce excellent software for lower priced devices, why would we expect them to magically be able to do so for the more expensive devices?

- if Garmin could produce excellent software for expensive devices, why wouldn't they just put the same (or similar) software in cheaper device (unless their marketing strategy includes intentionally introducing bugs and poor UX to lower priced products)

I felt like OP wasn't 100% serious about buying a marq to get something solid. It felt like venting or a throwaway line to me, if not outright sarcasm.