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

I read your observations with interest and I agree on many points (especially the one on marketing), but I disagree on the durability of the devices (they are usually changed every 3 years). Perhaps the Fenix 3 was the longest-lived of the range (better materials) .

In my opinion, Amoled screens are better, more attractive and in line with the times, but they have forced Garmin to take some steps back to compensate for the energy expenditure.

The smaller screen than the vivo4 because AMOLED consume more energy, but I don't like going back to the small screen. I don't know if the altimetry sensor consumes a lot of energy, but it is unacceptable to eliminate it from a series that has always had it.

The vivoactive series has always been ahead of its time: it was touch screen while the fenix 5 and 6 series were still manual. This function made me feel one step ahead and I also chose it because it had an altimeter. For me it has always been Garmin's best series. The last one was the First Avenger, limited series of the vivo4 with leather strap, for me it is the best Garmin watch after the Marq series.

I think I'll stay in the Garmin world but I definitely won't buy the vivo5 and I won't spend 1000 euros on a watch, therefore, they will have to stay under 400€ and offer me something worth buying. I like the Fenix 7x but it costs way too much compared to the life cycle highlighted in Garmin products (3 years and then they forget to correct errors and updates).

NicK said:

but I disagree on the durability of the devices (they are usually changed every 3 years)

Maybe it depends on who you know or what they do with their watches, but I’ve run with people who still rock a Forerunner 235, released in 2015. I see a few others who still have a 935 (2017). I kept my 935 until 2021.

(Their ages range from 29-57, so it has nothing to do with that. Obviously anyone who’s much younger, like college or high school athletes, probably won’t have had the opportunity to own an old Garmin.)

Some of them are either subelite or fast enough to win their age group, so we know that:
- they use their devices frequently
- they care about training

OTOH, I do know others who change their watch every few years.

My point was less about durability (although obviously the watch still has to be physically intact and capable of holding a charge), but more about how older Garmins still meet the needs of many runners. After all, runners really only need time, distance, pace, and (maybe) heart rate.

I’ve changed my Garmin more often than others, but if I’m being honest, most of the new features are “nice to have” and not necessary. I started running in 2013, and I think Forerunners from before the 235 era are unsuitable for various reasons (like unresponsive buttons which break easily), but a 235 or 935 could absolutely meet the needs of a runner today. (I wanted a 935 mainly for navigation because I hate memorizing long run routes)

It’s just anecdotal but it does seem to me that many Garmin users keep their devices for far longer than others would keep an Apple Watch or any brand of smartphone.

Many new metrics seem superfluous but are extremely useful, which is why I am encouraged to buy the new Garmins.

When I saw the body battery in 2020 I thought of a useless metric. It took the pandemic to understand how important that metric is and today it is the one I look at the most!

In 2021 I noticed that when you're sick (or before) your body battery is always low, and there's a scientific explanation. I recently went to watch a few days of 2020 (cycling races) to see the level of my body battery because I never looked at it, I wasn't interested!

When you study the innovations introduced you learn to appreciate the new functions, but Garmin must learn to respect historical customers and resolve errors before introducing new products.

The vivo4 has been stuck at beta 7.90 for 6 months!!! Even worse situation on the Garmin Edge with an error on the sensors that they haven't been able to resolve for over 1 year and the update stopped for 6 months!

I'm waiting for new developments because the vivo5 won't be my new Garmin.

Fully useless without barometric altimeter. I'm surprised that Garmin dares to do this. Or actually not really. VA5 reaches level of cheapest $50 watches.

The first two va's didn't have a baro, the fr23x, 630,735 didn't have a baro, the Venu sq doesn't have a baro.  The main thing you miss is "floors" as things like fit files have "elevation correction" automatically applied when they are synced to Garmin Connect.

update:  I left out the fr45,55, and 245, which also don't have a baro.

jim_m_58 said:

The main thing you miss is "floors" as things like fit files have "elevation correction" automatically applied when they are synced to Garmin Connect.

As a runner, I disagree. I don't claim that every runner (or fitness enthusiast) needs a baro, but I disagree that a baro is equivalent to gps+elevation correction for running. I'm also guessing many people who want a "fitness watch" will want to count floors, otherwise Garmin would have little reason to remove the baro (it seems that trying to segment the market based on a feature nobody wants or needs is a losing strategy, since the rational choice would be to always buy the less expensive offering.) Same as it's not a coincidence that fitbit removed the baro from one of its midrange models (which had a baro for years) -- they are fully expecting a certain number of customers to move to the more expensive model as a result.

I will rehash my previous comment:

Anecdotally I know someone who runs crazy hill workouts with his FR230, and he always complains that the elevation gain is wrong in strava (which also applies elevation correction, just like Connect.)

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

Barometric altitude is much more accurate than GPS or terrain maps for relative changes in altitude. The sensor in your watch is sensitive to about 10cm in elevation change, although the software smooths that out a little bit. It's the gold-standard in altitude measurement for moving objects and it's why planes still use barometric altimeters in preference to GPS systems for altimeters.

...

• Barometric = great (default for watches with the sensor)

• GPS = terrible

• Corrected = a big improvement on GPS but much worse than barometric (default for watches without barometric sensor)

jim_m_58 said:

The first two va's didn't have a baro, the fr23x, 630,735 didn't have a baro, the Venu sq doesn't have a baro. 

jim_m_58 said:

update:  I left out the fr45,55, and 245, which also don't have a baro.

Don't forget FR210, FR220, FR305, FR610, FR620 and Forerunner 101 (2004).

strange, these products are very old and outdated, and were the cheap versions of more expensive ones. Point is, that the did it 1st time inside a series (VA4 has, VA5 not).

There is absolutely no reason, why not to implement a pressure sensor, except to save some cents (strange for a $300 watch) or you wonna have people not to buy VA5. I'm using Garmin devices since my Geko (which is still running), and in my experience the second is the case. They do not want people to buy VA5 but more expensive.  Most signifcant device is Edge Explore, here it's more than obvious.

@Jim: You know it better than me, that for some apps/datafields you need pressure data. I have many disappointed user I had to tell "sorry, but your device doesn't have a pressure sensor.

So if you are 100% sure you will ALLWAYS use at sea level and you will NEVER go to hills or mountains or do any outdoor sports in watch lifetime, the VA5 might be a good deal.

The main problem is the regression. They remove a feature which was there in VA3 and VA4 so people expect it. My wife would like to buy a new generation but she's skiing a lot so VA5 is useless. And why release yet another AMOLED watch when they could differentiate VA series by leaving MIP plus altimeter and adding solar? A lot of people prefer MIP or would like to see the benefits of solar energy in their watch but don't want a bulky Fenix (even S version is bulky). Stupid decision by Garmin to say the least.