Garmin Forerunner 955 Status

who knows said:

You're the one that doesn't understand why people would want this feature

Well, then tell me. This far I've seen these reasons why people want it:
- finding the nearest bus-stop
- live traffic updates (road-closures)
- weather forecast/alarm 
- contacting your relatives/friends
- crash detection / automatic emergency response

So I understand that these are the reasons people want it, but I don't agree with those being reason that LTE would be useful and good addition. Do you have something to add to it to make me change my mind or are you just arguing that I don't understand why people would want this feature? I think I do understand why they want it, but I disagree that it would be good thing based on why they want it. I think only the last reason is a good point that LTE would add, but I don't see that being worth the LTE addition.

who knows said:

Dual-channel GPS?  What a ridiculous request.

That's your opinion and I don't have anything against it. I'm not arguing that my view is correct, or better or something. It is just how I see it. If you don't agree then we don't agree. Simple as that. 

who knows said:

stating why others don't need it and they should just carry a phone when they don't want to do so.   It's not all about you bro.

Could you point where I've said that it's all about me and others don't need it? If there is a place that makes you think so then It's miscommunication from me not being native english speaker/writer. If I say I don't see the need for it, it does not imply that others won't need it. If I say that I don't see the point for it, doesn't mean that others won't see the point for it.

jmto said:

Well, then tell me. This far I've seen these reasons why people want it:
- finding the nearest bus-stop
- live traffic updates (road-closures)
- weather forecast/alarm 
- contacting your relatives/friends
- crash detection / automatic emergency response

So I understand that these are the reasons people want it, but I don't agree with those being reason that LTE would be useful and good addition

Nope.  You definitely don't get it.  People don't want the burden of carrying their phone when they can use just their watch.  What part of that don't you understand?  I take my phone on a run in case someone needs to contact me, or I need to contact them.  Otherwise I don't bring it.  Why would anyone want to continue to do so if it's no longer necessary?  There's just one reason that you haven't given any reasonable answer to.  

who knows said:

I take my phone on a run in case someone needs to contact me, or I need to contact them.  Otherwise I don't bring it.  Why would anyone want to continue to do so if it's no longer necessary?

I think I already answered that. I don't see watch being nice replacement for phone on that case. I understand if you want to be available 24/7 even on the activity without taking your phone. I don't understand why do you think I don't understand that. It might be worth to you, but that's the thing we don't agree.

Because the phone will do much much more that the watch doesn't do. People have also other use cases why they would take the phone with them and if the watch doesn't replace all of them, they still have the burden of taking the phone with them and advantage from the LTE is only from those you can live with the use cases it will give on the watch, which I don't see being so significant that it's worth the thing.

Why do you use your ATM/debit card for purchases instead of writing checks?  Because it's easier and more convenient.

Why do you use a remote control to change the channels on your TV instead of getting up and change the channels manually?  Because it's easier and more convenient.

Why do you heat food in the microwave instead of reheating it in a pot or pan on the stove?  Because it's easier and more convenient.

Why would you want to have LTE on your watch and leave your phone at home?  Uh oh!  You're stumped here.

who knows said:

hy would you want to have LTE on your watch and leave your phone at home?  Uh oh!  You're stumped here.

Well let's try this way:

Person A: Has no use case for communication others during activity, it's me time.
Person B: Has use case that he only wants to be able to have voice conversations during activities
Person C: Has use cases that he also wants to do other stuff that the watch doesn't do and will need to take phone also with him/her.

Person A is not interested in having communication option as it will cost him extra 200 dollars.
Person B might be very interested in buying a watch that solves his communication problem with extra 200 dollars as it's more convenient.
Person C is not very interested in buying a watch that he needs pay 200 dollars more to have feature which he doesn't seem worth to him, as he is still having to take the phone.

There are person A's, I think you are Person B, and I'm sometimes person A or C.

If this is still unclear, I don't know how else I would try to say this. And I think I should go to sleep. 

Your person A is non-applicable to this discussion as they would have no need for LTE, nor a phone which has been your stance for not adding the LTE feature.  They can be eliminated.

You're only using one example of how LTE would benefit Person B, but yes, in your limited example they would be able to conduct activities without the need to carry their phone.  As there would be no doubt a watch with LTE would cost more, you have no knowledge that it would be $200.  In fairness say Person B would be willing to pay more.

I don't understand your example for Person C.  It's obvious that LTE on the watch doesn't eliminate every capability of a phone.  It eliminates the need for a phone while doing most activities and in other circumstances outside an activity when the user doesn't want to carry their phone.  Are there people out on a run who stop to take photos, post on Facebook, or check information on the internet?  Of course, but I'm willing to bet those are far and few.  Those people, like yourself can choose to bring their phone with them, but in no way does that diminish the value people could have with LTE where you can say it's not needed, just bring your phone.  

jmto said:

If this is still unclear, I don't know how else I would try to say this.

This is perfectly clear to me.  There are people who would use LTE and others like yourself who would not.  As it stands now, people don't have the choice.  What I don't understand is why you keep posting that people don't need a LTE option based on your personal use and why you feel you can make that choice for them.

who knows said:

What I don't understand is why you keep posting that people don't need a LTE option based on your personal use and why you feel you can make that choice for them.

Well I don't. I'm posting these because people have been saying things that I've not said/ment or that I don't understand the use case which I feel is not the case.

Then it's another discussion would Garmin make LTE and non-LTE variants which already was also discussed in this post. It's rare, I only think only example we have had in Forerunner series has been Music and Non-Music versions.

So if there would be LTE and non-LTE versions this isn't a issue, people can choose what they need/want, but if there's only one version, I would like it to be non-LTE version rather than having to pay extra for something that I don't feel good for my use cases and that has been the thing I've trying to say.

who knows said:

Your person A is non-applicable to this discussion as they would have no need for LTE, nor a phone which has been your stance for not adding the LTE feature.  They can be eliminated.

But this logic seems wrong. If there's only LTE-version, why can they be eliminated? They would be getting something they don't need/want and needing to put extra cash for it? Why would we only look at it from the perspective of those you need/want LTE?