Garmin Forerunner 955 Status

jmto said:

Or are you saying that the persons you know having LTE watch have also dropped using/carrying their mobiles?

Not for everyday use, but while out on a run, hike, bike ride, etc. this is exactly what I'm telling you.

jmto said:

You want to be able to call with the watch? So you will need speakers and microphone also for that. And then the SMS/IM annoying is the how to write the text, it's really painful for even name the HR straps if you want to, I don't want to think about writing SMS with it.. Speech recognition? Over the LTE I assume by using the LTE, mic and speakers with some Siri like feature? Speech recognition is also pretty crappy usually, especially for many other languages than english and if english isn't your native language.

Yes, there are watches that use LTE to make phone calls/send SMS.  You don't need both a mic and speaker as they have single units that perform both capabilities.  Waterproofing can be done using a membrane covering that's currently used to cover the barometer sensor.  Haven't tried Siri, but Google voice recognition works flawlessly for me.  I only speak English, so I don't know if your claim that other languages have problems is correct.  Your speculating that this would be a failure on a Garmin watch (even though others are doing it) with no evidence to support it.

You said:

jmto said:

If someone is waiting to get the LTE and that would be great, please tell me what is the use case you will need it? So maybe I would understand why LTE is good, not counting that emergency thing and not having phone with you.

That's what's been given you, but your argument outside of battery consumption (which I believe everyone agrees on) is you don't need it because your cell phone provides the same information.  Well, your cell also has maps and GPS (which arguable works much better on a cell than a watch), so why would you need those features on your watch when you can use your phone?  Convenience or maybe your phone isn't with you when you need maps or your location?  You don't think it would be convenient to make a phone call/text, check the latest weather information, traffic issues you may encounter while cycling, etc. without the need of bringing your cell phone?

jmto said:

Let's just disagree.

Without question.

tess said:

Your focus seems to be the LTE feature could only be used while in an activity. 

tess said:

Not for everyday use, but while out on a run, hike, bike ride, etc. this is exactly what I'm telling you.

I'm not following. You seem to switch your arguments. If I did focus on during activity you told that it's not the only case, but then I said that why would one use it outside activity then you say that it's during activity. 

So I'm not continuing this more.

jmto said:

You seem to switch your arguments.

Nice try, but don't dance around what was said here.  Let's try and keep common sense part of the discussion.  Of course people aren't using LTE to surf the web, downloading videos, do online banking or posting threads on this forum.  Nor are people using their phone to do the same while out running, hiking, cycling, etc.  They're using LTE if there's a need too reach out to someone or if someone needs to contact them, check the current weather, etc. all without the use of a phone.  This doesn't have to be only when one is doing an activity.  They're using it in the same manner you say you do with your phone while out on an activity. 

jmto said:

So I'm not continuing this more.

The way I see it, there's nothing more you could possible say anyway.  But the "I switched my arguments" was a nice attempt at giving a reason to bail on our conversation.  Have a good day jmto and don't drop your phone on your next run.  It may break and become useless to you and you'll end up carrying it for nothing. 

There is one usage that I can think of for connecting to the outside world while running: Incidence detection. Everything else mentioned really doesn't work all that well on a small screen.

But incidence detection doesn't require LTE data speeds. Any connection at all supports a text message. So I can't think of a reason to go to LTE other than the older and slower technology may not be available any more.

Even so, if you're out of cell phone range, you're still on your own. If you do a lot of trail running in the boonies, you're going to need a sat com in addition to your watch.

Yes, that's the only good argument I've seen here for having LTE, like I said

jmto said:

 For contacting the one thing that would be great here would be automatic emergency service call...

So I don't know why you are arguing that point to me.

If you do runs where you might not have cellular connection, Garmin has inReach for that.

The inReach Mini is on my wish list. However, the shape is slightly more awkward than my phone, which sits in the small of my back while running without a hydration belt.

jmto said:

So I don't know why you are arguing that point to me.

Your argument has grown tiresome and boring.  We all understand that you don't see the convenience of running without a phone.  I'm done.  You seriously don't understand how LTE can be a convenience by not carrying your phone?  Is it really that difficult to say, "I never thought about it that way"?  Instead you continue with this I don't see any advantage of adding this feature and why can't you carry a phone stance?  Think long and hard before you reply jmto.  Your answer speaks volumes about your intellect and anyone reading this will keep it in mind when they read your future post.

You are still continuing? Fredrik was on the same line as me, I just don't understand why did he reply to me, not to you.

And where have I said that I don't see convenience of running without phone? Of course I see... but if I would need some of the LTE stuff I would take and use phone. As only good argument here to have the LTE in the watch has been crash detection and automatically calling help. Otherwise the features can be implemented otherwise or are pretty useless on the watch UI/UX.

It's not hard to say that "I never thought about it that way", if that would be the case. I just don't see the benefit because the watch UI/UX limitations which seems to be too hard thing for you to understand that someone might have thought about the things but does not share your view of the things.

I can say that when someone suggests a killer feature for LTE and watch that I've not thought about and I see it making sense and would be great!

And I don't much like your tone trying to take some moral high ground. It's all the same to you if you continue arguing with me as I've tried to stop this. I didn't even reply to you anymore but to Fredrik. 

jmto said:

Fredrik was on the same line as me

This validates you?  What about those who want want LTE?  We should just dismiss them, huh?

jmto said:

which seems to be too hard thing for you to understand that someone might have thought about the things but does not share your view of the things.

Too hard for me to understand something that we don't share the same view?  Talking about the pot calling the kettle black.

You're the one that doesn't understand why people would want this feature and it was you who has taken the moral high ground by 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.

jmto said:

I think the feature I would like to see most would be dual-channel GPS!

Dual-channel GPS?  What a ridiculous request.  Just use your phone for better GPS.  What?  You don't want to do that and you want it on the 955?  Do you get it now?