Is this watch the successor to the 45 and 55 with a ‘1’ stuffed in front as an excuse to stiff up the price?
Is this watch the successor to the 45 and 55 with a ‘1’ stuffed in front as an excuse to stiff up the price?
Thanks for the replies.
To my mind, the 55 is the greatest running watch ever made, for the experienced athlete it’s job done at minimum cost. The battery improvement over the 45 was inspired!
Pulse…
Agreed. I road run through a fairly rough town at 4am daily, so music is not an option, and I haven’t managed a holiday in years so maps are not needed either. If I had a life, I’d probably buy similar…
Had I known what I know now, despite reading/watching lots of comparison reviews, I would probably have bought a 255.
So... have been researching the 255 more tonight and have learned that the…
haha, very good question!!
Garmin's model differentiation / marketing is awful!!
Personally I see it as a budget aesthetic running watch for experienced runners (not triathletes). i,e, those who don't want mapping (9xx series) or the more detailed health / training metrics (2xx series) because they know what they are doing already,
I think the 2xx series is the beginner watch (because of training readiness) even though it is more expensive. but Garmin do not market it this way.
Personally I see it as a budget aesthetic running watch for experienced runners (not triathletes). i,e, those who don't want mapping (9xx series) or the more detailed health / training metrics (2xx series) because they know what they are doing already,
I think the 2xx series is the beginner watch (because of training readiness) even though it is more expensive. but Garmin do not market it this way.
"165 is more advanced than 255/265 it's newer and because I said so, even though it's cheaper."
265 also has training readiness btw. Afaik 265 has everything that 165 has and more, so your statement that 2xx is for beginners while 165 is advanced in comparison is patently false.
So actually what's happened is Garmin has selected a feature that used to be exclusive to more expensive previous-gen watches (955 but not 255) and brought it down to the cheaper current-gen watches (65 and 265). In other words, all Forerunner watches in the current *6* generation have training readiness, while in previous generations, only some Forerunners had them. This is no way implies that 165 is better / more advanced in all ways than 255, as you're trying to say.
As I said elsewhere this has happened in the past with major selling points like navigation (following a course, which was present in 935 but not 235, but added to 245) and multisport (present on 265 not 235/245/255). It's also happened with "little things" that don't show up on the spec sheet, like the stopwatch and timer which used to only be on 9xx devices but is now also on the 2xx devices.
But just because the next generation of a cheaper device (55 to 165) gets a feature that wasn't on the previous generation of a more expensive device (255), doesn't mean that the cheaper line is suddenly better in every way compared to the more expensive line.
Every iphone has OLED now, when in past years, some iphones had OLED and some iphones had LCD. That doesn't mean that the cheapest current iphone has to be better in all ways than the most expensive iphone from the previous year.
Is this watch the successor to the 45 and 55 with a ‘1’ stuffed in front as an excuse to stiff up the price?
Yeah, that's exactly what it is. If we don't like it, the obvious solution is not to buy it. From the relative lack of activity on this subforum, maybe that's already happening.
By adding training readiness to 65, Garmin isn't telling customers "255 was basic af and 165 is for aDvAncEd rUnNerS", they're saying "if you had a 55, here's another reason to buy the more expensive 165".
budget aesthetic running watch for experienced runners (not triathletes). i,e, those who don't want mapping (9xx series) or the more detailed health / training metrics (2xx series) because they know what they are doing already,
I think the 2xx series is the beginner watch (because of training readiness) even though it is more expensive. but Garmin do not market it this way.
Also, you are contradicting yourself here.
You: 165 is more advanced than 2xx because it has more data (training readiness). (Ignoring the fact that 265 also has training readiness.)
Also you: 165 is more advanced than 2xx because it less data (it lacks the "more detailed health / training metrics"), because experienced runners don't need that stuff.
Clearly you've already decided that 165 is the "more advanced watch" for "experienced runners" and you'll use any argument to justify it.
I don't think Garmin (or anyone else) sees it the same way that you do.
the more detailed health / training metrics (2xx series) because they know what they are doing already,
I could go further and say that elite runners don't need anything more than a timex. One marathoner tried racing with a GPS watch and complained it messed up their pacing, due to GPS inaccuracy.
By your logic, a $50 Timex Ironman should actually cost more than a $599 965.
I think the 2xx series is the beginner watch (because of training readiness) even though it is more expensive. but Garmin do not market it this way.
Wouldn't they be insane to do so tho?
"Don't buy our more expensive watch because ackshually, it's a basic watch for beginners. Buy the cheaper watch for more experienced runners instead!"
Maybe they should charge more for the 165 than the 265, since 265 is for beginners. If they did that, all of a sudden you wouldn't be telling us that 165 is more advanced than 265, because the real reason you like 165 better is because of the price.
Similarly, Apple should tell customers that iPad Pro is actually less advanced than iPad Air, and adjust the price accordingly.
Anyway, if 165 is actually more advanced than the more expensive 265 and 965, then it's actually the bargain of the century and you should be thanking Garmin for their "marketing error".
What I actually see instead is you (and others) complaining that the admittedly less expensive 165 doesn't have features present in more expensive models.
Almost as if you just want all the features for a lower price. Your reasoning is that Garmin can justify the lower price of the 165 by removing features that you personally don't care about while including features that are important to you.
Thanks for the replies.
To my mind, the 55 is the greatest running watch ever made, for the experienced athlete it’s job done at minimum cost. The battery improvement over the 45 was inspired!
Pulse Ox is the gimmick of the century, because a trained athlete would notice a substantial decline in performance long before the reading went as low as 95%. The measurement is basically a tool for couch potatoes to check that they are not dead yet.
IMHO, the 165 is a blatant attempt to rip off the public just like the higher range watches.
It’s a shame that the development cycle is now over on the 45, 55…. range, but long live my 55!
Oh and Garmin, WTF with the Connect update! If it ain't broken, don’t fix it.
IMHO, the 165 is a blatant attempt to rip off the public just like the higher range watches.
Can't argue there. But I find it funny that some people think 165 is an amazing bargain and is actually better than 255 for runners, but they're mad because it doesn't have features like hot keys or HRM store and forward which are available in - wait for it - the more expensive models.
Can't have it both ways. It seems that some people think Garmin should make a budget model which conveniently includes all the features they want and excludes all the features they don't care about.
Pulse Ox is the gimmick of the century, because a trained athlete would notice a substantial decline in performance long before the reading went as low as 95%. The measurement is basically a tool for couch potatoes to check that they are not dead yet.
Could also be a decent sanity check for covid symptoms (inb4 garmins are not medical diagnostic devices.) But yeah I never use it.
It’s a shame that the development cycle is now over on the 45, 55…. range, but long live my 55!
The 55 is great for what the vast majority of runners actually use: time, distance, pace and maybe HR.
I like some of nice-to-haves on more expensive watches like music, navigation and maps. But I agree that no runner really needs anything more than a FR55. Even most fairly competitive runners that I know really only use their watch so they can post runs to strava.
On the apple side, I've talked to people who admit they only bought an Apple Watch Ultra bc of the social status.
To my mind, the 55 is the greatest running watch ever made, for the experienced athlete it’s job done at minimum cost.
I'm not an experienced athlete, but I'd be interested to know how useful you think the running dynamics information is, although I'm not an experienced athlete, I'm interested in it. At 165 it is, but at 55 it is not.
165 is an amazing bargain and is actually better than 255 for runners,
I agree, but if there was an option 165 with a MIP display.
"165 is more advanced than 255/265 it's newer and because I said so, even though it's cheaper."
I'm not sure why you are twisting my words like this. I didn't say that at all.
I said I thought the 255/265 is a more appropriate watch for a beginner runner because it includes Training readiness which distills all the other health and training metrics into a single, easy to understand, number. This extra functionality (along with other things), quite rightly, comes at extra cost.
The 165 has a lot of training metrics, but not training readiness. Therefore, it may suit more advanced runners who want a more aesthetically pleasing version of the 55 while saving money w.r.t. 265/965.
My complaint with Garmin's marketing of their watches, is that this isn't clear to the customer unless you are already in Garmin's eco-system. Had I known what I know now, despite reading/watching lots of comparison reviews, I would probably have bought a 255.
EDIT: the 255 does NOT include training readiness (265 does) So I will stick with the 165.
I said I thought the 255/265 is a more appropriate watch for a beginner runner because it includes Training readiness which distills all the other health and training metrics into a single, easy to understand, number. This extra functionality (along with other things), quite rightly, comes at extra cost.
The 165 has a lot of training metrics, but not training readiness. Therefore, it may suit more advanced runners who want a more aesthetically pleasing version of the 55 while saving money w.r.t. 265/965.
I still think this reasoning is backwards and not at all what Garmin intended, but that's just my opinion. 165 is also missing training load and training status, which are available in 265., so it's not the case that you're only losing out on the "summarized" metric (training readiness.) 965 has hill score / endurance score as well - we can question the usefulness of this stuff, but it's clearly not aimed at beginners.
From Garmin's POV, training readiness is a premium feature that you'd pay more money for, and there's no way they would market it as being more suitable for beginner runners. Even if it were true, it would just make them look bad to say it out loud.
It's just like Apple isn't going to admit that most people who buy an Apple Watch Ultra are buying it for the social status and not because they actually run ultras.
Here's how Garmin describes training readiness:
Training readiness is a top-line insight designed to help you maximize training efficiency. You work hard because you want results but pushing your limits before you are ready can be counterproductive. See when you are most likely to benefit from a hard workout and when to consider dialing down to let your body catch up.
(Emphasis mine)
To me that doesn't sound like they are aiming it at beginners. When you're starting out at running (or any other hobby/sport) you don't care about maximizing efficiency, you just want to see if you can achieve a minimum level of competency so you can actually start enjoying yourself and seeing real gains. You also don't even know if you're going to stick with the hobby for a long time, so it makes less sense to spend more money on stuff.
A few months ago, I got back into basketball after not playing for years. I bought a pair of budget shoes and a midrange basketball, not the nicest shoes and the high end game ball that everyone recommends.
My complaint with Garmin's marketing of their watches, is that this isn't clear to the customer unless you are already in Garmin's eco-system. Had I known what I know now, despite reading/watching lots of comparison reviews, I would probably have bought a 255.
Yeah I agree Garmin's marketing is terrible. They have way too many models. And it is true that they like to gatekeep certain features (like easily returning to the watchface during an activity) behind the more expensive models. For example, I personally see customizable hotkeys as an "extra" feature, but I think it would make sense to allow most or all models to easily return to the watchface with a fixed hotkey (hold BACK) if they don't have customizable hotkeys. But ofc Garmin would prefer that people pay more for simple quality of life features.
What's worse is that if you buy the most expensive forerunner, you similar software, features and UI to Fenix/Epix, but there's still some stuff that's unique to Fenix/Epix for reasons (like auto lap by position).
I do think that 165 is simply a cynical cash grab to entice people to upgrade from FR55, as OP suggested.
I agree, but if there was an option 165 with a MIP display.
Sadly MIP is dead for Forerunners and most of the Garmin lineup. They won't go back to MIP, but they may move onto MicroLED in the (distant) future.
I'd buy a 255 or 955 today if you love MIP. I love MIP because I like to be able to glance at my watch during a hard workout and see my stats instantly without waiting for the screen to light up. Ofc there's the disadvantage of needing the backlight at night, but the great thing is the backlight can be kept on indefinitely during an activity.
Polar apparently has a special workaround for AMOLED where they keep the display readable at all times - during an activity - by constantly flipping between normal and high brightness, at the expense of battery life. I wish Garmin would adopt this feature as an option.