Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Why does Garmin limit number of activity profiles?

8496025
over 2 years ago

How come Garmin doesn't provide additional activity profiles as optional downloads. For example, I started to do cross country skiing and want to track that. But the cross country skiing activity profile is only available on FR 745 and up. On the 245, I have to create a custom activity profile based on trail running, and then update the activity type in Garmin connect after each session.
I can understand why Garmin doesn't provide activity profiles that requires certain sensors or require more computer power. But cross country skiing does not. It's literally like running, but on snow.
I downloaded a third party app through Connect IQ that is specific to XC Skiing, and that logs in directly in Garmin Connect as XC skiing. It works, but there are still a few things to wish for in that app and in the whole set up.

Garmin should just allow me to download any activity profile, that works with my watch - hardware-wise. Now, it just feels stingy and silly.

  • +1 over 2 years ago

    Simple Answer: For Marketing reasons.

    The 245 has to be more basic in every aspect, so that you will consider spending more money for another series. There are a couple of limitations that are only in software and obviously for differentiation reasons.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 3541523

    You are of course right. And I respect Garmin has to differentiate the product line up. I just want to get the message through that software limitations for pure sales reasons are experienced as stingy. Especially when there’s obvious work-arounds. It just creates a bad user experience.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 8496025

    No objection from my side.

    It is annoying sometimes and knowing the reasons does not change that.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 8496025
    8496025 said:
    I just want to get the message through that software limitations for pure sales reasons are experienced as stingy.
    8496025 said:
    It just creates a bad user experience.

    How so?  This has been a practice by nearly every manufacturer since the dawn of time.  For example, nearly every newer vehicle now comes with a touchscreen display stereo system.  You'll get your AM/FM radios stations, but you'll pay extra for satellite radio and navigation even though the hardware/software exist.  It's not a bad user experience or "stingy". 

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to who knows

    Yeah, maybe. I had a car once that had a 200hp engine, but it was software limited to 180 hp and sold as a cheeper model. But even if it's clever from a business perspective and done across other industries doesn't make it less strange for me as a customer.

    I work at a software company and are involved in our price and packaging strategies. We do similar things as Garmin does here, but I'm not a 100% fan of it. Of course, pricing is usually based on the customer value that is delivered. But as a customer, I would still like some relation to cost of delivery. Different features in a software can usually be connected to cost  development, maintinence and support. 
    This case just feels like, for example: "You can get the digits on the watch in yellow and green, but if you want blue - that costs extra. Something that is completely see-through and thus annoying.

    To me, it screams "fat cat" pricing behaviour. Garmin know they are ahead of competition and are not afraid of leveraging on it. But I think they should establish a more trust based relationship with us customers.

    Anyway..

    Hey @Garmin here's another idea. Why not sell additional activity profiles in Garmin IQ for €10-€15 each

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 8496025

    That´s what IQ apps are for - most of them even for free.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to Sitronen

    Yeah yeah. I know..  But they are not as good as the standard profiles. Also the IQ “app-store” isn’t really up to par.