230 successor?

I reckon everything will have optical on it, just look and you’ll see FR30 is the lowest end new watch and it has optical. It’s even on the new Vivo bands. 645 is the obvious upgrade but I guess that technology will turn up in lower end units in the future. Even the FR30 has VO2Max, steps etc, so you will not get away from that sort of stuff.

I agree with Chunkywizard. It looks like every running watch that did not have OHR except the FR25 has seen an early discontinuation. Looks like OHR is here for all products going forward.

I suspect the next Forerunner device model that does not sport a built-in optical HR sensor – if such a model ever gets released – will most likely not support custom workouts (created in Garmin Connect and sent to the device for execution), but just something to target budget-end casual runners so that Garmin doesn't lose market share in that segment to competitors, and hopefully lead those customers ultimately on an upgrade path.

Love my 230 , i just want a better screen, i have a samsung frontier s3, the screen on that thing is amazing.

The optical heart rate monitors on garmin watches are rubbish, heart strap all the way.

Well, I for one don't want to trade off battery life (such that the watch will require charging every one or two days, assuming say an hour or so of GPS activity per day but ready to display smart notifications around the clock) for a brighter, prettier screen that makes it more of a subjective “joy” to look at it and obtain infromation from it. (Yes, I have both a FR235 and a FR630, so I know the quality of that screen.)

Well, I for one don't want to trade off battery life (such that the watch will require charging every one or two days, assuming say an hour or so of GPS activity per day but ready to display smart notifications around the clock) for a brighter, prettier screen that makes it more of a subjective “joy” to look at it and obtain infromation from it. (Yes, I have both a FR235 and a FR630, so I know the quality of that screen.)

I personally don't care about an OLED or other screens that look "beautiful" (Like in Android Wear or Apple Watch). The screen of the 645 on something like a new 240 would be just fine as it has an even backlight and more resolution to help with readability of smaller fields as you run fast.

And speaking about battery life tradeoff, I have Bluetooth off, no notifications, activity tracking off (no steps etc.) and no OHR on my 235. I run 10h+ a week and all I care about is tracking of my runs with as much battery life as possible so that I don't have to think about my watch much. I want my watch to "disappear" the same way i want my running shoes to "disappear". None of those "athleisure" features add anything to a runner's performance.

In a more philosophical note, todays runners go through a "bell curve" of technology engagement. They start with nothing, then they run with an app on their smartphone, they maybe get a running watch or Apple Watch, but if they are lucky to stick with it for something like 5000 hours of consistent running (yup that's 10 years of 10h per week training) they realize that they need none of this stuff and running life becomes simple again. For those running folks, a running watch is simply a glorified Timex. That's why you would see elites competing with a Forerunner 10.

Garmin, should not lose sight that some runners are "simple" and don't want or need to spend $400 on "features" that have zero impact on running.

None of those "athleisure" features add anything to a runner's performance.
…‹snip›…
Garmin, should not lose sight that some runners are "simple" and don't want or need to spend $400 on "features" that have zero impact on running.

Neither Garmin nor anyone else should lose sight that the company is operating a business in a consumer market, with the goal to extract as much discretionary spending out of the consumer base as its revenue source, by:

• winning market share from competitors;
  
• opening the market wider to itself by increasing its appeal to a broader set of prospective customers; and/or
  
• enticing customers to spend more than the bare minimum individually to get all the boxes ticked on their must-have checklist,
  

without diversifying too much in terms of the nature and range of what it offers in the market.

No consumer – if asked – would “need” or want to spend more than necessary to satisfy their requirements from a single product or category of products, at the expense of not being able to afford as many other things they would like to have within their budget. However, the sellers and industries that offer those other things are merely competitors to Garmin for consumers' discretionary spending. As well, as a fellow consumer, I don't particular see anyone else being able to better afford (more of) what they want is a boon to myself or make me relatively more well off, so there isn't even a reason for me to support or encourage market trends that will allow consumers in general to secure more satisfaction more readily and cheaply.

… that's 10 years of 10h per week training) they realize that they need none of this stuff and running life becomes simple again. For those running folks, a running watch is simply a glorified Timex. That's why you would see elites competing with a Forerunner 10.

Here's a good success story for Garmin:
https://forums.garmin.com/forum/into-sports/running/forerunner-645-645m/1323618-loving-my-645m