Adam Kos When you buy a smartphone, tablet or smartwatch today, you know exactly how many years of software updates it will receive. It's three years for the Pixel Watch 2, four years for the Galaxy Watch6, even more for the Apple Watch. But buy a Garmin watch and you know how long it will take for it to become a dead device paying for the lack of new software options.
The fear of buying a Garmin watch, only to have the company come out with a new model a year later with potentially game-changing technology that you no longer get, is real. And it's a problem. With the Apple Watch, you know that each new generation will arrive in September, with the Galaxy Watch you know that it will happen in August, with the Pixel Watch now in October. But what about Garmin and individual models? You can intricately research what kind of gaps society made between different generations, but even then nothing is guaranteed (see Garmin vívoactive 5).
Gallery
When wearables were in their infancy, it was probably a good thing you didn't address this, just like an Android device only got one update and that's it. But today's times are different, and software updates, solutions for security patches, but also getting new functions into older devices are simply played in a big way. And it makes the same sense for the customer as it does for the planet – the customer saves money because they don't have to buy a new device, the planet breathes a sigh of relief because no more unnecessary electronic waste is created.
It could be interest you
Too many questions and no answers
Garmin products are growing in popularity. This is due to their fitness and training features, as well as the number of measurements they provide. To a certain extent, users also lean towards them because they are simply bored with the same Apple Watch or Galaxy Watch and want to be different somehow. Garmin will offer them a really wide portfolio, which starts at a few thousand CZK for a basic watch and 80 thousand CZK for the most equipped ones.
Gallery
But the problem is that you don't really know what your money will buy you. With the Apple Watch, you know all the parameters with respect to the chip and other details about all the hardware that the watch contains. The situation is the same with Samsung's Galaxy Watch and other Chinese-made watches. With Garmin, you only get information about the display, and that's only to show how the company is improving it. It was the display that was the biggest weakness that was widely criticized. But what about the chip?
It could be interest you
You can only assume that the more expensive the watch model, the more powerful it will be. But what is the difference between the Fenix and Epix series in terms of performance? We don't know that. Garmin releases updates, yes, but you never know what features will be added, to which series, or when it will happen. We now have automatic snooze detection, but when other older models will learn it is anyone's guess.
Gallery
Take the newly introduced 2nd generation MARQ range, which is actually just a redesign of the first. These were released in 2022, so a year later we have a new look here, but was it just the look that was modified, or the internal components as well? Or does it mean that the new one runs on a year old hardware? Or do they contain, on the contrary, the same as we find in Epix Pro Gen 2 from this year? And do the new Epixes even have any new hardware? We don't even really know.
Gallery
Another example is the 255 Garmin Forerunner 2022 (which I personally own and use), an excellent running watch that was replaced by the Forerunner 265, not even a year into its existence. In addition to the brand new AMOLED display, one of the improvements was 265 Training Readiness, which measures your body's readiness to exercise based on data from recovery, training load, HRV, sleep and stress. The Forerunner 255 measures each of these metrics individually, but Garmin still hasn't given this model the ability to translate that data into training readiness. Is it because the 255 has a weaker chip that can't do it? No one knows this either.
So in order for Garmins to compete with AW, they need to publish the HW configuration and schedule regular updates, right? I don't know what you're talking about in that editorial office, but it must be a decent old lady...
One would expect that you will deal with the fact that the entire functionality of Garmins is actually only a fraction of what AW (or any other smartwatch) can do, because Garmins are only a sports tester with the ability to display notifications, but then they would lose their biggest trump card and that battery life. But no, the problem is that the HW configuration of the calculator that drives them is not published...
That's how it is when a person who knows nothing about something writes about it.
Garmin makes SW updates regularly. It is even possible to become a beta tester.
Garmin does SW upgrades, but new functions (even those that are clearly independent of HW) do not allow older models. E.g. morning news, new sports added. It's complete nonsense, but it shows Garmin's policy. Do you want new SW functions? Buy a new watch!
Really compete :)))) I have 20% battery and 5 days left, and the watch is almost 2 years old... Yes I can't play angry birds, but everything I need from them will fulfill 100%
Thanks, you just reminded me that I should slowly consider connecting my Phoenixes to a charger. I'm also at the last five days with the battery. The big problem with Garmin is remembering where you put your charging cable weeks ago. 😥 (that wouldn't happen to you with Apple watch)😁
This already has Garmin's problem, Apple will always be one step ahead, it could only be compared to Nova and Prima TV as an example, and Nova is Apple and Prima is Android, but Nova is always one step ahead compared to the competing Nova.
Compared to the competing Prime.
Garmin must be a lot in your stomach. Second nonsensical article in the last few days. Garmin is for completely different users than Apple. It's not worth comparing.
Apple pickers are simply a diagnosis 😄
I had no idea AW was a competitor to GRM. Well, for example Coros, Polar, Suunto...
The article is something like when a layman goes to buy a bike and is only interested in whether the derailleur is an SH XT
After all, Apple is the best in the world, Garmin, Samsung, they would have to add a lot to catch up with Apple, but Apple will always be one step further, so apparently they have no chance.
Well no, well.
Apple and Garmin are absolutely incomparable. Both great devices but each completely different. Controversy on this topic is misguided.
One thing is the hardware and the functionality of the watch itself, both of which are known and described many times... For me, the most significant difference is what data and how I can look at it in the application on the phone. And in the quality of data submission, Apple is unfortunately very far behind. The Health app is terrible for me, and I'm not even talking about the Fitness app, it's a complete tragedy... The fact that the data from Apple Watch is in better quality than from Garmin is scary.
And do you know that there is no problem to send the data collected from AW to another service? So I agree that Apple Health is quite a tragic matter, or it is made more for people who do not take sports seriously, but fortunately there is no problem to send them to Garmin Connect, Strava or other evaluation services that are even better than Garmin...
Sure, but I'm not just talking about recording the sports activity itself and its evaluation (I use the Strava app for that). But also the connection with, for example, the length of sleep, the level of stress, etc. It is funny that after some demanding performance (all-day cycling, marathon or anything extreme) the Apple Watch throws out a message like: "Yesterday was great!" Close your circle of movement today!”. Not that I'm a slave to the recommendations of different apps, but I find it laughable.
PS: a hybrid between Apple Watch and Garmin would suit me :-)) or wear one watch on each hand...
It is as I wrote. Simply put, Apple Health is made for "normal" people and to motivate these ordinary people to move. And I'm not saying that it's not a shame that it doesn't have some "athlete" mode. It is, but fortunately it has a simple solution and there are services that connect to data from Health and evaluate stress level, HVR, resting heart rate, length and quality of sleep and other parameters. And in my opinion, it works much more reliably than, for example, from Garmin. There, I had the feeling with the Fenix that it simply randomly generates the data. That's not to say that it works 100% on the AW, it certainly doesn't, it's just a watch, but in my opinion the level of reliability is much higher and more often than not it fits how I feel.
Can I ask you for a tip on a service that can comprehensively evaluate Apple Watch data - see your post below? Maybe it will make me come back to AW :-) Thanks in advance!
I still don't understand why apple doesn't have functions like load monitoring.
I don't understand why someone constantly needs to compare AW and Garmin watches. They are completely different devices, each for something completely different.