Garmin is digging their own grave

What are Fenix 7 users being "cut out" from? All of the features the watch was sold with still work. People are big mad because their not getting the metrics that shipped with later models?

Let me educate you all on how Garmin works so we can end this pointless nonsense once and for all. Up until very recently, Garmin have not had other streams of revenue following the purchase of the device. You buy the Fenix and that's it from you for the next 3-5 years. The only way that Garmin are able to entice you into spending more is via the introduction of new features on their new devices.

Apple and Google work in a very different way. They make money whilst you're buying apps, subscribing to music and video services etc. The phone is a vehicle for additional revenue, hence they have an interest in keeping that old phone going in order to keep you with the brand.

Garmin are gradually transitioning over to the same model as you've seen with Connect+. They'll likely have subscriptions that allow you to unlock something like the Fenix 8s features on your Fenix 7 as well if you wish, but of course you'll complain about that as well. In the end you just want free stuff and money to be made miraculously from someone else. We get it.

Happy to enlighten.

Youre comparing like watches re UI/OS, while there is commonality it's not like samsung or apple in terms of a unified experience os/ experience, that's what I think is changing the problem with the current os is it's too linear, even with a touch screen it's organisation is cumbersome and not very intuitive with nuanced settings buried in myriad settings in different areas, maybe that's the reason for the change that next watches will look and behave v differently, hopefully cheaper because they're not luxury watches though priced and marketed as such, changing every 3 years is ridiculous imo at those prices and that look which is a kind of Gshock type look mostly

Your answer is presumptious tosh, the watches have great functionality for what they do, best in class, but its still ott in price, some core functions should be free but a subscription model is warranted for others, such as gym exercises, a workout programme or other niche areas, special metrics, ai stuff whatever

back to price, it's not a luxury watch it's a tech tool that is being upgraded constantly, if you want people to continue buying the watches it's os should be standardised ie exactly same ax all watches, with restrictions based on target audience and price point i guess, and OS seamless with most of bugs worked out before not after, and they should be cheaper, and they really need to make them look nicer imo, id really like to see garmin succeed but if they don't change their approach it's possible it could be lost to plain vanilla bs makes like the above

There's an italian dive computer make called ratio, they have smart dive watches with functionality for recreational through to tech features.  Exactly the same the same watch, to upgrade you just pay and download the extra software, garmin should be doing similar imo in addition to subscription, and if they're smart they'd make their metrics features available on non garmin watches, thats best way to maintain if not expand market share imo

My biggest issue so far has been the battery life on my 47mm F8 Solar. Yes thankfully all the other bugs from launch seem to be ironed out however no matter the firmware I can get nowhere close the advertised battery life. Garmin said they were working on the issue early on but it's been radio silence ever since. I've turned just about every setting off, done resets, and everything else that users here told me to do to increase the battery life but 10 days is the max. Previous models never had this issue, and other companies estimates are usually spot on and reflect general usage. 

Same settings for both; I get 19 days on the F8 Solar (vs advertised 21) and 16 (as advertised) on the F8 AMOLED.  Close enough gap to start preferring the AMOLED esp when considering its better graphics (screen size + rendering) and wearability (lighter + lays flatter and doesn't snag on sleeves as much). 

I've always been Team MIP but this is compelling. 

7000518 said:

Youre comparing like watches re UI/OS, while there is commonality it's not like samsung or apple in terms of a unified experience os/ experience

I don't understand this statement. I was originally responding to this:

7000518 said:

I think the move to a unified OS accross devices should solve many of these issues, I cant believe it's only recently being resolved

6452749 said:

Pls tell us more about this unified OS plan? Is it official? 

7000518 said:

I meant UI rather than os, but the lack of backwards compatibility suggests it's effectively a reworking of the OS, esp given the performance issues, map loading amongst others, on the fenix 8 with the new UI (now a kind of meta for sports enthisiasts) which lead me to wonder if performance issues was because of this, though looking at the fenix 8 teardowns I dont see why those changes can't be backwards compatible with fenix 7 or similar, something doesn't add up and i sense the watches will get cheaper, with alot less models and a subscription model to compensate, aspects of which are already unfolding

You: Garmin is moving towards a unified OS (I mean UI...I mean OS)

Me: I think the previous generation of watches already has unified firmware and UI

You: "Youre comparing like watches re UI/OS"

Yeah I am. I'm saying that a lot of the watches in the previous generation have a common UI/OS, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Garmin will move to a unified UI/OS across devices as if they haven't already done so.

Not only did the previous generation of watches have similar UI/OS, it seems the same thing is happening in this generation with Fenix 8 and Forerunner 570/970. Ofc Fenix 8, Enduro 3, and Instinct 3 are all similar, but those wtaches are even more closely related than Fenix and Forerunner. (e.g. Enduro is basically "Fenix with a big battery")

To be absolutely clear, in the past, Forerunners had very different firmware / UI than Fenixes. I gave the example of where I thought Fenix 5 and Forerunner 935 had similar firmware / UI, for the first time in the history of those 2 lines. Previously, other Forerunners like 235 and 735 had very different firmware / UI compared to their Fenix cousins.

Then you clarify with this banger:

"while there is commonality it's not like samsung or apple in terms of a unified experience os/ experience, that's what I think is changing the problem with the current os is it's too linear, "

First you tell me I'm wrong to compare watches which are already similar, then you're telling me they're not similar enough?

Like I said, I think it's clear that a lot of these watches are using the same codebase, because they receive the same bugs and UI changes around the same time. When FR255 has the same new bug / new bug fix / new feature as FR965 (for example), or FR255 (no touchscreen) receives a change that's clearly for the touchscreen, to me that's an indicator they use same codebase. And again, iirc, DCR already said something about how Garmin had moved to a unified codebase, at some point.

Do you have examples of 2 groups of watch models in the same gen which are very different now, but will be the same going forward?

Are you thinking of Forerunner/Fenix vs. Venu/Vivoactive maybe? I guess that might be valid, but I think of those 2 groups as very different, since the former is basically "5-buttons + optional touchscreen" (99% of functionality works with buttons only") whereas the latter is "mandatory touchscreen" (without the touchscreen there's crucial things you can't do, like scrolling and selecting stuff). Tbh I have no clue whether those two group of watches have similar software under the covers or not.

All I'm saying is I think Garmin already move to a unified codebase/UI years ago, at least for Forerunners and Fenix watches.

I don't think the UI for Forerunner/Fenix and Venu/Vivoactive can ever be too similar, because of the requirement that Forerunner/Fenix has to work without using touch.

7000518 said:

even with a touch screen it's organisation is cumbersome and not very intuitive with nuanced settings buried in myriad settings in different areas,

Yeah ppl have said for a long time that Garmins are unintuitive. I've seen things they change with every generation to try to solve that problem. Sometimes they even make a change and roll it back years later.

Like the system / watch settings menu was originally opened via a separate menu item in the top-level context-specific menu (e.g. activity menu or menu from watchface). You opened the top-level menu, scrolled down to a "Settings" item which you had to explicitly open.

Around the previous generation (FR255, Fenix 7, etc.) Garmin changed this so the system settings menu became part of the top-level menu, instead of being a separate menu on its own. This was theoretically easier, because you just had to keep scrolling down to get system settings, but it caused confusion due to things like the activity menu having a Navigation item, but the system settings menu also having a Navigation item. So if you told the user to hold UP to open the menu and select Navigation, it wasn't obvious which one to select.

In Fenix 8, they reversed this change, and now system settings is a separate menu again (except it's titled "Watch Settings", to be more clear).

Another change they've made starting around the previous generation is that they've made it easier and easier to access settings when you open an activity, but before you start it.

- e.g. FR935 / Fenix 5: activity settings are only accessible by holding UP button. (I know many runners who have no idea this is possible)

- e.g. FR955 / Fenix 7: activity settings are also accessible by short pressing UP on the initial activity page, and there's a small button hint (3 dots), but no label, so it's not that obvious

- e.g. Fenix 8 / FR970: activity settings are accessible by scrolling down on the initial activity page, and it's more obvious because the initial page shows part of the settings menu

Having said all of that, I don't really see what being unintuitive has to do with statement that what you're describing already happened in the previous generation of devices.

Yeah I agree Garmin changed the UI for Fenix 8 / FR570/970. They also did the same for the previous gen (FR255,265,955,965, Fenix 7, etc).

2529455 said:

Let me educate you all on how Garmin works so we can end this pointless nonsense once and for all. Up until very recently, Garmin have not had other streams of revenue following the purchase of the device. You buy the Fenix and that's it from you for the next 3-5 years. The only way that Garmin are able to entice you into spending more is via the introduction of new features on their new devices.

Yeah, it's also worth noting that so many people managed to make their Garmin last for ~10 years, which would be almost unheard of for a phone or smartwatch. I doubt many people are rocking an iPhone 6 or first gen apple watch in 2025.

Otoh, I know a few very fast runners - who can win their age group or win a race outright - who were happy to use FR235 (or another watch from similar era) for 10 years. Some of them finally got a new watch in the past couple of years, but some of them are still rocking that 10 year old Garmin.

Garmins aren't supported with feature updates forever, but at the same time, nothing stops you from using them for a very long time. I think Garmin Connect still accepts uploads from 15+ year old devices.

While it's great for users that our Garmins stay useful for so long, it kind of points to one of the reasons why Garmin has done a lot of the things they did in the past several years (add music, add touch to all watches, move to AMOLED, revamp UI, launch Connect+ ) in an attempt to get more money.

Despite all of that, I think anyone who has a currently supported watch (e.g. Fenix 6, Fenix 7, FR255...,Fenix 8, FR970) can probably keep their watch for the next 10 years anyway. Even if Garmin went away or radically changed Connect so it no longer accepts uploads from older devices, we'd still have the option of using the watch mostly offline (and maybe syncing activities manually to a 3rd party site).

And actually, imo we're kind of spoiled for feature updates these days, with the devices in the previous generation or so (FR255/265/955/965, Fenix 7, etc) getting new features for a few years.

Forerunner 235 was supported for roughly 5 years with firmware updates, but I don't see any major new features in the firmware changelog, only small improvements and bug fixes:

https://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=9575

2529455 said:

They'll likely have subscriptions that allow you to unlock something like the Fenix 8s features on your Fenix 7 as well if you wish, but of course you'll complain about that as well.

Tbh I've seen more than one person say online that they'd be happy if Garmin would let you pay to either upgrade your software to a that of a later model, or to get individual features a la carte. I think the intent was usually that they wanted to make a one-time payment though.

I'm just saying, idk if there would be universal resistance to that idea.

I do think there's maybe some justified anxiety that Garmin will break their promise and move existing features or core functionality behind a subscription paywall.

Some would argue this already happened, but in slow motion:

- Last year the Connect website lost the customizable dashboard feature

- Now customizable dashboards are a new feature in Connect+ (but ofc everyone insists it's a totally different thing - tbf it isn't the exact same feature, but it does seem to be a similar idea)

I think this particular case is highly ironic, since in these forums, so a few pro-Garmin posters mocked Connect website users who were angry with last year's changes, and said that they should stop whining that Garmin took away a feature that very few ppl want or need.

I noticed 0 of those posters had anything to say when Connect+ was unveiled, and Garmin basically tried to sell back a feature that was similar to one they had removed months earlier.

Yeah Garmin can do whatever they want, but users have a right to be mad if they think Garmin is jerking them around, too. (I mean, obviously we can be mad about whatever we want, but I think in some cases it's justified.)

2529455 said:

What are Fenix 7 users being "cut out" from? All of the features the watch was sold with still work. People are big mad because their not getting the metrics that shipped with later models?

Yeah there's such a weird emotional attachment / fomo thing associated with consumer purchases, where some ppl seem to think that because they bought a very expensive Garmin (for example), they are entitled to have the "best" (or one of the best) Garmins money can buy, for a certain period of time. To be fair, I think companies actively encourage this mindset, which seems to be exemplified by this guy:

Ofc Garmin loves guys like this, who complain about being ripped off while continuing to give Garmin their money.

I've also seen this attitude explicitly stated by MARQ users.

Saw one comment along the lines of: "I spent $3000 on a MARQ and I'm not dumb. My MARQ should be the absolute best Garmin money can buy, but it clearly isn't, since it's not getting any of the new updates!"

Like bro, nobody promised you your watch would be "the best Garmin" forever (or even initially), they just charged you a ton of money that you were absolutely willing to fork over for the privilege of feeling "premium".

The 'banger' as you put it is the point, you're focusing on v similar lines and splitting hairs while acknowledging it's similar but not the same accross watches

im talking right accross the board instinct, venu, forerunner, fenix etc, a really good example is old Descent g1 based on instinct to the new G2 which more epix/ fenix like, ie firmware, ui on the watches has not been standardised until now those changes appear not to be superficial or aesthetic

while their codebase is similar its clearly not identical given every update is on seperate timelines for different watch lines, that means everything is baked in to each update and a change to one setting has unintended consequences sometimes immediately in other areas with updates prompting a follow on update far more frequently than the competition, and I get the efficiency of code for battery life means it has to be diff to android or ios

it looks like it's heading that way with all amoled, all touchscreen bec of competition, hopefully that will transform the whole experience with these watches that take at least a year to mature because of this fractured glitchy firmware/ui development

7000518 said:

The 'banger' as you put it is the point, you're focusing on v similar lines and splitting hairs while acknowledging it's similar but not the same accross watches

I'm not splitting hairs at all. I'm engaging with your point in 100% good faith. I actually reject the premise that the UI/software will ever be the same, not similar, across all watches, because there are sets of models which have significant hardware design differences so the UI can't be the same (i.e. 5-button watches vs. everything else).

My point remains: Fenix and Forerunner lines weren't always similar (in fact they used to be completely different), and they have become more and more similar over time. So what you are suggesting will happen in the future has already started to happen years ago. Maybe not for all the models/lines, but for at least some of the models/lines. And just because the UI is different for some of the models/lines, doesn't mean they don't have similar firmware. FR255/955 (MIP) have different UI than FR265/965 (AMOLED) in terms of the appearance of certain things (like menus), but they're clearly on the same codebase (e.g. due to similar bugs and similar UI in most respects).

Before Fenix 5 and FR935, there was (apparently) no common codebase or UI between the 2 lines. Around the time of Fenix 5 and FR935, it was only FR935 which was similar to Fenix, but with later generations, most (or all) of the Forerunners seem to be on the same codebase as the Fenix of the same gen.

And to be clear, I don't think the firmware will ever be identical across watches. They're not going to literally put the same binary image on all watches, because the UI and features will never be identical.

Even if Garmin did start releasing firmware in some kind of "universal" package which is literally the same for every device, this would be functionally similar to releasing different firmware for different devices, except that certain differences would be determined at run time. Again I am assuming that device-specific differences will remain going forward (in terms of features and minor UI differences). But I don't think they would do that anyway.

In other words, whether...

- Garmin builds a different firmware package for every model (what they probably do now)

or

- Garmin builds a single firmware package for all models (what they could conceivably do, but which would be unlikely)

...there would be little difference in practical terms: you'd still have firmware which behaves differently on different models. So Garmin could either apply the model-specific differences at compile-time (when the firmware is built) or at run time (when the software runs on the devices). But either way, the development process needs to account for the model-specific differences, in terms of writing model-specific code and testing the software on different models.

We can already see that maybe older MIP / non-touchscreen models seem to receive less testing than the newer AMOLED / touchscreen devices, which results in certain changes being inappropriately applied to the former.

So my point is that Forerunner 255/265/955/965 and Fenix 7 are clearly on the same codebase. I can't really say whether other lines (like Venu/Vivoactive) do share the same codebase with the others but just have different UI, or whether they're on a different codebase altogether.

7000518 said:

while their codebase is similar its clearly not identical given every update is on seperate timelines for different watch lines,

By "same codebase" I don't mean that the firmware is literally identical (clearly it's not, due to big and small differences in UI and features across the various lines and models), I mean that I think different variants of firmware are generated from the same source code, but on a conditional basis, so that different models end up running different code. i.e. maybe 90% of the code is the same (to make up a number at random), but there's 10% which is device specific, and this can be handled by some combination of compile-time or run-time checks for the device model.

That doesn't mean that I think all of the update timelines are necessarily synchronized. Different teams can work on slightly different versions of the same codebase at the same time. (Ofc that does get a bit messy in practice, but it's possible.)

Again, anecdotal evidence for my guess is:

- sometimes a non-touchscreen model like FR255 seems to get a new UI change that was clearly intended for touchscreen devices

- sometimes a MIP model gets a UI change that was clearly intended for AMOLED

- models like FR255, FR965 and Fenix 7 all have similar bugs (and similar small new features)

7000518 said:

im talking right accross the board instinct, venu, forerunner, fenix etc, a really good example is old Descent g1 based on instinct to the new G2 which more epix/ fenix like, ie firmware, ui on the watches has not been standardised until now those changes appear not to be superficial or aesthetic

All right, that's fair. But again, if more and more Garmin watches are adopting similar UI, it's just a continuation of a years-long trend imo.

Also, I don't think it's possible for Forerunner/Fenix/Instinct/Enduro and Venu/Vivoactive to ever have the same (or even fundamentally similar) UI, because they're fundamentally different. The former set is "touch-optional" (5 buttons, almost everything works without touch) while the latter set has "mandatory touch" (2 to 3 buttons, most things don't work without touch).

A good example of this is how Vivoactive 6 doesn't have a "menu button shortcut" anymore (unlike other Garmins). You can't hold a physical button to open a context sensitive menu, you have to swipe left on a "menu indicator" in the UI. This goes back to how nobody thinks it's intuitive to hold a physical button for a context-sensitive menu, and many users don't even know how to do it.

In contrast, I don't think 5-button Garmins will ever drop the "hold UP button to open menu" shortcut, even as they continue to have other ways to open context-sensitive menus, because an implicit requirement for those watches is they need to work without touch. That's reflected in the fact that 5-button watches allow you to disable touch without locking the buttons, while the Venu/Vivoactive watches only allow you to lock touch (which also locks the buttons).

7000518 said:

that means everything is baked in to each update and a change to one setting has unintended consequences sometimes immediately in other areas with updates prompting a follow on update far more frequently than the competition

Yeah, and some of this is actually a *consequence* of using the same codebase for multiple models across and between lines, not a problem that would be solved be using the same codebase. (Again I am assuming that real functional and UI differences will continue to exist between models, otherwise why have different models? Garmin isn't going to to start differentiating devices only by the case and battery size.)

Using the same codebase is more efficient for Garmin, and does give the user the benefit of having a similar UI across models (although that could also be accomplished with completely separate codebases, with greater difficulty), but it also opens the door to bugs when a change is made for one model and inappropriately applied to another model. The problem is that when different models share the same codebase, when you write new code it tends to apply to all models by default, meaning you may have to do extra work to make a certain piece of code work differently on different models, and this can be easily overlooked in some cases.

I alluded to a couple of ways this has happened in the past. e.g. change made to MIP device that was meant for AMOLED, change made to non-touchscreen device that was meant for touchscreen devices. Some of these changes aren't even bugs, but some of them do make things more restrictive / awkward for the devices which were not the primary focus of the change.

To your point, as MIP and non-touch devices are phased out, some of these things will become a non-issue.