Garmin Forerunner 955 Status

rtperna said:

This is seriously the most bizarre argument ever. 

What is argument? For what? You lost me.

rtperna said:

It's common sense Garmin will have LTE and non-LTE models

Again we disagree. I don't think so. Forerunner models hardly ever have different feature sets, it's more what the Outdoor Recreation does. Yes there was Music and Non-Music at the start, so one might hope that is LTE comes it will comes similarily. But like now, there isn't any Music and Non-Music anymore. So I wouldn't say that it's common sense as there are other options doing it, like doing that 655 does not have LTE and 955 has. And as there are other options doing it, and even me or you think that it would be smart to do it like X, Garmin might have different ideas/reasons doing it differently.

Regardless, they're not putting LTE into all their watches.  It would be prohibitively expensive.  Look up the BOM for an Apple Watch with LTE vs one without.  That said, my wife and I run trails, some of them pretty remote... having LTE would be a godsend in case one of us gets hurt.  I don't understand why someone who runs wouldn't want this feature; it's not like you won't be able to shut it off to save battery, if for example you're running an ultra race. 

rtperna said:

Regardless, they're not putting LTE into all their watches. 

No they aren't. Like I said, they could do it like putting it into 955 and not to 655.

In my country the mobile reception would be pretty good if you are doing ultra race somewhere here, but of course in the Lapland there would be places without reception. Thinking about globally I think there are many places where you are going ultra race where LTE wouldn't help you and the solution would be InReach. Then one could ask, why have something as they still need to have InReach.

And woudln't want also depends on the many factors we don't know, how it's implemented, how much it adds to the price and so on, can't see it as just must have, win-win solution.

What is your problem jmto?  We get it.  You don't want to use LTE and pay more for a device that includes it.  There's nothing wrong with stating your mind and leaving it at that.  But anytime some mentions those 3 letters "LTE", you have to reply with why it's unnecessary and why people who want this feature don't need it.  I've been around these forums for years and I don't think I've ever seen someone tell others why they don't need something they find helpful as much as you have in this thread.  Let it go and move on.  No one cares how you want to use your watch just as you shouldn't care how we use ours.

No, sorry. I think it is important that people here say "NO" to weird ideas and new-feature-collectors. Garmin should get the impression that there actually are people out there using their watches for sports, not for receiving messages, listening to music or pay for shopping. If Garmin would spend more focus on the sports part, the watches were likely less bug infested. And as long somebody else here is requesting features which affect my watch in the next update (or next model), I'll also will say NO if I don't like it.

Best

who knows said:

What is your problem jmto?

I don't have a problem. The thing is that if they reply to me and try to explain the use cases and why would they need it, I should just be quiet because you don't like me replying back?

Yes, I've stated what I think, I don't have the need to continue this, but if I'll get replies back, I will continue this. Like now I felt like I have to reply to you.

It's not like if I see the letters LTE. Look at the posts, tess replies to me, rtperna replied to me... YOU replied to me.

If it doesn't have LTE I am not sure I will be buying. After a surfing accident 2 years ago, I require LTE. I won't open water swim or surf without it anymore. Trust me, one emergency in the water and you will wish you had it. I was lucky, it was 6am and lifeguards were training near me. Now I wear an apple watch every time I am in the water.

For emergency on the water I have a rugged, water-proof (IP-69) phone with me and for more extreme stuff a PLB. I would never rely on a watch to call for help. Unless your watch can connect to a reliable rescue service compaitible to the data the watch sends it is useless anyway. But it is your life, not mine.

Sorry but I have LTE on my apple watch and it works just as well as my phone. Who would take a device like a phone surfing? Have you ever surfed? Well I know the answer to that question if you are telling me to take a phone surfing. Watch LTE works as I have had it since apple released it. Ive tested it on multiple swim/surf spots. I get txts in the water, its great.  I can txt my wife during my session to let her know when I will be home likewise she can message me if there is an emergency. I do however see you are very against this feature, like really against it. Why are you so against it? There is a market for it. There are uses for it. And it works.