New Apple Watch is waterpoof and has GPS...

I'll give it some time on the market to see if it proves out, but those two things were the primary blockers for me. I prefer not to run with my phone, and I need any watch to be fully water proof not just splash resistant.

Interesting for Apple users (though as I'm on Android, I doubt it would be much use at all). I think my main concern would be battery life, which has never been Apple's strong point, to say the least - even more so where GPS is concerned. I'm just not sure that Apple are overly interested in the serious fitness watch market, but it may at least may force the likes of Garmin to up their game. I think a lot will depend on whether it is a smartwatch with fitness features, or a sports watch with smart features. I've a feeling the former may be true, but I'm happy to be proven wrong and may even trade up to an iPhone if they really can deliver.

The new Apple watch will always be a massive seller, even if it's a revamped Casio with an Apple logo, but if they actually managed to bring a half-decent product to the market it may shake things up a little.

Yeah, I find the battery life suspect; I'm guessing it will still be a "charge nightly" device, as they didn't mention anything about sleep tracking.

That said, it sounds like Nike is doing a lot of the social and running telemetry features for the device, so they may have finally solved their issues with that aspect of the Apple Watch.

So we'll see. I'm not expecting it to seriously pique my interest, especially as a 235 owner. I'll also be curious if this new Apple Watch has the battery to even sustain a full marathon length distance.

They're still saying 18hrs but that likely is in normal use. With no announcement about battery changes I'd suspect that there would only be a few hours use with GPS. How many? Apple say themselves that battery life will vary depending on usage. Could be an excuse to buy 2, one for exercise and and one for daily wear LOL!

It has a place in the market, of that there is no doubt, and will quite likely suit the 'weekend warriors' who do a little bit of exercise infrequently. I suspect that those of who do more for longer and more often might not be flocking to buy the new Apple watch to use instead of our Garmin devices; well I won't be at least.

But then, I'm not know for my fortune telling abilities...

If the oHRM works well, there may be more people jumping on the new Apple watch than you think. It's no secret that the majority of 235 owners bought their devices to get rid of the HR strap. It's also no secret that Garmin's Elevate technology has been a huge failure. If Apple's oHRM is a success, I think many will sacrifice some of the features the 235. I've been watching the recent release of Polar's M600. It has six oHRM sensors and so far reviews have said it works great. I'll wait a little longer before I'll by one though; in case there are any issues with it that haven't come up yet. I can kick myself in the rear for not doing so with my 235.

The same really applies to any oHR device really right across Garmin's range and others. The technology just does not seem to function with sufficient accuracy during activities that elicit high degrees of acceleration and deceleration. I am hopeful that it will work eventually, but t's not there yet. Increasing the number of sensors may well be the answer but until it's been proven we'll just have to wait and see.

Apple does a good job of bringing products to market with technologies that work so maybe the oHR is good for high energy activities. But, then the battery is likely to be the barrier.

The market is in a continual state of flux, as ever.

Big difference between a dedicated device and smartwatch though, I'm not intereseted in the/an apple watch at all but who knows... If it really does work great (and not only ohr/gps but also sw wise and battery wise) then it might be a good option for many more casual runners/sporters.

I'd really like to see a startup come along and really shake this sector up.

I'm not so much bothered by the technology being 100% spot on, I've been more dissapointed with Garmin's general attitude. Poor testing on software updates, features that dont work very well and they just haven't tried to fix (sleep tracking), and arragance where they just wont listen to their customer and want to do things their way (no adjustment on HR sampling rate, wont allow an option to disable the search for HRM straps - 2 very simple fixes that would make things work a lot better)
Tomtom were no better in my previous experience.

Someone needs to come along with a more open attitude and get this sector moving in the right direction. Keeping an eye on polar to see if it might be them. Somehow I dont think it will be apple.

I'd really like to see a startup come along and really shake this sector up.

That'd be very difficult at this point, as the platform breadth of the existing market players creates a substantial barrier to entry. Speaking for myself, I'd need any such watch to at least do everything my current one does, and then do some of those sufficiently better to justify taking a chance on a new entrant.

I've been more dissapointed with Garmin's general attitude. Poor testing on software updates, features that dont work very well and they just haven't tried to fix

This echos my frustration with the current state of affairs. For years now Garmin has been releasing half-baked products either with substantial software issues or missing key features. I skipped the 620 for that reason and was glad I did. I tried a Fenix3 and ended up returning it due to GPS issues. My 235 has been okay but not without its own set of issues.

I'd like to think that Apple will shake things up and force Garmin to up their game in terms of releasing solid products that work well. The new apple watch will certainly exert pressure on the market even if this revision isn't yet superior to existing products. They're not going to eat into the high end competitive athlete market, but they certainly will expand their presence in the middle market of more casual athletes such as myself.

From what I've read so far, I too would be concerned about the battery life. While I wear my 235 overnight I don't really gain much utility from doing so since the RHR info is useless. Right now it shows my current HR as 53, Low is 43, and RHR is 58. :rolleyes: If the actual in-use battery life is around 5hrs without a phone to provide GPS that's marginal, but not unworkable. Only time I'd need 4+ hours with GPS is a marathon and I have no current plans to do a third one. The software and available fields / data is another matter entirely and not osmething I've looked into since the first version was a non-starter for me. I will certainly be looking more closely at this watch now.

In any event I think Apple's presence in the market is a good thing. At minimum it should push the existing players to up their game.

Apple user here.

My Garmin 235 has being rock solid despite some FW issues here & there.
The battery (5 days average) and the resistance to scratch (im bartender ) and the low price point, are more than enough to prefer the Garmin 235 over the Apple watch.

Ps: Did i mention im apple user ;)

Another Apple user who is quite happy with his FR235. While I believe that a rectangular face is better for displaying information and an Apple Watch capable of allowing me to capture GPS data without carrying a phone while running or cycling is appealing the battery life looks like it is still a deal breaker for anyone beyond a purely recreational runner.

From Apple's website:

Workout

Up to 8 hours

Testing conducted by Apple in August 2016 using preproduction Apple Watch Series 1, Apple Watch Series 2, and Apple Watch Edition, each paired with an iPhone; all devices tested with prerelease software. Tested with workout session active, heart rate sensor on, with iPhone. Using the built-in GPS of the Apple Watch Series 2 without iPhone, workout time is up to 5 hours. Battery life varies by use, configuration, and many other factors; actual results will vary.

So 8 hours when paired to a phone and using it's GPS, or 5 hours stand alone. While a lot of people can do a full marathon in 5 hours that's the best case scenario and doesn't allow for any usage prior to or following the race and would also require daily charging while training. (Although it seems that that is the case any way)