Is anyone happy with their 235??

"The FR235 is a sports watch (primarily for running and cycling) that also serves as a 24x7 activity tracker, but it performs poorly in some respects in the latter capacity. The fact is there are several models on the market that are both those things; some suck at the sports side, while others suck at the 24x7 activity tracking side. Where I say consumers don't get the ‘best of both worlds’ is a competent running watch and a competent 24x7 activity tracker in one, even though the functions/features are there in those models. I'll be very glad if you can prove me wrong and give me an example of a product that is more competent than the FR235 in both those regards."

You ask a question that can't be answered. As you stated yourself, you find the 235 performs poorly in certain respects. Any example given can be argued as superior or inferior based on personal opinion.

When I buy an appliance, I don't expect ongoing feature/performance enhancements

Paying the same price for both devices does help in the comparison, here (Netherlands) the SC+M is 249 euros versus 349 for the FR235.

I got a small discount when I bought the SC+M, whereas later I got effectively a ~27% discount on the FR235 (from a different retailer).

That does make quite a difference... The FR235 is the more versatile and 'expanded' product though.

Yes, and therefore I'm really quite pleased with my FR235.

About the FR235, still not completely happy with it. The OHR is just too unreliable in it's current state for me (cadence locks, strange readings, etc). Sometimes it works like expected, but too often it doesn't and I can't seem to put my finger on the exact cause (location on arm, temperature, tightness of the band, etc).

Sure. I'm not completely satisfied either with the FR235's accuracy and reliability in that regard. However, is there a consumer-grade wrist-worn device with a built-in optical heart rate monitor that is more reliable, 24x7 including the times when one engages in vigorous exercise and heart rate is apt to vary rapidly, and less prone to cadence-HR crossover?

What annoys me is when a company lacks in their communications and doesn't live up to their promises.

That is something to get used to, unless we want to limit ourselves to a small number of brands in the market, and let's face it, if their products were that good we wouldn't be buying the FR235 instead, would we?

I hope Garmin will at least try to get the best out of this watch and not give us the finger and focus on their newer products.

I hope so too, but I don't believe Garmin has a legal, commercial or moral obligation to help us “try to get the best out of this watch” and deliver better value over the useful lifetime of the product, beyond merely fixing defects and remedying failures to meet Garmin's published specifications for the FR235.

And that there is still quite a bit of room for improvement is pretty clear given all the issues…

Personally, I make a logical distinction between room for improvement and obligation to improve. If a product is already met with sufficient acceptance and demand in the market, then improvements are the next window of opportunity to extract more revenue from the consumer base, and not naturally a reward for customer brand loyalty. Frankly, even though at this point I'm far more pleased with the FR235 than the SC+M, and I've already made a considered decision not to get a Suunto Ambit3 Run instead after returning the SC+M, if something demonstrably (and convincingly/reliably) better came along I'm not going to show Garmin any brand loyalty per se.

Why not?

You ask a question that can't be answered. As you stated yourself, you find the 235 performs poorly in certain respects. Any example given can be argued as superior or inferior based on personal opinion.

Of course it can be answered. I'm inviting WEPRERUNNER (and anyone else) to offer one or more examples of competing products which, in his/her personal opinion, are more competent than the FR235 in both regards. I didn't say I'd simply accept his/her conclusion at face value, but at least I can then go and do detailed research on the product(s) and form a view. If I find that based on product specifications, technical reports and/or hands-on user experience that the suggested product(s) is/are at least as competent as a running watch as the FR235, but performs more competently in the capacity of a 24x7 activity tracker, then I'll consider myself proven wrong in thinking there is no such product currently on the market.

Of course it can be answered. I'm inviting WEPRERUNNER (and anyone else) to offer one or more examples of competing products which, in his/her personal opinion, are more competent than the FR235 in both regards. I didn't say I'd simply accept his/her conclusion at face value, but at least I can then go and do detailed research on the product(s) and form a view. If I find that based on product specifications, technical reports and/or hands-on user experience that the suggested product(s) is/are at least as competent as a running watch as the FR235, but performs more competently in the capacity of a 24x7 activity tracker, then I'll consider myself proven wrong in thinking there is no such product currently on the market.

I'm not sure there is a better product on the market at the moment but surely this is a mute point. There appears to be frustration and disappointment from a percentage of the 235 users (and no I don't know what that figure is but I'm guessing its not insignificant) and if Garmin want to increase sales and market share in this market then surely its in their interest to fix the issues they have and to improve the product to keep ahead of the competition.

They have a diverse range of products that share elements of hardware and software so it is also in their interest to fix issues across the board. Now whether they introduce those fixes in current models or "save" them for future models has been questioned in other posts. However it is apparent that there are an element of users that are not brand loyal and have been prepared to jump ship to get the features they want. If those features fail to meet expectations then they no doubt will be looking for something better in the market place in the future with a reluctance to go Garmin again. I certainly wouldn't buy any new watch/tracker in the future now without assessing if it gives me the features I want and the accuracy I want, irrespective of the brand.

Having said that I know Garmin are trying to fix at least some of the know issues. Hopefully those fixes come sooner rather than later before the competition DOES bring something out that is more competent. Then I am more likely to stick with Garmin product range rather than jump ship again.

Of course it can be answered. I'm inviting WEPRERUNNER (and anyone else) to offer one or more examples of competing products which, in his/her personal opinion, are more competent than the FR235 in both regards. I didn't say I'd simply accept his/her conclusion at face value, but at least I can then go and do detailed research on the product(s) and form a view. If I find that based on product specifications, technical reports and/or hands-on user experience that the suggested product(s) is/are at least as competent as a running watch as the FR235, but performs more competently in the capacity of a 24x7 activity tracker, then I'll consider myself proven wrong in thinking there is no such product currently on the market.

Prove you wrong? What makes you think you're right? If someone said they found the Polar M400 a better suited running watch with 24/7 monitoring for them, that's their opinion. What makes you the deciding factor? I'm not familiar with the M400, but let's say it's 24/7 monitoring is superb, but it's running features are lacking. That may be more important to someone else; therefore they find it a better watch. I hope in your research you realize that product specifications are useless if they don't perform at those specifications (the post above is a great example). That technical reports can be biased. And hands-on user experiences brings us back to personal opinions.

When the consumer base has come to accept delivery of minimum viable products…

WEPRERUNNER, first of all, my sincere thanks for your detailed reply.

Originally, the battery life was around the 3-4 days mark and far below Garmin's advertised specification of, I believe 11 days at the time. This was later rectified by lowering the 24/7 HR sample rate, which then hampered the practicality of that feature.

Noted. Obviously Garmin agreed with the fact that the FR235, with initial production release firmware, failed to deliver to the advertised/specified battery life by a significant margin.

… Garmin had advertised battery life that simply did not exist in use (or even come close).

The company cannot go back to change the product specifications after the launch of the product, at least not without significant consumer law implications and consequences, and it cannot easily (and cost effectively) change the hardware in either distributed or yet-to-be-manufactured units. However, it can relatively easily change the firmware after product release – and, in fact, that is a practice technology consumers have come to expect, even though many would optimistically or misguidedly expect that all firmware updates will make their units of a product perform better from their individual perspective – and so it did.

If, by lowering the 24x7 HR sampling rate unilaterally, and either not giving the user a choice operationally or taking choice away, the FR235 can be made to deliver close to the advertised battery life – perhaps to more closely match the design assumptions when the battery life expectation was calculated by Garmin's engineers – then it is a successful ‘defect’ fix, when neither a higher sampling rate nor a choice in the sampling rate was part of the specifications to which the product need deliver. Moreover, Garmin can be seen as acting responsibly and responsively, by acknowledging the noted issue (that cannot be easily argued away) and then correcting it – at an objectionable cost to some users, whose leverage to claim the product is ‘not as described’ or ‘not fit for purpose’ is diminished.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I saw about a day and a half increase in battery life after sampling was taken away. I personally feel the trade off stunk. I would much rather charge a day or so sooner and have the sampling rate back.

I trust you can see why it is nevertheless a technically and commercially sound decision by Garmin to reduce the company's risk exposure, even if it undermines your preferences and interests.

The audio alerts for Pace and HRM have only just been added in the latest FW update - An advertised feature, until recently missing.

Another defect fix, with a less weaselly one at that. Fortunately, there is no question that the hardware required to deliver the specified feature is already there. Unquestionably it would be preferable from everyone's – including the customers' and Garmin's – perspective to have the feature properly implemented in the firmware on launch, and avoid the dissatisfaction, erosion of goodwill, distraction from the company's other technical/engineering efforts, and the cost of managing the issue and deploying the subsequent firmware update.

The Virtual Trainer feature was advertised on the website, even after release (as DC Rainmaker touches on in his review), again this advertised and specced feature was missing from the unit, with no plans to add in the future.

I agree that is an outright and poorly managed error on Garmin's part.

The screen clarity is not even close to the website images (which I was aware of and prepared for, having owned the Vivoactive previously).

The FR235 display is definitely not as vivid as the CGI – obviously not photos of real, physical units of the product – shows. On the other hand, for a screen of that resolution, I don't find any pixelation, fuzziness or jaggedness in edge rendering on that screen. I wouldn't say it's a defect, and it's not cut-and-dried whether that would meet the criteria for ‘not as described’, at least in the application of the Australian Consumer Law, but there's a fair chance the individual customer can win that one and get a refund if he/she so chooses.

None of the above even touch on the poor HRM tracking for interval or gym workouts, the constant freezing at 66 or the scores of other issues that people are experiencing with the device, I am sure there are plenty of people who can point to many more issues, these are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

Many of those things are defects, and I agree Garmin has an obligation to fix them.

I have only mentioned specific things that Garmin advertised and charged for, therefore I don't believe it is unfair to call Garmin out on some of them.

I agree with most of your points.

What I have an issue with is that some people complain about qualitative aspects, such as ease-of-use and customisability. By no means am I saying they ought to be happy with something that does not meet their requirements or expectations; however, I think it's up to them to choose between the ‘unhappiness’ of not having what they want in buying/keeping/using a product they feel falls short and potentially could be so much better, beyond what the on-paper specifications stated, and the ‘unhappiness’ of not buying (or buying and then returning) the product. In either case, they're not going to get the satisfaction that the manufacturer/market/industry is not going to deliver today.

However, I still think of the activity and sleep tracking as novelties, whilst for some people, these are important features that just don't work like they should.

Sure, and I hope they find a competing product that presents a different compromise they have to live with, but will at least satisfy their requirements for ‘important features’ of 24x7 activity tracking.

Whilst some of the abuse aimed at the FR235 has been OTT, I disagree that the consumer should be happy to accept the device as it stands.

The defects should be fixed, but I don't see any reason why the many suggestions of feature/usability/performance enhancements that would improve the overall utility/value of a sports watch and/or 24x7 activity tracker – even where deliverable using the existing FR235 hardware – ought to be adopted for the current model, unless Garmin wants to give it a second life (cf. Apple iPhone 6 to iPhone 6S, Suunto Ambit3 to Ambit3 Vertical) and extract more revenue from it without the effort, cost and risk of a full redesign.

Most of us make compromises before purchase, based on given specs (for instance, I wanted a built in music player, but felt that the FR235 overall made it a better option than the Spark). If the specs don't materialise, then I think people have every right to state their grievances and I don't think that the answer of 'learn to live with it or get a refund' helps those of us that actually want to see Garmin and their competitors pushed to make the best products possible.

As a consumer, I don't actually want to push the company or industry to make the best products possible for the benefit of the average consumer today. I want to see more competition in the market, and I want the competition to be brutal, for companies to strive or suffer, live or die by their offerings and their strategies. I want to see a sea of different compromises, from which consumers will have to choose and choose carefully to minimise disappointment; that's our play, and the better an individual is at due diligence and/or the more flexible his/her requirements are, the more likely he/she can get a higher level of satisfaction than the next consumer for the same spend.

People aren't asking for a miracle do-all device, just the device that they have paid for.

I make a distinction between what is advertised/specified (i.e. what customers have bought transactionally), and their interpretation of what ought to be delivered or what they believe they have paid for. Maybe it's a different culture out there, but at least here in Australia, paying for satisfaction is not the principle of the retail ‘deal’ for most physical products, and it's up to the consumer to manage the gap between what is on offer and what is desired.

I just feel that, if we as consumers simply accept shortcomings, then what is to drive Garmin, Tomtom, Apple et al to deliver in the future?

They're going to continue to deliver what they think are viable products in the market, what the target consumer base will accept and buy in sufficient volume.

As a professional, I personally dislike the trend towards ‘Agile’ delivery and putting minimum viable products out there, lock customers in first and then fix issues later. However, the consumer base at large has accepted it as the norm in the last ten years or so, and rewarded many companies that do that with market success. All that's left for me to do is to try and get the best outcome on offer in a corrupted reality, and do better than the next consumer, instead of fight what we collectively brought onto ourselves. Nobody seems to have the discipline of holding out and refusing to accept technology products that fall short, at the cost of not having the benefit of technology that is available. If we are collectively prepared to deny ourselves the immediate gratification and utility, but starve companies of revenue and teach them object lessons in what not to do, then perhaps we would steer the industry indirectly back towards making truly satisfactory products – but we aren't, and a whole generation of younger technology consumers certainly aren't going to stand for it. Until the average consumer suffers enough and change his/her purchasing behaviour, the industry isn't going to change.

As I'm sure you've noticed, we don't agree on several things. :D That being said, I think your last comment is spot on. Well said.

"As a professional, I personally dislike the trend towards ‘Agile’ delivery and putting minimum viable products out there, lock customers in first and then fix issues later. However, the consumer base at large has accepted it as the norm in the last ten years or so, and rewarded many companies that do that with market success. All that's left for me to do is to try and get the best outcome on offer in a corrupted reality, and do better than the next consumer, instead of fight what we collectively brought onto ourselves. Nobody seems to have the discipline of holding out and refusing to accept technology products that fall short, at the cost of not having the benefit of technology that is available. If we are collectively prepared to deny ourselves the immediate gratification and utility, but starve companies of revenue and teach them object lessons in what not to do, then perhaps we would steer the industry indirectly back towards making truly satisfactory products – but we aren't, and a whole generation of younger technology consumers certainly aren't going to stand for it. Until the average consumer suffers enough and change his/her purchasing behaviour, the industry isn't going to change."

Our personal opinions need not be regarded as more widely applicable

Prove you wrong? What makes you think you're right?

That's a funny question. Don't we all believe we are right, if we bother to state an opinion or conjecture at all? Even the most disciplined of scientists believe they are right – until they're proven wrong, and then they just accept a new ‘right’; it doesn't mean all scientists agree on what is right at any given time, either, even if they can agree on the scientific method.

If someone said they found the Polar M400 a better suited running watch with 24/7 monitoring for them, that's their opinion. What makes you the deciding factor?

I'm not deciding for them, just as they're in no position to decide for anyone else, or insist that others ‘respect’, accept and/or accommodate their conclusions or opinions. To me, taking someone seriously (which is a measure of respect for their capacity as an equal or better) demands my effort to dissect, deconstruct, analyse and try to find flaws and oversights in what they say, instead of ignoring them completely or dismissing their opinions off-hand, or take the lazy path and respond to their emotions instead of expressions of their intellect. I don't need to be unduly concerned about how they feel just to respect them as fellows, any more than I'd need to hold back in the dojo or the ring if I respect my fellow martial arts practitioner and/or opponent and avoid adversely affecting his/her well-being. (Equally, anyone is welcome to try to hit me, and show me my tactical errors and shortcomings in skill level, when I voluntarily present myself on the dojo floor in practice.)

I'm not familiar with the M400, but let's say it's 24/7 monitoring is superb, but it's running features are lacking. That may be more important to someone else; therefore they find it a better watch.

Good for them. I don't want to convince them that the M400 is not the best watch for them, or that they ought to be less happy with it. I want to convince myself whether it is indeed both a competent running watch and a competent 24x7 activity tracker, and since we're in this discussion forum, perhaps convince others along the way. I'd be absolutely chuffed to see someone with the conviction in a belief that dozens of their fellows disagree with, and not worry about being a minority opinion.

I hope in your research you realize that product specifications are useless if they don't perform at those specifications (the post above is a great example). That technical reports can be biased. And hands-on user experiences brings us back to personal opinions.

I was talking about my hands-on experience, not what someone else reported anecdotally, if I can (and bother to) get my hands on a unit to see for myself. As much as I respect, appreciate and trust Ray Maker's reviews, I don't for one second assume his – or anyone else's – user experience to be representative of every individual (current or prospective) user's experience.

As I'm sure you've noticed, we don't agree on several things. :D That being said, I think your last comment is spot on. Well said.

Thank you.

happy

Going on six weeks with my 235....I'm quite happy, I had done a lot of online research and it's pretty spot on what I thought it would be. The GPS it's very quick and accurate.