I would have liked to move from Vivo4 to Vivo5, but it would be like going back to Vivo3

Yeah and also that damn AMOLED everywhere. Just go buy Venu 2 or 3 if you want AMOLED, this should have MIP and solar :/

Can it show GPS altitude in real time? Because Venu Sq 2 couldn't. Also, it doesn't let you track ski runs automatically and even Vivoactive 3 had that ability.

Okay, I withdraw my argument and completely join the absolute disappointment. I just wrote with customer service and they assured me that the watch cannot display altitude in real time. It also shows in the user manual that there is no data field for it. Unbelievably, the 300€ watch has multiband satellite and doesn't even display altitude during a bike workout.

A baro is much better than GPS for measuring relative changes in altitude. Anecdotally, I have a friend who runs crazy hill workouts with a baro-less FR235, and he always complains that his elevation gain in Strava is nowhere near reality. This is *after* Strava applies elevation corrections.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/11di1qs/garmin_barometric_altimeter_elevation_vs/jaalsbm/]

That's why both Strava and Garmin apply elevation corrections after the fact for activities recorded by watches which don't have a baro. Even after those corrections, the resulting elevation change data still isn't as good as it would be when it comes from a baro.

It's actually very easy for a Connect IQ app to display some of the elevation-related fields that Garmin hides from you on watches without a baro. I just don't think anyone would be very happy with the results.

For example, I have a very simple data field app in the Connect IQ store called Total Ascent. All it does is display the watch's internal Total Ascent value, regardless of whether the watch has a baro or not. You can click the Reviews tab and see all the complaints about how the data "it calculates" is wrong. Funnily enough, it doesn't calculate any data, it just spits out the data that Garmin calculates, based on GPS elevation.

I have another data field app which can display the following 3 elevation related fields (which would normally be hidden for a baro-less watch): Altitude, Total Ascent and Total Descent.

I could update either of those apps to support Vivoactive 5 at any time, but I guarantee most people would not be happy with the values that are shown for those fields. Garmin hides them for a reason.

Here's an altitude data field (not mine) which supports all the watches except Vivoactive 5. I"m sure it'll be updated soon:

[https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/apps/22f5b28f-cdc0-4208-9d9d-4d6fd307b73a]

Hey, thanks for the detailed answer. The topic seems (as almost always) to be more complex than I had assumed in my naivety. In relation to the Vivoactive5 is this really a not comprehensible backward step. There would have been a MIP display really the better differentiator to the Venu series.

6742038 said:

In relation to the Vivoactive5 is this really a not comprehensible backward step. There would have been a MIP display really the better differentiator to the Venu series.

Yeah, I agree that removing the baro is crappy move. I noticed that Fitbit did something similar when they removed stair tracking from one of their products which had it for several generations. They want you to buy the more expensive model (derp).

It's funny because there was a time when the Vivoactive line had a baro but most watches in the more expensive Forerunner line did not. At that time, customers could've argued that it sucks that when you buy the more expensive watch, you lose a feature.

Now they flipped the script: most Forerunners have a baro and it's the Vivoactive which loses the baro.

6742038 said:

There would have been a MIP display really the better differentiator to the Venu series.

Looks like Garmin is going all-in on AMOLED. They probably feel like the only marketable advantage of MIP is now long battery life, and AMOLED's battery life is now "good enough" for everything except Fenix / Enduro / Instinct.

I happen to think MIP has other advantages, but those advantages aren't going to sell watches (as people have been complaining about Garmin's dull MIP screens for 10+ years now.)

Said this elsewhere, but it's funny that Garmin once marketed MIP as follows:

[https://www.garmin.com.sg/minisite/garmin-technology/wearable-science/chroma-display/]

Focused on aiding performance rather than distracting brightness and superfluous colour, this display is easy to read under the harshest sunlight and has ultra-high battery endurance, allowing it to reliably function in the most challenging conditions.

Of course now they're turning around saying that brightness and colour are the reasons you should buy AMOLED. Same marketing playbook as Apple: when Apple didn't want to switch to USB-C, they argued that it would be an environmental disaster. Now that they're finally being forced to switch, they're bragging about how USB-C is a big win for the environment.

I also think that if Garmin is telling everyone that AMOLED is clearly a nicer display (it's definitely prettier), it's very hard for them to turn around and say "but here's why you should maybe buy MIP!" (except for extended battery life.)

It took me 3 expensive smartwatch mis-purchases of various brands to realize how impractical AMOLED screens are for running and in general. The mip display and button controls on my Forerunner 255 opened my eyes. But yes, originally I was also one of the people complaining about dull colors. I mean, on a watch, like the Vivoactive, I can understand the use of amoled. But for running watches, which are designed for outdoor use and with a focus on functionality, I can't understand it.

Interesting, thanks for sharing! I've tried Apple Watch for running but not 965 (or any other Garmin AMOLED watch), but thank you for confirming my suspicions. (I do see a few complaints from 965 users about how the display dims after a few seconds during activities, which means the display isn't readable outdoors without a wrist turn)

Unfortunately I don't think the tide will turn unless there's a backlash from the vast majority of existing and new Garmin customers when they buy AMOLED. I suspect many existing customers will say "eh, good enough" and most new customers will think this is how it's "supposed to be".

On AW my main complaint was that the screen still goes to sleep (it goes dim and displays the time) when you use a 3rd-party app like WorkOutdoors, so certain gestures like double-tap screen or twist crown are not detected unless you turn your wrist, which means there's a bunch of things you can't do without looking. That kind of thing doesn't seem to bother most AW fans. But I need to be able to take laps and pause a workout without looking, and I don't necessarily want to use the built-in Workout app.

On the flip side, Garmins have a ton of usability issues, bugs and features that just don't work properly, but we all look past that stuff too :/.

I kinda feel like Garmin doesn't care too much about the majority of existing customers, as Garmin users tend to keep their watches for a long time (5-10 years). They need new customers, and AMOLED is how they're trying to keep up with the rest of the industry. (in the past it was 3rd party apps, music and touchscreens.)