CES 2015: Garmin Unveils New Vivoactive, Epix, and Fenix 3 Smartwatches

[MacRumors]

Building on its GPS roots, Garmin today introduced three new smartwatches with solid navigation features for hiking and fitness activities. The three vastly different products are designed to appeal to a variety of consumers in the burgeoning smartwatch market Apple will soon be entering, and include the watch-centric Fenix 3, the rugged Epix and the fitness-focused Vivoactive.

Garmin Fenix 3​

The Fenix 3 is the next generation in Garmin's multisport GPS watch category. With its built-in GPS, 100m water resistance and onboard barometer and altimeter sensors, the Fenix 3 supports a wide variety of outdoor and fitness sports, including swimming, biking, skiing and snowboarding. It also connects to the Connect IQ store allowing users to add apps, widgets, and other smartwatch features to the GPS watch. The $499 Fenix 3 will go on sale starting Q1 2015 with both Gray and Silver color choices and a heart-rate monitor bundle that will cost $50 extra. Garmin also is offering a premium Fenix 3 Sapphire with a scratch-resistant sapphire lens and a suggested retail price of $599.99.

Garmin Epix​

The Epix is a rugged GPS mapping watch for outdoor enthusiasts looking for a backcountry navigation solution. With its 1.4-inch color touchscreen, the Epix offers the ability to preload up to 8GB of maps that can be viewed and manipulated in the field. The watch features GPS and GLONASS for accurate positioning as well as support for external sensors that measure outdoor temperatures, user heart rate and more. Similar to Garmin's other new watches, the Epix connects to the Connect IQ store, allowing users to install apps, widgets, watch faces and more. The Epix will be available in Q1 2015 with a starting price of $549.

Garmin Vivoactive​

The Vivoactive is focused on the fitness enthusiast with a sunlight-readable color display, GPS activity tracking, smartphone notifications and support for wireless sensors such as heart rate monitors. The watch also features an interchangeable band as well as app and widget support via Garmin's Connect IQ store. Priced at $299 with a heart rate monitor and $249 without, the Vivoactive will begin shipping in Q1 with white or black color options.

Article Link: CES 2015: Garmin Unveils New Vivoactive, Epix, and Fenix 3 Smartwatches

 

[xDKP]

I quite like the idea of the Fenix 3, for running, snowboarding etc. - but the price isn't actua a give away, so might hold myself back.

 

[Dilster3k]

Please stop making wearables, please stop making wearables.

They weren't cool 10 years ago and they still aren't, this trend needs to die.

 

[Ivan0310]

Hm...that Vivoactive model looks familiar. I can't quite put my finger on it though...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Please stop making wearables, please stop making wearables.

They weren't cool 10 years ago and they still aren't, this trend needs to die.

Good luck with that.

 

[OllyW]

Hm...that Vivoactive model looks familiar. I can't quite put my finger on it though...

Yes, it looks quite similar to the Sony SmartWatch 2.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Please stop making wearables, please stop making wearables.

They weren't cool 10 years ago and they still aren't, this trend needs to die.

Sportwatches are not meant to be cool -- other than the extent their features help one's training or fitness improvement. If you don't get that then, sure, they are not for you, but that's not reason to banish an entire product category. I detest cargo shorts, but I don't rant about them, I just walk by them in the store. Not hard.

 

[swarmster]

Sportwatches are not meant to be cool -- other than the extent their features help one's training or fitness improvement. If you don't get that then, sure, they are not for you, but that's not reason to banish an entire product category. I detest cargo shorts, but I don't rant about them, I just walk by them in the store. Not hard.

The thing that gets me is all these companies making training/fitness watches and it takes Apple to think to let it play MP3s? Garmin still hasn't figured that one out, I guess.

 

[Mr. Frog]

Please stop making wearables, please stop making wearables.

They weren't cool 10 years ago and they still aren't, this trend needs to die.

Well, Garmin found a niche in the sport GPS/tracker. In Cycling, Running, Triathlon, Ironman, ultra-marathon, they are the reference.
Their gear is expensive, their website are looking like they have been made by blind monkeys, their software and theirs UIs are not super intuitive, but it works and they have a huge line of products.
They often have the best battery life (look at the Fenix 3 here, 30h with GPS enabled, 3 weeks without!), a lot of sensor support, the best to calculate and show everything about your activity and, they are also the most "reliable" that won't crash/lose your sensors/forget your data while training (it's a major issue with a lot other product (Mio, Tomtom, Polar, iphone training app)

They don't really want to support Bluetooth stuff (well, we can see an opening with these new watch), since they use their priority ANT+ protocol, but from my experience, ANT+ is better for this kind of sensors (better battery life, being able to pair 1 sensor with multiple devices.

I really like the Fenix 3, but it lacks a LED/Infrared HR monitor, I don't really want to put my HR strap all the time!

 

[redscull]

The thing that gets me is all these companies making training/fitness watches and it takes Apple to think to let it play MP3s? Garmin still hasn't figured that one out, I guess.

But a Garmin watch has a vastly longer battery life and works without belting a large, fragile, and expensive second device to your sweaty body (your phone).

Apple's making a more general use product, but if you're in the market for a fitness device, Garmin puts what we know of the Watch to shame.

 

[reden]

But a Garmin watch has a vastly longer battery life and works without belting a large, fragile, and expensive second device to your sweaty body (your phone).

Apple's making a more general use product, but if you're in the market for a fitness device, Garmin puts what we know of the Watch to shame.

Yeah, just look at the quality of these watches:

http://i.imgur.com/tvV08xD.jpg

Look at the red strap, it screams $500!

 

[redscull]

Yeah, just look at the quality of these watches

What I see isn't a lack of quality, per se. I see a company that knows who its target audience is and the product they need. Apple no doubt will excel at quality. But functionality and practicality fall very short of even the $250 Vivoactive if (and this "if" certainly doesn't apply to everyone) you're looking for a fitness device.

This is why I don't undestand the goal of the Watch, who it's meant for. If I need a fitness watch, I can't justify the Watch because it's an inferior fitness device, even if it does have other interesting functionality. If I want a notification device, Pebble and other options do the job just as well or better for much less money and bulk. If I want a luxurious piece of jewelry, the Watch just isn't in the same league as other timeless options.

And now we're seeing some of these other products expand beyond their core functionality. If Garmin can make a hands-down superior fitness watch that also has serviceable smartphone notification features, how could an Watch win over anyone needing a fitness watch? With some of the luxury watch makers adding smart features, how does Watch win over that crowd?

Watch has not yet revealed a killer feature. It's the less-well-suited choice for any particular need (fitness, notification, luxury). It's only the ideal choice when you need all three of those things but specifically don't need the best of any.

 

[swarmster]

But a Garmin watch has a vastly longer battery life and works without belting a large, fragile, and expensive second device to your sweaty body (your phone).

Apple's making a more general use product, but if you're in the market for a fitness device, Garmin puts what we know of the Watch to shame.

But...it doesn't play music. Music is more important to me than multi-day battery life when exercising, and playing MP3s is probably one of the least power-intensive things these watches do, so I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make.

Apple has a watch which, according to you, requires a second device to 'work'. And yet even it plays MP3s on its own. The Garmin requires a second device to play music. What's their excuse?

 

[redscull]

But...it doesn't play music. Music is more important to me than multi-day battery life when exercising, and playing MP3s is probably one of the least power-intensive things these watches do, so I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make.

Apple has a watch which, according to you, requires a second device to 'work'. And yet even it plays MP3s on its own. The Garmin requires a second device to play music. What's their excuse?

If your top two criteria for a single fitness device are playing music and tracking, the best device might be an iPod nano. This is also something that bothers me about the Watch. It can't even independently track distance run while the tiny, cheap nano can (not GPS, but better than nothing). And it plays music.

Your point is fair though. Garmin's needs to play music. Even if it's just a few GBs to hold workout
playlists. Still, if I have to have two devices to get both music and real fitness tracking on a run, I'd rather go Garmin+iPod Shuffle than Watch+iPhone. Much longer overall battery. Less total encumberment. Tougher devices and less money risked to workout wear and tear.

Really, my main beef is that there is absolutely no way my iPhone is ever part of my workout. Ever. Period. Too bulky. Too expensive. Too fragile. Tethering the watch to it immediately disqualifies the watch as a fitness device (to me).

 

[deeddawg]

But...it doesn't play music. Music is more important to me than multi-day battery life when exercising ... Apple has a watch which, according to you, requires a second device to 'work'.

I agree that music capability would be a good selling point, but I think Garmin sees that many/most people already carry their phone anyway and perhaps expects they'd just get their music that way.

Truth is the industry is shifting towards streaming services already. Personally I don't often run with music these days, and when I do, I carry a nano in my pocket and listen via bluetooth headphones. (I prefer to leave my phone behind)

IMHO the Apple Watch fails as a fitness device out of the gate; it's not waterproof. Water "resistant" doesn't cut it for workouts, especially running.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I really like the Fenix 3, but it lacks a LED/Infrared HR monitor, I don't really want to put my HR strap all the time!

I hear ya on that, but, honestly, I don't think the wrist based HR monitoring is quite there yet. I bought a Fitbit Charge HR last month when Fitbit did an early release and wore it alongside my Garmin FR620 on runs. The Fitbit was consistently 5% to the lowside of what my Garmin w/ chest strap was reporting.

I think we can agree that with 24/7 casual monitoring +/- 5% is acceptable, but when training it's a disaster because that could easy mean its reporting aerobic HR zone when one is actually anaerobic or in warm up when actually already aerobic.

So as much as I detest the strap too, I can't fault Garmin for not incorporating it in high end training watches.

 

[deeddawg]

I don't think the wrist based HR monitoring is quite there yet.

Even if it does get there in terms of accuracy, there's still no way to get R-R intervals via optical measurements at this time. Since HR variability is a key input to estimating VO2max I doubt we'll see optical on the higher end devices until/unless that problem is solved.

For more info on HRV see http://www.polar.com/us-en/support/Heart_Rate_Variability__HRV_

 

[Oletros]

I hear ya on that, but, honestly, I don't think the wrist based HR monitoring is quite there yet.

Mio Link is very accurate

 

[txa1265]

I think we can agree that with 24/7 casual monitoring +/- 5% is acceptable, but when training it's a disaster because that could easy mean its reporting aerobic HR zone when one is actually anaerobic or in warm up when actually already aerobic.

So as much as I detest the strap too, I can't fault Garmin for not incorporating it in high end training watches.

This *1000

After trying last year I am stopping buying non-strap stuff until it is shown to be under control not as a novelty but as a fully functional tool.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Exactly how I feel as a runner. I'm still using my old Garmin 305 and a Shuffle. A perfect combo. That new Viviactive looks really nice.

The lack of GPS in the Apple Watch was really disappointing. (But I'll still buy one when they ship.)

If your top two criteria for a single fitness device are playing music and tracking, the best device might be an iPod nano. This is also something that bothers me about the Watch. It can't even independently track distance run while the tiny, cheap nano can (not GPS, but better than nothing). And it plays music.

Your point is fair though. Garmin's needs to play music. Even if it's just a few GBs to hold workout
playlists. Still, if I have to have two devices to get both music and real fitness tracking on a run, I'd rather go Garmin+iPod Shuffle than Watch+iPhone. Much longer overall battery. Less total encumberment. Tougher devices and less money risked to workout wear and tear.

Really, my main beef is that there is absolutely no way my iPhone is ever part of my workout. Ever. Period. Too bulky. Too expensive. Too fragile. Tethering the watch to it immediately disqualifies the watch as a fitness device (to me).

 

[APlotdevice]

The thing that gets me is all these companies making training/fitness watches and it takes Apple to think to let it play MP3s? Garmin still hasn't figured that one out, I guess.

The Samsung Gear 2, which came out before the AppleWatch was officially announced, has standalone MP3 playback. As does the Sony SmartWatch 3.

 

[Aniseedvan]

Having a fenix v1 and a vivosmart (oh and a virb, and at some point in the past a dakota 20), I like the look of the vivoactive, as it would combine the fenix and tracker for my personal use (my long range walking days appear to be rapidly becoming a thing of the past).

However as someone else points out Garmin connect for activity tracking is dreadful compared to the likes of Jawbone and fitbit. The recent issues with the link to MFP, whilst not entirely their fault, is taking a very long time to fix (indoor exercise I've captured with MapMyRun on my iPhone has been back up and good for ages).
The hardware is robust enough but there are annoying niggles. For some odd reason, my fenix now sits and consumes battery rate in standby something like 50% more than it did a few months ago. It's less than a year old. The vivosmart BT disconnection buzz is well documented over on the Garmin forums, as are the woes Android users are having keeping the thing connected.

In short, I'm worried this much new functionality in one package is going to be an alpha release for those who have it first off. I'll keep my eye on it though as I want Garmin to keep making viable alternatives...

 

[Born Again]

Please stop making wearables, please stop making wearables.

They weren't cool 10 years ago and they still aren't, this trend needs to die.

You must not work out - this is integral to my training as a triathlete.

Sportwatches are not meant to be cool -- other than the extent their features help one's training or fitness improvement. If you don't get that then, sure, they are not for you, but that's not reason to banish an entire product category. I detest cargo shorts, but I don't rant about them, I just walk by them in the store. Not hard.

way to school him. kids these days. hate everything that doesnt have an

The thing that gets me is all these companies making training/fitness watches and it takes Apple to think to let it play MP3s? Garmin still hasn't figured that one out, I guess.

Yeah, just look at the quality of these watches:

http://i.imgur.com/tvV08xD.jpg

Look at the red strap, it screams $500!

youre being nitpicky. those are preproduction watches.

If you actually ever owned a garmin watch the quality is there.

MP3s? this isn't a toy lol.

If you want MP3s maybe you should just use your mp3 player lol

What I see isn't a lack of quality, per se. I see a company that knows who its target audience is and the product they need. Apple no doubt will excel at quality. But functionality and practicality fall very short of even the $250 Vivoactive if (and this "if" certainly doesn't apply to everyone) you're looking for a fitness device.

This is why I don't undestand the goal of the Watch, who it's meant for. If I need a fitness watch, I can't justify the Watch because it's an inferior fitness device, even if it does have other interesting functionality. If I want a notification device, Pebble and other options do the job just as well or better for much less money and bulk. If I want a luxurious piece of jewelry, the Watch just isn't in the same league as other timeless options.

And now we're seeing some of these other products expand beyond their core functionality. If Garmin can make a hands-down superior fitness watch that also has serviceable smartphone notification features, how could an Watch win over anyone needing a fitness watch? With some of the luxury watch makers adding smart features, how does Watch win over that crowd?

Watch has not yet revealed a killer feature. It's the less-well-suited choice for any particular need (fitness, notification, luxury). It's only the ideal choice when you need all three of those things but specifically don't need the best of any.

This is for fitness foremost. Honestly the "smart" doesn't quite exist yet.

I have the 920xt and they started releasing "apps"

pretty much fail at launch.

still for the person who wants fitness as their strength - this is the watch to get. NOT apple watch. apple watch uses a very innaccurate heart rate sensor.

But...it doesn't play music. Music is more important to me than multi-day battery life when exercising, and playing MP3s is probably one of the least power-intensive things these watches do, so I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make.

Apple has a watch which, according to you, requires a second device to 'work'. And yet even it plays MP3s on its own. The Garmin requires a second device to play music. What's their excuse?

if you want music - stay with your iphone.

Garmin sees that they are making a fitness watch.

Talk to the athletes. nobody is asking for an mp3 player lol.

we want reliability with our HR, our power meter, metrics in running, reliable GPS, etc.