Interesting question, I've always been an upgrader with Garmin since the FR205. Like others on this thread, I 'stopped' at the 920xt.

Years ago, the big issues were:

GPS Connectivity, Time to connect
Battery Life (need enough for an IM)
Waterproofing
Swim Data
Multisport mode
Size
ANT+
WiFi upload of workouts

Step by step these were addressed (205 -> 205 -> 310 -> 910 -> 920)

The 920 was the watch that addressed all the major failings of previous watches.

That left nothing in terms of core functionality to justify 400$ for an upgrade. Yes, new features have been added. but the core stuff that was needed (list above) had already been done.

It's a bit like power meter pedals - I have the Assioma - I can't think what else can be done to improve it (same for Vector 3).

It will be interesting to see what Wahoo does for the watch.

$1250 AUD for a sports watch??? What drugs have they been smoking...

I'd just like to be able to set tri settings that has meters for swimming miles for cycling and running

If I have one quarrel with Garmin regarding the jump from F5 to F5+ its that they never got round to officially acknowledging the fact that F5 had ant+ reception issues and then secretly fixed this with the F5+. I'm personally using a Fr935 thanks to the fact that I was made aware of the F5 problems shortly before hitting the trigger on it but for everyone else this is a pretty stupid situation. They should offer some mail in rebate for existing F5 owners.

Apart from that I'm happy that Garmin keeps pushing the technology. I don't need some of the features but I think its important to understand that this is designed as a complete solution multi sport watch with multisport not meaning triathlon but all kinds of sports and so it comes natural that many of us won't really see the need of many of the features. Its horses for courses really and if you don't need features and don't want to pay for them theres more garmin watch options to choose from.

Garmin releasing buggy stuff isn't new. The simple solution is wait a few months after release until others have discover what's wrong and you know what you're buying.
I've often found myself wanting something no-one else seemed bothered about so I'm not about to assume no-one wants something just because I don't.
Why would you be fed up with Garmin selling stuff you don't want? Do they not also make what you do want?
Like lots of others here, I started with a FR305, then a FR910XT and now a FR920XT. I don't see any major need for an upgrade. The straps start cracking too soon, I find the side button feel a bit unsatisfactory and the battery life is just about sufficient, but overall the watch does what I need, performs well and is easy to live with.
There's a lot of newer watches with extra features. I don't need them so I haven't bought them.
I might get a Fenix if they were a bit less bulky, just for the better appearance when not training (the 920 is hardly stylish!)

But I don't care if Garmin sells ridiculously expensive stuff I don't want or need and more than I care that the company who made my bike also make one for €15k. I'm happy so long as I can get what I want and need for a price I can live with.

That’s one of the reasons I’m loving my 645. Just ordered a new band off Amazon yesterday to class it up a bit at the office versus that black plastic band.

Almost. The Fenix 5 is also bulkier and has a metal back and that adds a ton of weight. It's 82 grams while the 935 is only 49. That nearly double the weight difference is a PIA while running.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

No chance of that whatsoever; they'll want everything to be compatible software-wise.

This isn't to say that I, myself, don't sometimes miss my old 305.

I do not miss my 305. It worked, but it was rather bulky and I spent way too much time waiting for it to find a GPS signal before each ride or run, when I'd forgotten to leave it in a suitable spot searching while I got changed.

I just like the square-ish display as it makes it a little easier to see data. Not a big deal. I had an old fenix 2 and didn’t like the round display. But newer watches probably have larger round displays

That was the main reason I held off a few months before buying a 935. That and the 935 was better for swim-run events.

What has this got to with the form factor mickison?

---

Trust me I’m a doctor!
Well, I have a PhD :-)

I’m somewhat happy with my vivoactive HR and 910xt combo. 910 for racing and long days VHR for everyday. Just wish the Vivoactive had multi-sport and open water functions. I plan on riding until one of them breaks and isn’t replace by Garmin. Then I’ll get one of the do it all “super watches” like the Fenix or the 935. Depends whatever is new, cheap, a generation old, my finances blah blah blah. Seems Garmin last, and works for years and years. At at least as high of not higher function than competitors. Can’t argue with that.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Although to answer OP I’ll say I am getting a little sick of the jacked up prices. I would like to see a sub Fenix level watch with the big battery level, fast connectivity, smart watch capabilities, built in HR for when I’m stupid and can’t find my strap, and multi sport function. I’ve looked elsewhere but haven’t bought. If you’re listening Garmin price is a strong motivator!

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

They can launch all the fancy, $1000+ watches they want and it doesn't bother me. I'm still rocking my hand-me-down 310XT. The only feature I feel I'm missing is the ability to set different display configurations for the different bikes. Other than that, and it's a small amount of work to manually change the configuration, it does everything I need ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

I just get frustrated with their inconsistent firmware updates. You will never know if it fixes more than it breaks. My 520 still won't connect to bluetooth until I reboot it after a ride. Not a big deal, I'm not addicted to strava, but it would be nice if it worked as advertised.

---

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

also rule 5

Nothing as far as I know. That’s another persons response to me

I am with you!!! Make a 935 with Steel crown and I would wear it all day long.

---

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz

GPS watches are getting more attention than bikes these days

Very happy with my Fenix5 with no major issues up to now
Additional functionalities are good for the folks that need\like them - even better for the ones who dont , you get your older versions at a better price

That’s the problem. They have the 5+, 5s+, and 5x+ and pretty much the difference between them is size.
They add mapping and oxygen sat and stuff we don’t need and price goes up.
What they should have done is have one of them, let’s say the 5+, without the bells and whistles for less and I would buy it. If you want the one with mapping and saturation, and I am sure someone does, then get 5x+ model or something.

Do the older and cheaper models that are still available not meet that requirement?

Yeah, I'd rather have one with a new faster chip. However, it never corrupted a workout. It never failed to charge. It never failed to upload a workout. It never lied about having signal and showed me starting my run way away from where I actually was. My 610 and 235 did all of those. My 935 is better, but the 305 was incredibly solid as a product, and had higher quality for what it did than its successors did.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

The 920 is fugly as an every day watch.
I mentioned the problems I have with the F3 and F5
Vivoactive HR is for the casual.

So I am stuck with my buggy F5. Which works ok if I don’t care about HR. I use my Edge on the bike. But I was hoping for something and Garmin seems to be moving away from what I was hoping for.

And that's why I'm wearing a Fenix. (3, because I can't justify upgrade $$ to 5 for the difference in form factor or feature set.)

I like the square-ish display as well. I have the 230 with the round display and am not a fan of it.

Easy, I believe the 935, 635, and the Fenix all use the same size, and resolution round display with the same number of buttons. They would need new software or at least heavily modified software to work on a square display. How the round watchs display thinks like steps is based on a round display, with the bar doing an arc across the face as you gain steps. Obviously with a square face you would need to display steps differently. This applies to basically everything the watch displays, so a large amount of software would be different for the square watch.

I recently got a Fenix 5S, so smaller display than the 935, Fenix 5S+, etc, and I wanted to see how the size of the display compares to my 920. So cut out a piece of paper the size of the 920 display and then put that over my 5S screen, to my surprise even the 5S display has more actual screen real estate. the piece of paper almost fit exactly within the circle of the 5S screen, with a bunch of 5S screen not covered by the paper. Granted the round display wastes a bit more in sport modes, but not much.

I got the fenix to have an everyday watch that I can wear without feeling like a gigantic dork. With the sale, it was cheaper than the 935 and only a bit more than the 635. I knew it was a risk because I suspected there was a new fenix model coming, but I don't care because none of the new features are critical for me (I already have a 520 for cycling so I don't care about ant+ issues).