Komoot

Garmin is switching itsaelf off from Venu users.

The hardware of venu is very much capable of running komoot, and has the connect iq platform advertised heavily. It isn't realistic to check every single one of the apps someone want to use if it specifically supports your watch  just because it might be blocked by Garmin. 

Edit: Nope, I was wrong about this, keep scrolling.

5193832 said:

Let's justify artificially limiting functionality for higher profit margins...

How do you know they are artificially limiting functionality?

There could be hardware limitations.  Route calculations no doubt take more computing power. Probably more than the Venu has.

Well maybe it was a little harsh, sorry for that.

But there are connect iQ apps that let you navigate e.g. dwMaps, or offer turn by turn navigation transferred from your phone using google maps. Someone also mention that it is or was? available on venu 1, which has weaker hardware.

So I see no reason why it couldn't be done. I can't explicitly prove it. To be fair, I'm mostly annoyed by the fact that this isn't transparent. I went to connect iq website but there is no option to filter to show only available apps on a certain device, so after I checked couple of them, it looked like all supported on venu 2. Hardware is supposed to be more powerful computationally than the forerunners based on the YouTube reviews that mentioned it - I would think that comes from marketing material. Meh.

I'm generally happy about my watch and I'm not saying there aren't legit reasons to have a separation between fitness and sport watch market. I think its fair to ask for more money for advance features ( like pacepro, stamina, extra training perf. metrics etc.) or leave out from a venu but there are stuff like missing open water swimming activity (there is pool swim, and gps? - swimming in a lake on holiday? or the fact I have a beach nearby where I could swim for free), or missing duathlon triathlon (again there is almost everything separately) activity, where I honestly think there is no good reason. For the komoot I wouldn't even mind if it were a less featured version with only turn by turn instruction. 

I think you're overestimating what the Komoot IQ app can actually do. You can't "navigate" with it unless your device has it's own maps or breadcrumb navigation. Oh, and turn by turn in the app itself? Yeah, no. 

I'm pretty sure apps like dwMap do the route calculations on a server ... not on the watch.

Devices like the Fenix & Edge do the route calculations on the device.

There is a BIG difference in the amount of computing power required to calculate a route and simply display a route.

Even for apps like Strava & Komoot, the routes that are downloaded from the server have to be calculated based on the maps installed on the device.

Disclosure: I am the author of dwMap.

dwMap does its upcoming-turn and off-route notification calculations on-device, but the route itself is planned on-server and downloaded prior to the activity start.  So it does not rely on the server or even the phone during the activity.  (There are some optional non-routing features that require a live phone connection.).

But overall I agree with your computing power assessment: on-device routing is very demanding, and only certain watches, plus the Edge devices, seem to have the horsepower.

I was wrong as I didn't understand that functionality and also internal working of the app. I made my original comment more from emotions than logic, sorry for that.

[Redacted] said:

Oh, and turn by turn in the app itself? Yeah, no. 

I don't know how the Komoot IQ app work as I don't have access to it. What I was thinking is a "Komoot iq lite" app which calculates everything on phone and transfers it actively to display on watch. 

fallingrock said:

There is a BIG difference in the amount of computing power required to calculate a route and simply display a route.

I understand that. This is why I though the phone could be used as the base device and the required information sent over. As it requires a completely different architecture, it's probably not commercially viable.

It would not be as convenient to require an active phone connection and probably eat up more battery life, but for the target audience, I think these wouldn't matter as much. What I imagined as a use case is for example: using public rideshare bikes without phone holders to commute in city (possibly not one that you live in). You have your phone with you (in you pocket or backpack) , you presumably can charge it at the end of the day. 

5193832 said:

I understand that. This is why I though the phone could be used as the base device and the required information sent over. As it requires a completely different architecture, it's probably not commercially viable.

Then the phone needs to store maps. Maps are big.

The app grows from 334mb to a couple of GB.