I've got a Garmin 620. Watch is great. Garmin Connect is pish.
Discus.
I've got a Garmin 620. Watch is great. Garmin Connect is pish.
Discus.
Don't get an Apple watch unless you want to overpay for something that doesn't really do what you are looking for it to do. You still have to carry your Iphone with you when you go running. It doesn't have a built in GPS chip. Last I knew most people buy a running watch to get away from their phone.
If you don't like Garmin there are other watch makers that make GPS watches. I only have experience with Garmin but it seems like people like Suunto quite a bit too.
I'd tend to agree. The lack of GPS is gonna put off a lot of runners.
I like some Apple products (typing this on a macbook) but prefer Android phones. Unless the watch evolves into a standalone running device (i.e. no iphone required), it's not much use to me.
I can imagine the apps being pretty good though. Wouldn't be too difficult to do better than Garmin Connect. Programming workouts for the 620 can be pretty laborious....I can imagine Apple spending time to come up with an easier/quicker way to go about it. That said, they did neglect to add GPS....
Am I the only one that thought he meant Apple stock by the title?
DCtc wrote:
Don't get an Apple watch unless you want to overpay for something that doesn't really do what you are looking for it to do. .
How do you know what I am looking for it to do ?
Probably not, considering the bare bones Apple watch starts at $550 & the higher end Apple watch costs $10,000. A lot of money to pay for something that's an extension to your phone.
the female of the gender wrote:
Probably not, considering the bare bones Apple watch starts at $550 & the higher end Apple watch costs $10,000. A lot of money to pay for something that's an extension to your phone.
Bare bones is $349 not $550.
Probably going to see it in action before thinking about it buying it.
Also the $10k is not relevant in this discussion. That's just for super rich people to buy as a status symbol.
Mrr82 wrote:
the female of the gender wrote:Probably not, considering the bare bones Apple watch starts at $550 & the higher end Apple watch costs $10,000. A lot of money to pay for something that's an extension to your phone.
Bare bones is $349 not $550.
Probably going to see it in action before thinking about it buying it.
Also the $10k is not relevant in this discussion. That's just for super rich people to buy as a status symbol.
The $350 is for the Watch Sport.
The starting price for the "Watch" model is $550.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/09/apple-watch-event/24536117/Then you can't compare a Garmin (sports) against the "watch" model.
What does it do? Especially if i'm already carrying my phone.
the female of the gender wrote:
Mrr82 wrote:Bare bones is $349 not $550.
Probably going to see it in action before thinking about it buying it.
Also the $10k is not relevant in this discussion. That's just for super rich people to buy as a status symbol.
The $350 is for the Watch Sport.
The starting price for the "Watch" model is $550.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/09/apple-watch-event/24536117/
Stop being dense. While the models are named Apple Watch Sport, Apple Watch and Apple Watch Edition, the product line as a whole is the Apple Watch and therefore the starting price is indeed $350, which is the price of the Apple Watch Sport. Furthermore, as someone else said, it goes without saying that if the apple watch is referenced on letsrun then it is the Sport edition that is being discussed unless otherwise indicated by the context.
For example, if the original poster had asked, "Should I buy a $10k Apple Watch to impress people?" than it would be quite clear that the Apple Watch Edition model was being discussed.
I'm not a first generation of anything buyer. It took me 4 generations to get an iPhone and an iPad. I imagine I'll be somewhere near there for an Apple Watch as well.
I can definitely see the appeal. There are many times when all you want to know is if you have a text, email, missed call, or notification, but it's impolite to check your phone. Whether it's dinner with a friend or at a business meeting, you can't always check your phone when you want. Having the watch you can discretely glance at would have you covered. I know it sounds trivial, and to Luddites it'll sound insane, but this is definite utility to me. Once it's a stand-alone running watch (inevitably it'll have it's own GPS) and Apple Pay is more prevalent, it'll be worth a no-brainer to me.
It sounds like it'll be a handy device for iphone users.
I'm not gonna buy an iphone. However, if they added GPS and decent functionality for runners, I'd gladly buy it to replace my 620.
I'm with you, I reckon they're just holding off on the GPS until the 4S or whatever. It'll probably have decent battery life by that point.
I haven't got the cash so I will not be in the market for one.
It will sell tremendously though.
People that wear the watch will receive attention and be noticed like when they get a tattoo.
Others will see the attention the Apple watch people get and will be motivated to go to the nearest Apple store and buy one.
Apple won't be able to make them fast enough.
I personally find it ugly and I have an android phone so theres no shot in hell Im getting one
Mr. Luddite wrote:
What does it do? Especially if i'm already carrying my phone.
This^
Is it a size thing, like the iPad vs the iPhone? Please explain, because I haven't been paying attention.
Why does Garmin Connect have to suck so much. You'd think it'd be a minor investment to make it more functional.
Pink Lady wrote:
I've got a Garmin 620. Watch is great. Garmin Connect is pish.
Discus.
I think apps will make or break the Apple Watch. If a lot of good apps are soon released that constantly tell the user the app could be better with the Watch or that the app can't perform certain functions without the Watch, then I think people will slowly start buying it.
Concupiscurd wrote:
Why does Garmin Connect have to suck so much.
I think their developers have never ever run a single mile.
Stopping for a traffic light just for 2 seconds is going to render pretty much all graphs useless, since the scale then goes from 5min/mi to 50min/mi. Are they stupid? Yes.
It should be pretty obvious which data I am interested in.
Also elevation charts (even when correction is enabled) is very bad.
Transferring workouts seems to be a complete gamble at times. I always have to double-check to see if the workout has made it onto the watch.
Initially, I used the heart rate monitor to get my cadence and VO2max etc but now I don't bother. The battery life isn't too great and the graphs can be all over the shop.
On the run, the 620 is great. It's the software part that I think Apple could do a really good job with. For me, it's a moot point, though, until the watch comes with GPS.
I had a few issues with my Garmin 620 during setup (not finding wifi/bluetooth etc). Went onto the Garmin forums to find 48 billion threads with folk experiencing similar issues. If they just sorted this sort of stuff out, they wouldn't be so vulnerable to Apple coming in and taking all their customers. Garmin probably breathed a sigh of relief when they heard about the lack of GPS.