I bought a Garmin after having a Fitbit for many years. I must say i really prefer the Garmin, even though they are more expensive than the Fitbit. Though, if you want all functions on the Fitbit you need premium and if you include two years of that they are about the same price.
A great trick for Garmin watches is that they make some high end models with sapphire glass. Get one of those used and you have top of the line stuff for a reasonable price, yet the glass never scratches so it will look like new…
If you want something very cheap, Amazfit is pretty good. No subscription models like Fitbit to access basic data, and 3rd party faces/apps are pretty easy.
Fitbit was doomed the second Google bought it. It will slowly get less supported and eventually canceled. It’s a shame because I liked Fitbit and I’d hate for smartwatches to end up in the duopoly we have with phones.
Love my old Garmin vivoactive 2? Screen looks like shit but it’s readable in any setting. It’s pretty basic, use it for cycling as it talks to my chest-strap heart rate monitor.
I’ve got a pixel watch too, it’s a typical 1st gen product. Half baked but gets the job done, battery is an all-day for me (no Sim model). It’s got some scratches and blemishes all over the face, see how long it kicks around for.
I have a Garmin 235: it’s primarily a fitness watch and secondarily a smart watch. So if you want to buy a smart watch it’s not the best option. I don’t know about newer options from Garmin because this that I have does everything I want.
What I love about my Garmin is it does all it does without a subscription. I’ve looked at oura, whoop, and withings and they all need a subscription for full functionality. It seems Garmin bakes that cost into the device price, so you pay more up front but also get what you pay for.
My Venu 2 is awesome. Sleep, stress, body battery, vO2max, and almost any activity I do including hike, bike, snowshoe, snowboard, paddle board, disc golf. The battery lasts 5-10 days depending on how much GPS I use.
It has a few smart features but the above is more important to me.
I have withings watch and it’s pretty great. I think it’s less well known than a lot of other brands because they primarily make health tech (which is also good btw).
I love that the watch has a traditional dial and looks really classy rather than just looking like a piece of plastic tech. I get compliments on it all the time and nobody guesses that it’s a smart watch. It has a small smart screen under the 12 that shows steps, o2 levels, and heart rate. I track sleep and workouts on it, and I think you can get call notifications on it but I don’t really use that. All the info is synced to an app and if you have other devices like the scale and blood pressure cuff you can track all of it and create a report to take with you to your doctor. The company has a solid privacy policy which makes me feel better about using it.
Google says that “regulatory requirements” have led to this decision, presumably referring to the EU’s Digital Markets Act or other recent legislation. The precise reason isn’t mentioned by Google.
Actually, in the long run this might be something good. This will force EU lawmakers to act regarding software services being pulled without consent.
A lot of things are sold with features relying on software services / cloud services. You buy a smart tv today and two years later the vendor decides to kill the appstore. (Had a friend who bought a Sony Bravia TV. Two years after she bought it she finally got a network outlet installed near the tv. However, Sony had decided to go another route and just killed 99% of all apps and the smart TV was really dumb)
Is this what you initially paid for when you decided to buy the device? Should the consumer just accept that a major part of the listed features just disappears?
On this note, I feel it should be totally illegal to change the terms of services or user licensing agreement unilaterally and force a user to either accept the new tos (or ULA) or be forced to stop using the service.
You should have a third option being “let’s keep the old terms of services”/ula
Maybe what we need to do is to start considering such feature abandonment as abandonware and make it so all abandonware must be user modifiable and open source. (To me ideally, there would be a complete separation between software and hardware, aka, if the company can substitute or replace it, so must the user)
I’m pretty sure that looks better on paper than it will do in the real world. Today a lot of software libraries are incorporated into applications. These libraries solve specific problems that the vendor didn’t have to solve themselves. Often these libraries are licensed to be used under specific circumstances. Even if you would get your hands on the source code, you are certainly not allowed to declare it open source.
So even if Sony were to release the OS on the Bravia as open source, it would most likely be a Swiss cheese with holes that had to be fixed before it was usable.
At that point you still wouldn’t have gained much from an end user perspective since there is still no app store. Even if you set up your own local app store you would have to convince Netflix and other streaming services to release a client app for your tv.
I think the solution is more in the direction of legal pressure. If you sell something, it should be expected that you honor that sale and not change it to something it wasn’t when you happily accepted the money.
The point in my “ideal world” is that because they are forced to open source the software and allow users to replace it, other users could for example try to implement android TV on that old Sony Bravia tv. If the Android phone market is anytbing to go by, it is a real possibility, depending on the popularity of the tv
Might be your ideal world but that will not happen. The only reason Android is “open” is because Google wanted to hit Microsoft and Apple where it hurts. If they were super pro open source they would have released all code for Okay Services and the hardware in Nexus and Pixel.
But they didn’t… So… Yeah… Not even Google is sharing your vision.
A good start would be to require that companies put an expiration date on the products they sell, and until that date they are legally required to support the product. Also, it should be put into law that companies cannot remove features, services or content in a product after it was already sold until the expiration date.
Then the only your valid alternative to that is that you are no longer allowed to license code that is unable to be open sourced at the provider level. What are companies going to do, stop making software because they don’t want to open source it? Like there isn’t much a company you can do if they just unilaterally decide that this type of Licensing is no longer legal, companies aren’t going to just choose to not exist because of it they’re still going to exist and they’re not going to shut down over the inability to have a closed Source license after abandonment
The worst case scenario is closed Source license libraries might decide to close because they don’t need to exist anymore which means that companies would be forced to actually design the software they’re working on, but in reality these types of libraries would likely just switch over to an open source support funded tier where they will provide the library is however they’re not going to give any support unless they’re on that subscription tier like how msps are
I agree, unfortunately without addressing the closed Source libraries in abandoned ware problem the higher issue can’t be addressed which is that there is no legal obligation for a company to keep their services active, nor is there an obligation for a company to have a proper phase out of their services they could decide tomorrow to just close up and there’s no real restrictions aside from Word of Mouth / PR.
As much as I would love companies being legally required to have a proper transition period into abandonware via the means of allowing the community to self host or modify their existing software, like you indicated it would put companies in a catch-22 in regards to licensing agreements. So I think the licensing issue has to be addressed first
That being said if a proper abandoned where requirement was pushed through without changes to licensing you would likely gain support of companies for the licensing problem as well because of the fact that they’re in a catch-22, so at that point they have a personal interest and getting that written to law
Newer watches in the Versa line can’t install third party apps, even though earlier models can.
Google has been removing features from the fancier Fitbit lines to push people towards their smartwatch. There weren’t many good third party apps, so it isn’t a major loss, bit it’s annoying.
They’re either trying hard to sabotage the Fitbit brand, and bought it to destroy it, or they’re just doing usual Google makes-no-sense random product killing. Does anyone understand why Fitbit Sense supported Google Assistant but Sense 2, released after Google bought Fitbit, only supports Amazon Alexa? For whatever reason, they’re intent on making the Fitbit experience worse.
I think they’re trying to kill the fitbit line and replace it with the pixel watch and WearOS
My reasoning:
Enshittification of the non-watch devices
Pixel Watch 2 actually being an improvement on 1, they don’t always do that
PW2 just being their highest end fitbit + watch
Many people I know who had fitbits decided to move over to a smartwatch for convenience of other features at not that much increased cost. It could be that offering devices below a watch has become less worth it in their eyes and to be something left to other niche manufacturers.
WearOS in general has seen massive improvements over AndroidWear and I think they’re hoping that the license fees they’ll get from third party cheaper watchmakers that end up using WearOS. Kinda like what they do with Android, offer an expensive top of the line flagship device, maybe a middle ground option, and leave it to the niche companies willing to do the work to find out what exact features people want on the cheap end while bringing in their licensing and app store fees.
It worked for phones, I can see it working for this kind of device, but it means dropping the old “lesser” line of devices
One big appeal of Fitbit has always been the battery life of several days. If you want to track your health through the day and night, a Pixel watch that won’t even get through a single day on a charge is pretty useless. Same with all the other Android Wear watches.
exactly: It's "open source" like android.
The core android is open source (in many cases because they are required to), but that does not include anything that makes the actual system work for normal users.
The core android is open source ("Android Open Source Project"), but that includes practically nothing: Essentially the stuff that is in there are things that have to be open source (like the linux kernel they use).
However, if you want to have the system "practically useable" you need a lot more, which is usually the "Google Mobile Services", which are proprietary. You are also generally required to install all items in the GMS, i.e. even if you only need the play store, you still have to install google chrome.
Further, the android name and logo are trademarked by google, so even if you want to roll your own android, you would not be allowed to call it android.
WearOS is essentially the same thing: The android subsystem is open, the actual thing you call WearOS (plus trademarks, etc.) are not.
Garmin has so many different trackers for different niches. Scuba, hikers, bikers, runners, pilots…
I switched after getting my third Fitbit replacement under warranty. Affordable and standard watch band parts, though some high-end trackers are a bit pricey for me.
Just no reason to stay with Fitbit with Google’s history of product longevity and support.
I finally replaced my pebble with a Garmin. Pleasantly surprised. I still miss voice response and proper tasker integration, but otherwise it’s a solid smart watch.
Activities I only use for hiking. I don’t wear a watch cycling or kayaking. Looking forward to trying the snowboarding activity though.
I owned four Fitbit devices, and they all broke in some way. The clip broke at the middle joint. Everything else always was at the wristband to body joint, and they refused to make standard wristbands. I’ve had a Vivoactive 3 since 2018-ish, and it still works for me, plus I can have custom activities, and watch faces, and data screens. I like that my partner’s Garmin and mine use the same charging cable, too.
Disclaimer: I don’t use the smart watch features, like texts or calls or notifications of any kind on my tracker, and the battery lasts about five days still, unless I use GPS.
The article doesn’t really explain it, but assume this is because you can’t use 3rd party app stores on Fitbit devices? So to avoid opening to competition, they’re removing anything that could be interpreted as a store?
That feels like a major oversight from the EU. Users should be able to sideload whatever the fuck they want. Can it run apps as a separate package? Yes? The user should be able to install their own without restrictions.
I don’t think it’s an oversight at all. The rule is Google can’t do anything on the platform that the competition is blocked from doing.
If there is no store, then google has no advantage.
As for removing features from a product - that’s a different issue entirely and I expect compensation will be in order. Refunds for anyone who bought a Fitbit for example.
By making it not install apps at all, even from them, it becomes the same as a toaster or microwave, for which nobody expects to be able to install third party apps because these are not devices that have a concept of “installing apps”. Now they can claim these devices also don’t have any concept of installing apps.
Add comment