Hacker News Reader

Comment by bastawhiz | Hacker News Reader

As someone who isn't the target market for this, is there significant demand for this? $1200 for a smart watch that'll be e-waste in a few years is steep, plus $8/mo to keep it working (though I guess if you're going to pay four figures for a smart watch the $96/yr probably makes no difference).

I guess if you intend to carry a watch anyway, you can save the few ounces and leave your phone at home? And maybe a few ounces for a battery pack to charge a phone? But at the same time, the absolute last time I'd ever want to be tapping out a text message on my watch is when I'm in need of rescue through satellite message. In the most genuine sense possible, I really don't know who the actual target audience is that's not just buying it for the clout.

View on HN

They are built to last. I've had my Fenix 5 for at least 7 years and it shows no signs of slowing or dying. Battery still lasts 5 days or so with normal use. Think it's just stopped getting software updates.

Admittedly they were a bit cheaper back then (but this will one will be too next year)...

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I have zero faith that any device whose primary distinguishing feature is a subscription connectivity service will be usable in more than five years.

i'm an owner of their Garmin 945 LTE released over 4 years ago. I have paid the subscription since. The device is still working very well, still got an update a couple of months ago. Battery still lasts about 5 days.

At least LTE doesn't require involvement on Garmin's part to keep it working.

What does Garmin gain by killing off an older device if the owner still pays for a subscription?

Also, it's not like this is a hypothetical question, they've been around for decades. They do have a track record you can refer to, instead of just blind faith.

Selling you a new $1200 device.

See: Garmin nüvi.

It's not as though my cell phone will continue working forever. Nest discontinued Nest Aware. I've gotten bitten by this exact phenomenon more times than I care to admit.

I don't care about Garmin's reputation, it's simply a fact that having satellites talking to specialized devices requires a critical mass of subscriptions. There's a chain of vendors that need to all be on board to support all the hardware that keeps those devices online and updated, and at some point they will be discontinued. Probably sooner rather than later, especially when plenty of new phones make the functionality here redundant.

> See: Garmin nüvi.

You'll have to elaborate, that's a wide product line. And they still sell map updates for many Nuvi devices: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/1456/pn/010-D0743-00/#devices

The oldest still supported Garmin inReach device is the original DeLorme inReach from 2011 (Garmin bought DeLorme).

That at least bodes well for long term support.

I suspect that subscription supported devices will actually get better support than standard Garmin products.

It's more of a PR/interest piece rather than anything that moves the needle for buyers.

Garmin buyers typically choose the brand due to the much longer battery life, however Garmin doesn't have any magic battery technology - the longer battery life is simply from less full time services. If enabling the additional hardware functions that bring it on-par with the ultra, the ultra actually has a longer battery life.

The other issue is that both brands diverge in how they offer satellite connectivity. For iPhones, satellite connectivity includes messaging, sending locations, and carrier-provided functionality via satellite (e.g. SMS), alongside with the road-side assistance and SOS features. These are included at no cost (at this time).

Garmin on the other hand starts with a $40 activation fee, then a minimum per month charge of $8 USD which then still charges 50c per text message, $1 for voice messages and 60c an hour for location tracking. Garmin's also offers a $50 USD per month plan where some of these tariffs are included, but notably voice messages are limited to 50 units before reverting back to $1 each. The $40 activation fee prevents users from saving money by switching off the functionality when not needed.

I don't know how it works on these Garmin watches but on my current inReach plan I can pause it at any time. And it looks like these use the same plans.

They also run their own satellite network team that responds and forwards to SAR services which obviously has additional overhead

> the longer battery life is simply from less full time services

I imagine the transfective screen tech helps quite a bit too. Not having to max out the backlight's brightness to compete with the brightness of the sun has to help.

I think there is demand. Hikers or trail runners may buy this for peace of mind, plus the other capabilities like maps.

> the absolute last time I'd ever want to be tapping out a text message on my watch is when I'm in need of rescue through satellite message. In the most genuine sense possible, I really don't know who the actual target audience is that's not just buying it for the clout

If you're truly in danger I think there's a button to contact rescue.

They are well built, work very well, and provide metrics that motivate me to exercise more and monitor my progress. There is a touch screen but the buttons are simply a better and easier way to interact with it. It looks cool, and there definitely is a "garmin watch" tribe. Over time, you build an emotional relationship with it.

I got a Garmin Epix 2 watch 3 years ago as a replacement for the Apple Watch ULtra, which turned out to be a terrible sports watch. The Garmin still has two weeks battery life and gets all the functionality upgrades the newer watches are getting. More importantly, it looks great and does exactly what I want it to do simply, and reliably. At the time I also had a whoop. Now I only have the Garmin and it does all I need. It's one of those things you need to try to truly get.

I'm not sold on the prices involved but I could really do with satellite emergency calling for MTB rides where there's no phone signal.

That's far more common than you might think even in areas that should, on paper, have coverage.

I already take my phone for that reason but I think it's far more likely to be damaged in a crash than a smaller watch.

I currently have a Garmin Epix I've had for a few years that I'm otherwise happy with. I would consider switching for satellite SOS if the prices get less crazy.

I'd even consider an Apple watch despite it not working with my power meter and other sensors.

$1200 is stupid expensive, my Fenix 6 Pro was half that. The F6P was worth every one of those 60,000 pennies, which is coincidentally approximately how many hours I've worn it since purchasing it in 2018.

I always leave my phone at home for running, biking, hiking, kayaking, etc: not being tethered is part of the appeal.

The subscriptions for this new one or for InReach are infuriating, and they even recently made it worse because you can no longer effectively deactivate it. I only do 3 or 4 real backcountry expeditions in a year, I don't need this activated for 12 months.

I used to carry an InReach until the MBAs decided I was cheating them out of surplus cash that they could demand. Now I have an ACR PLB1 instead, no subscription but it can still call in the cavalry if I break my ankle twenty miles from civilization.

I would buy this if (honestly, when) the price drops by half, or better yet the Enduro version with a MIP screen. Some rich sucker will probably want to trade theirs in when the $3000 Fenix 9 Supreme comes out....

I feel 1200 is not that bad for what it offers. Also if we're talking Fenix 8: there's a cheaper version that has the same software and features but is like 900 or something (simpler design and hardware). The 1200 USD is the most expensive OLED + Titanium with Sapphire glass edition AFAIK.

It beats having to buy a running watch AND a scuba diving computer AND an oxygen saturation sensor AND some kind of sleep monitor. And it's nice for surfing and sleeping better and jetlag recovery tips and heat aclimation and checking the pressure sensor to see when airplane cabin pressure starts dropping and tons more. After a while I noticed tons of other random interesting things too: when HRV goes down for a few days, I'll know I'll be sick 1 to 2 weeks later, when resting heart rate is like 55 or higher (high for me) I probably did exercise too close to bed time or am having sleeping probems, etc.

IMO super cool that it does all of those and more very well.

They've ratcheted the price up each release to change your threshold of what a fitness watch should cost. Same with phones and cars.

A $300 Forerunner 235 did all those things except the scuba stuff, which only a small number of people need (and most of those people really want an actual dive computer when their life is on the line deep underwater).

But the Current Forerunner 165 is $250 and still does most of those things (everything the 235 did), while having upgraded sensors and GPS from the 235. Garmin still makes excellent entry level fitness watches for most people and when I look around my run club, that is what most people buy.

Edit Corrected to 165, not 265.

garmin has been selling $1200 watches for a long time, so they must have some data by now on whether or not it's a good plan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com