I would like to add...

from times Garmin was fighting with "hw limitations", we have the Garmin 310xt, Garmin 910xt, Garmin 920xt... until they reach "The Format". Garmin 935xt is the watch that you may use for your day life and for triathlons...
... now instead of seeing that the could add new fancy features, but people want, need more robust products. Triathlon is tough enviromental, open water (sea, lakes), indoor pools (quemical products), hot, cold,... we need a triathlon watch with enough features, but not with barometric problems not solved since garmin 910xt, not with gps problems from 310xt...

... I don't see that the features of a new Garmin worth its pricey cost. But taking into account the robustness of the product, it doesn't worth it in any case!!!

They shall work hard in improving the HW/SW, and to reduce the product price, because there are many people willing to switch as soon as Suunto or Polar or Wahoo develop an alternative.

So I will pile on the woe for Garmin, currently been trying for 3 days to get through them to get a repair, just get the endless music on the phone.
On top of that, apparently an edge 810 does not exist and the serial number does not a valid Garmin number so nothing can be done on the website.
Garmin Australia, for fucks sake answer the bloody phone.

The dude is right! If I could afford new devices, I would ditch my 520 and 920xt. I can't really understand why in 2019, software is such an issue.

---

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5

I've had virtually zero problems with my suite of Garmin products, including Fenix3, Vector3, Varia. It's all really clever stuff that works 99.9% of the time. Granted the Connect environment is sometimes a bit clunky and the iphone app is useful only for uploading from my watch but the rest of the overall experience has been overwhelmingly positive.

Maybe their problem is one of perception. Everyone loves to hate them and their customer service does little to inspire love. Compare this with Apple - similarly great products but their user base loves them to the extent where they can see no wrong in their products, even though they too have occasional bugs and infuriating glitches.

I suspect that a proportion of the "faults" are in fact user-error. I work in IT and I experience all kinds of stupidity and technical clumsiness on a daily basis...

I got a Fenix 3 shortly after launch and the first few months it seemed like I was getting requests to update it almost on a daily basis - in the whole I had no problems doing that via my iphone - apart from on one occasion where it asked to be updated shortly before going abroad - and that was the update that royally c*cked up - it just decided to ditch the GPS firmware, leaving me standing like a plum on a path in Portugal waiting to pick up a satellite. (On the IM 70.3 course before the race even existed no less)

I was lucky that I was staying with family as I had to a complete factory reset using a PC to get it working again - I've only ever done updates using a computer ever since.

A mate of mine then bought a 935 - and I warned him about the potential problem. Twice he's been out to IM Lanza, and twice the 935 has failed him midway through the bike leg...

After all the attention and support this post is getting (here, on Garmin's own forum and the original source, DC Rainmaker), do you think Garmin will officially say something? Or will they just ignore the facts and keep doing what they've been doing?

Ehh, I see the point but we aren’t comparing apples to apples here (pardon the pun).
Apple 4th quarter revenue 2018: 63 BILLION
Garmin 4th quarter revenue 2018: 932 million
There is a huge difference here. Can Garmin improve? Absolutely. But comparing them to Apple is like criticizing your mom and pop owned pharmacy after visiting a WalMart.

If you compare Garmin to similar companies: Wahoo, Suunto, Fitbit, Polar, etc- they all suffer from seemingly 2nd rate software compared to Apple or Samsung. I’m not a software designer but I’m guessing it just takes big money and a ton of knowledgeable employees to make a seamless experience. And in this age of having to constantly release new products the software isn’t the primary focus. They gotta have that new fancy watch out every couple of quarters. Not defending Garmin but I’m also not damning them for the present state of things. It is good to see dc rainmaker calling them out and spurring innovation. He does great work and his insights are much appreciated.

I don't think that's quite fair at all. In fact the opposite might well be true. If they killed even some of the bigger issues and bugs, they would be incredible devices. They already are in fact, but we're at the point where it's hard to deny that all the great features have brought with it all sorts of problems. People want to love Garmin, but it's hard to when they release model after model with the same problems.

My Edge 520 is mostly fantastic, my 920XT is mostly fantastic save for a bug that drives me up the wall regarding intermittent uploading of workouts. But I cannot see myself upgrading at present when the same issues regarding bluetooth connectivity etc continue after all these years. With the watch and computer I'm semi tied in to Garmin, purely because I'd rather not have to faff with two separate platforms. I want to be tied in to Garmin, but not because the reason I just mentioned, rather because their products are better and more stable than anyone else.

Garmin makes great products that can fail to reach their potential due to major flaws, flaws which are seemingly becoming somewhat more common. As it stands I probably will end up upgrading to another Garmin, after killing off my current devices, with the hope that in a year or two they have finally made headway on the bugs. If they don't though and Wahoo come out with a decent watch to accompany the BOLT, I may reluctantly make the switch.

"Reliability is defined as the probability that a product, system or service will perform its intended function adequately for a specified period of time, or will operate in a defined environment without failure."

So, no, reliability is definitely not a feature; It's a requirement.

ETA: I know less than nothing about Garmin's nautical navigation tools, or soaring (non-motorized aircraft) tools. I'd think that the electronics manufactured for these markets require much greater accuracy, and precision, than the toys we use. So, what's transferrable?

And, I'll also add that Garmin's customer service is second to none. They are peerless, and probably out of necessity.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Garmin has much more sales, more users, and way more SKU's- of course they have more issues. Software (especially that interacts with smartphones and laptops ever changing software) is hard. This is why most new power meters flame out badly. The hardware is easy- the software, firmware and customer service is the hard stuff.

I have has issues with various Garmin products, generally a spot of googling sort things out. Although I have seen the same open water issues DCR saw. Generally, the Garmin ecosystem works pretty good.

On Wahoo- go see the specific Facebook page for them, it is a frickin' horror show. Especially the newest Kickr and Snaps (DCR detailed this earlier this year). I have a first gen Kickr and was looking to update, but no-- just no.

Polar- lol, is it 1996? Polar had the market at one time, and basically lost it all with endless jank, no innovation, a truly awful PM and high prices.

Frankly there are a lot of head units out there- but how many will be supported at all in 2 years?

I agree with this. Look, doing consumer device is hard because of many factors besides garmins control, e.g. the gps or the Bluetooth chip, but the persistent issues the are having, for example, the intermittent bluetooth connection issues on many of their devices, speak of a software problem not 3rd party hardware. To fix that, I surmise they need to fix the culture of their product and software development team: putting reliability over new features for a couple of cycles.

I was going to write the same thing. But Slowman’s valid point remains the same—actually, it’s stronger If reliability is a requirement. If it’s a requirement, then we shouldn’t even be considering Garmin or we should at least be significantly discounting its features because it lacks a “requirement.”

Having said that, I’ve never had any major issues with my Garmin products.

i don't know if my point was lost in rhetorical flair. i was aggravated by ray's treatment of the ROAM last month. what he wrote was technically correct. but if he'd mentioned in that review a little of what he mentions in his recent - also correct - critique of garmin, that would've placed the ROAM in proper perspective.

somehow, both shane miller and ray maker decided a $329 head unit, which sold well, which did well, and which got a pretty significant upgrade, was suddenly worth - post upgrade - $299. that seems harsh, especially when it, you know, works.

both these guys can write circles around me when it comes to this product class. but when i wrote about the difference in wahoo's software/ecosystem, that "feature" (if you'll allow my intentional misuse) got entirely ignored.

in electronics, ray is the man. i am not close to being the man. i just feel that ray's current comments should somewhat rehabilitate the ROAM, even if only in retrospect.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

What would be a valuable benchmark for "reliable"?

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Interesting.

I used to track all of my data via Garmin Connect. When I started Zwifting a couple years ago, I had the bug where my Zwift rides would import into Garmin Connect with the wrong time stamp. London was something like +5 hours and Watopia was something like +12 hours. Often my indoor rides would show up as completed on the wrong day in Garmin. This was a known bug with their software. Strava did not have the issue and Zwift rides would upload to Strava with the correct time conversion. This ultimately made me stop using Garmin Connect and move to Strava. I have since learned from my Dad that the Garmin glitch has been fixed and his Zwift rides now show accurately on Garmin. It is too late for me now I just prefer Strava.

---

"If it costs you 30 minutes at Maryland so what" -dwreal

I think it's important to emphasise that the head unit market now is not the same as when the BOLT came out. Features have been added, new 'competitors' have entered and prices have shifted.

That said, that "it's vaguely reliable" is increasingly rapidly becoming a selling point is a disturbing trend.

It really is a disturbing trend. Even the renowned reliability of Apple software have been behaving "vaguely reliable" these days. Complexity is the enemy of reliability, and these devices are only getting more and more complex, sometime for no reason at all.

That's a very good question. It's incredibly hard to have good benchmarks for reliability - especially with the speed that firmware updates and new products come out (with no regulations on timing, beyond the company deciding that it's time to release). It's on them to spend the time and money debugging. It sounds like Garmin needs to do more of this and create better systems to test for potential failures.

Reliability is a reputation that takes time to develop, and can be easily damaged by a bad failure. For example, Toyota is widely regarded by almost any auto mechanic to be more reliable than American makes - but they've still had bad apples, and the gas pedal debacle was a tough one to get through for them. But over time, they still maintain a demonstrated history of superior reliability. They design their own internal systems in production to reduce variation, along with exhaustive product testing, with a much higher budget than anything cycling-related.

My point is that it's tough to take a reductionist view of reliability. In order to really know, we basically have to get a bunch of the products out in the field, and see what the consensus is over time. It works or it doesn't. I've studied production systems quite a bit, and so much of it comes down to the top-down culture. Usually the companies that move a bit slower or don't seem quite as exciting are those who take the long view and spend more time and money on reliability. For example, Shimano gets complaints all the time about how slow they are to release stuff, but when the do - man, it just works (of course, there have been exceptions).

No disagreement here! IME, and from what I've seen and read, 90%+ of Garmin featuers work when they bring an MVP to market, and of that 90%,100% of core features work well enough. To be certain, I'm talking about software, not issues like battery doors in powermeters, etc. (that was a fuckup, and I'd bet cost Garmin market share in a now very competive segment).

It would be interesting to compare a bike head unit to a navigation system used in a boat or a plane, where the stakes are higher.
Are our expectations, as enthusiasts, unrealistic?

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Yeah, I used a Garmin 500 for the longest time without much issue. It was kind of a pain to update the firmware, so I eventually just stopped updating because it seemed like it was stable at its (then) current version. I also have an old 310 (I think... it's the old red/silver one from about 15 years ago) that still works and I haven't updated it for ages. These days I mostly use a Casio wrist watch and move on with my life ;)

I don't think our expectations are necessarily unreasonable... I just think it's a sign of the current culture that was created by both manufacturers and consumers. More-more-more-faster-faster-faster... and it's hard to tell yourself to slow down as a manufacturer in a capitalist world. Which is why it's so culturally driven to take the long view - i.e. Toyota / Shimano. Product life cycles are super short in cycling, which doesn't help.

The problem though was that the ROAM wasn't at the time actually all that reliable. Which is sorta what a lot of people missed in my review when they saw my price comments. It didn't do the one thing (the only thing) that it was supposed to properly do: Turn by turn navigation. Seriously, it had only one new feature and it wasn't good at it (either compared to the BOLT or to the competition).

It didn't know which road I was on half the time, and it didn't route me properly the other half the time. And we can add more time for often being sluggish. And pull in a Strava route? God help us - there was no turn by turn level functionality. Sure, some of these things have started to change in the last week or two (likely as a result of what Shane and I were saying). And we'll also set aside that Wahoo had to cease shipping till July to deal with snapped mounts. Shit happens.

As for the price, again, nothing's in a vacuum - the competition landscape changes as it has. The larger ELEMNT didn't really sell well by really any industry metrics - one reason we saw Wahoo keep on trying to put the thing on sale. The BOLT (at $249), yes, that sold well.

But again, it all becomes whataboutism.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

the new feature it had i most liked was the color coded screen. when i write reviews now, i write them differently than i did when i was 45. i write them thru the prism of an old fart or, at least, taking into consideration what the young bucks need (because i have a memory) and the old farts need (because i have a present understanding of something i didn't appreciate 15 or 20 years ago).

and i guess i'll add that i have the "luxury" of not really being that smart. so, i see garmin and wahoo thru that prism as well. the ability to build a course in ride w/gps, upload it to the device, and get my turn-by-turn via ride w/gps, and see the screen better because of the color coding, and have it be flawless, and intuitive, that's meaningful stuff to me.

esp in a new world where the only possible eyewear that an old fart can use for either indoor (zwifting) or outdoor (w/head unit) riding has progressive lenses. seeing stuff was never an imperative for the young me. it's become a huge deal for the current me, so, the size and readability of the screen overcomes other considerations.

funny thing tho, i don't like the ROAM's buttons. that's not a feature to either have or not have. every unit has buttons. but i'd rather have the ELEMNT's buttons than the ELEMNT ROAM's buttons. anyway...

as you might perceive, i'm less features-animated, and more a fan of good industrial design, and of out-of-the-box dummy utility. but you're the man. i defer to you in this category.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Can't speak for the other companies and products you mentioned, but I have some experience with Suunto. My wife and I have had several of their watches over the years. I have literally had one issue (where the face on my Spartan trainer fogged up), but even then, the service and repair was timely. Just my experience, of course.

FWIW- the Garmin 1030 is great for screen size and navigation clarity. . .

Count me as another "had/have many garmin devices, now purchasing polar and wahoo" consumer.

I quit buying garmin stuff when I had to use basecamp from 2009 to install maps on my etrex devices. Garmin never fixed the problem, despite literally thousands of people bugging garmin about it. The only solution still is to find outdated software on the web from 2009 and use that. Ridiculous.

My wife's fenix 3 works great...about 75% of the time. I appreciate having devices that "just work." It's not too much to ask, except for Garmin, apparently.