Garmin’s Smartwatch Strategy Is Broken—Here’s Why It Will Soon Matter.
Garmin makes some of the world’s toughest and most advanced sports watches. Athletes swear by them. Adventurers rely on them. But when it comes to smart features, Garmin is losing ground.
Apple, Samsung and others lead with sleek designs, seamless smartphone integration, and cutting-edge health tech. Even budget brands are stepping up, offering 90% of what casual users need at a fraction of the cost. Meanwhile, Garmin? Stuck in its lane, clinging to a clunky UI and a smartwatch ecosystem that is years behind.
No LTE/5G. No voice assistant worth using. A messy and disjointed product lineup that confuses more than it convinces. Garmin dominates endurance sports, but the future of smartwatches lies in improved functionality for everyday users, not just athletes. If Garmin wants to compete in the future, something has to change; otherwise, it will only cater to profitable niches.
So what’s holding Garmin back? Can it fix the cracks before it’s too late?
Reality Check
Garmin has been wildly successful and recently passed the mark of two billion dollars of cash in the bank. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon. But…
Every empire crumbles. All of them, it’s just a case of when and how.
Here are several of Garmin’s generic weaknesses as I see them; what do you think? It’s not an exhaustive list, and I’ve indicated those that warrant more importance and those where Garmin is progressing.
1. Product Lineup & Market Positioning
- Fragmented Product Lineup – There are too many options in too many ranges. The product series cross over each other in the minds of many consumers. Even seasoned Garmin reviewers struggle to logically differentiate the market positioning of some Garmin models’ positions.
- Limited Lifestyle Appeal – Strong appeal for athletes, weaker for casual users who dominate the market.
- Slower Innovation Cycle – Garmin struggles to make meaningful annual refresh cycles work for its key ranges. For example, Fenix 8 didn’t quite contain enough to justify a new series release, in my opinion.
These are of lesser importance in my mind.
- Premium Price Focus – Lacks true budget options and struggles to hit the spot in the mid-market. Dominates the premium pricing with an almost unassailable set of products.
- Weak Retail (Shop) Presence – Lacks a comprehensive direct-to-consumer retail experience. [Some progress]
2. Smartwatch Ecosystem & Functionality
- No Deep iOS or Android Integration – Lacks tight system-level links, as found with Apple/Samsung.
- No iMessage or Rich Notification Support
Perhaps only those first two omissions are super-important individually. Taken in the round, its smartwatch ecosystem is notably inferior. Today, it may not be important to you, but our reliance on smart tech will only increase. The lack of these lesser smart features adds up.
- Limited Voice Assistant Support – Garmin can connect to your phone’s smart assistant, but it has its own very limited intelligent assistant.
- Generally lacks Cellular & Direct Satellite Connectivity for voice/data (LTE/5G) – Requires a smartphone for calls and texts. [Some progress]
- Weak Smart Home Integration – No HomeKit, Google Home, or Matter support to speak of.
- Limited Payment Support – Garmin Pay works with fewer banks than Apple Pay/Google Pay. (Curve is a partial workaround)
- Limited Third-Party Apps – Connect IQ store is excellent for adding sports functionality but weaker overall than competitors’ app stores.
3. Technical Limitations & Hardware Issues
Garmin has the leading sports tech ecosystem that’s open and connected in the right places for now. Despite recent increases in accuracy, Garmin’s products lack modernity under the hood in key areas and lack sufficient thought on how they are used in the real world.
- Lower Display Resolution in Non-AMOLED Models – Many watches still use low-resolution MIP screens, giving a budget feel at a premium price. MIP has a niche for customers who need an uber-battery life.
- Ring-Fenced Ecosystem – It’s reasonable that Garmin Connect will not auto-import workouts from a Polar sports watch. Hence, ring-fencing is a strength in many ways that keeps a need to buy Garmin products, but the ecosystem cannot bring in wellness data from novel, non-Garmin sources. It needs to open Connect up to more wellness and physiology data sources.
- Slow Processor and UI Responsiveness – Feels sluggish compared to Apple and other watches. Garmin devices are under-specified and underpowered and have been for a very long time.
- Limited Internal Storage – Negates the ability to add offline music and map downloads in the future on some models, and lack of space restricts third parties from innovating in these areas.
- Lags with Leading-Edge Health Sensors – Missing continuous ECG insights, accurate body temperature, and other advanced tracking features. [Some progress]
- Inconsistent Heart Rate Accuracy – Struggles in cold weather and high-intensity workouts for many. [Some progress]
- No Dual-Frequency GNSS on Some Models – Affects accuracy in cities/mountains.
- Proprietary Charger Issues – Garmin now has a relatively standardised charger policy. Still, the market seems to have moved on to wireless/Qi charging some time ago. [Some progress]
- Basic Haptics & Sound Alerts – Weak vibration motors are in many models, and audio-capable speakers are only on the top models. [Some progress]
- Complicated User Interface – Navigation is clunky compared to other brands’ UIs. [Some progress]
- Reliance on Button Controls – Limited touchscreen functionality on many models and a lack of gesture control on all models.
- Weak Music and Media Support – Clunky streaming service integration, albeit the best from a sports watch. [Some progress]
4. Business & Revenue Model Weaknesses
Garmin invests heavily in R&D, which is certainly not one of the company’s weaknesses.
- Battery life, an unexpected problem – Batteries have limited charge cycles before failure. Unlike Apple, where daily charge cycles mean batteries last for fewer years, Garmin’s long battery life technologies restrict the need for consumers to upgrade in the face of a battery change. This is a fundamental issue for a company based on hardware sales.
- Subscription Model Weakness – No strong recurring revenue like Apple or Fitbit. Relies solely on hardware sales from new customers and 3-5 yearly consumer upgrade cycles.
- Inconsistent Software Updates – Models receive significant updates for 1-3 years. After this, it feels like they are left in a new-feature wilderness. This business model breeds consumer resentment, unlike the fairer approach taken by Apple and Coros. Garmin intentionally counters the battery restriction here.
- Limited Corporate/Enterprise Adoption – Lags behind Apple and Fitbit in corporate wellness programs. [Some progress]
More Reading: Garmin censoring forums…yikes
Take Out
Some of those areas can be addressed internally by Garmin, and others are at the whim of the legislative frameworks that control Garmin’s markets – Either the EU will open up iOS to Garmin et al., or it won’t. Garmin can only lobby and influence for that to happen.
It can, however, control what goes on under the hood and on the display. It feels that Garmin is guided by accountants who count the cost of components and techies building the user interfaces. Can that change? It could, but I doubt it will.
Garmin appears to lag behind some competitors in innovation. That said, Garmin DOES invest heavily in R&D. Maybe it needs to invest more, invest more wisely, or get lucky. They’re doing OK here.
Then perhaps everyone’s biggest beef is with the product longevity and confusion. Suppose Garmin were to rationalise its ranges to avoid overlap and confusion. In that case, its marketing department might point out that reducing the differentiation of its product offerings might be less profitable.
Then, should Garmin adopt a feature policy that trickles down new features to older models with the hardware to support it? That sounds like a policy that would delay hardware upgrades in the short term, even though it might boost loyalty and satisfaction in the longer term.
So. many of these suggested changes sound reasonable, but when added together, they seem to describe a company other than the Garmin we know. Can or should Garmin change that much?
As I said at the top, Every empire crumbles. All of them it’s just a case of when and how.
Garmin Instinct 3 > MAPS < How to get maps on your Instinct 3
the5krunner.com © 2010-2025
Reader-Powered Content
This content is not sponsored. It’s mostly me behind the labour of love, which is this site, and I appreciate everyone who follows, subscribes or Buys Me A Coffee ❤️ Alternatively, please buy the reviewed product from my partners. Thank you! FTC: Affiliate Disclosure: Links pay commission. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Basically, become apple.
You make some valid points, but if you flip it round and do the same with apple or Samsung or amzafit or the rest coros, polar, sunnto other than the confusing product line, you could put always exactly sane criticism to each they are almost always worst.
And if we compare with Apple the only difference is Apple support is up to maybe 4 years as they are becoming a HW only company to meet shareholder demand. They expect other companies to create any meaningful apps, and these just want to display on the watch but require the iPhone with you, which defeats the point
But for the sake of Garmin, there is no point in saying that others are bad too when it comes to their different watches. And only Garmin is selling watches for over 3000€ which will be obsolete after 2 years (maybe not quite obsolete but still….). The Fenix line is now around 1000+/- and the F8 Pro or F9 will probably be in the 1200+/- territory. Garmin needs to rethink their business model in which they punish customers who are not upgrading to the latest and greatest by reducing support to a minimum.
Good analysis, very valid points. No competitor has a product portfolio as diverse and confusing as Garmin.
Cellular connectivity is not just a gimmick, it can be a lifesaver when your phone dies for any reason.
Some valid points, though this seems to basically compare Garmins to apple watches. Sports vs Smartwatch
Besides apple struggling with sales numbers in their market segment since 2023, Garmin is actually doing somewhat well actually – a lot of people who otherwise would own an apple watch choose Garmin because of one reason:
Battery – At the end of the day all of those ‘smart’ features are nice yet battery life still is most important.
Furthermore your right in highlighting that ecosystem is important especially Apple is aware of that because they severely limit iOS integration for any other product besides apple watches. (Notifcations support etc)
I live in a quite large country. There are maybe more than hundred shops that sell Garmin watches. Not a single shop offers an option to test live Garmin units. You buy it, you turn it on, you can’t return it. What a joke.
At the same time you can test Samsung, Apple, Huawei, Xiaomi, Pixel watches in almost every larger shop.
I was thinking more of own-branded Garmin retail outlets. Garmin does have a few including one opened last year in the UK.
I can get behind a few things. But also: they have a very specific niché and should dominate there, because that’s their differentiating factor.
E.g. the lack of a subscription and the long battery-life are a reasons to buy it in the first place. Same goes for athlete centric design choices. One could get an apple/samsung watch for cheaper if one wasn’t looking for these things.
Where they’re missing the mark lately is in the quality department and the value. Their higher-end lineup shouldn’t cost significantly more than the likes of apple watches, but have shorter software support, be buggy messes at launch and have big issues even months/years later. That’s a basic thing and inexcusable. An AW/galaxy watch at launch will be a way smoother experience than anything garmin has likely released ever.
Similarly with their attempt to copy apple’s app store fee-model, but then all they offer is essentially watch faces and data screens compared to actual apps.
They’re currently in the process of somewhat alienating their existing/recurring customers in the hopes for finding new ones in the smartwatch space with a product that is vastly inferior in that regard. Imho, if they’re more like apple/samsung/…, what’s the reason to buy a garmin?
The future battle will be for the middle ground between smart and sport. The likes of Apple encroach further into that area every year. Of course Garmin tries to as well but is limited by some of the factors mentioned above.
Have you made it your mission to attack Garmin? If you don’t care for their products, or what they are doing, feel free to purchase from a competitor. These attacks from the5krunner are pointless.
Shilling for a flawed product or a company that you actually care about but that seems to steer its ship into very shallow waters would not only be pointless but stupid too. And yet people do it intentionally. Hopefully one day all the fragile people who think that criticisim equals hate and/or attack grow up and realise their mistake.
i buy garmin products and competitor products.
rather than focus on me, try and address the points. are they true? are they complete? do you have other opinions? share your opinions and others might learn something.
people who write about garmin tend to be called fan boys/fan girls, garmin haters – rarely something in the middle. I’ve been called all of them.
water-duck-back … make your own sentence
I’ve been enjoying this site for a couple years now, keep up the good work.
I’ve reading the Garmin articles and am of a mixed opinion. I don’t want them necessarily to be a “do it all” watch because it will affect its primary purpose. In the other hand, Apple is very good at eating others’ lunches by way of their consumer appeal. Everytime I hear “niche market” I look at my phone and curse the lack of a physical keyboard. Thanks Apple.
But to the article’s points, Garmin needs to improve the strength of their consumer appeal AND strengthen their pro/ultra leadership otherwise people will choose different, less expensive devices. Full disclosure, I bought both my Fenix 5 and 7 on sale, after they had been out for a refresh so I’m not the primary market, but people will eventually stop buying watches that cost more than a premium smartphone.
The HR sensor is inaccurate, there is no LTE or satellite option, updates are spotty; these things are important for a high end sports watch. The other stuff is relevant, but it would be good to at least be a leader in what they supposedly represent.
My 2p: With so many new Garmin watches offering reducing incremental improvements why buy the latest and greatest when last year’s model can be bought at a large discount? The answer will lie in marketing. Expect to see more pro endorsements, more social media influences say how xyz feature has made “all” the difference to their lives.
If you sign up to Garmin on Instagram you will get advertisment for the I3 almost daily…and you can see a lot of YT shorts and reels too. Curious, that seems to be part of a more aggressive marketing strategy
some people want value. others want the latest and greatest.
Garmin are a sport watch with smart functions but apple watch are smart watch with sports functions.
yes.
but technology progresses
I’m definitely on the sports side of the equation. All I need from the “smart” watch side of things is covered by text and call notifications and very little else. Even when it comes to the health features I find these days I only keep track of RHR and HRV. Rest is fluff.
Therefore physical buttons, Android support, stellar battery life and MIP (in old models at least) makes Garmin still the right fit for me.
Having said, I wonder how much of Garmin’s issues with software quality stem from their own traditional C-based custom OS and how much is just the software culture.
For the OS, is the whole thing crumbling down under the weight of all the features and the complexity of modern watches? Could they move on to something else if they have to? Could they rewrite it from scratch if needed? Could they gain software quality or velocity while keeping valued features such as battery life?
Going back to software culture, surely a sign that something is wrong there is the lacklustre UX on the web and mobile apps. Can they improve on this front?
No matter what they’ll need to make changes when it comes to the way they write software and those are some of the questions I’d have for them.
i think you’ve hit one of the techy points on the head that i thought about but didn’t include.
I suspect what you imply is correct in that rewriting the code from scratch would be a non-starter. Wahoo seems to have done it with ACE, presumably they had far fewer features to port over. then again garmin has vastly more resources than wahoo
All very valid and to the point arguments. I would only add the gimmicky and old app. The refresh was very rudimentary and not on par with Whoop which I believe is by far the most polished one.
Maybe one of the most difficult article to wrote because some of your reviews are not easy to read by some.
Thanks for that and if i’m not agree with all this help us to understand all aspects of Garmin and/or the market.
I try to provide a different perspective. People are free to ignore it.
I find this article very interesting to read, particularly the comments.
My comments are from a UK user/shopper perspective.
I’ve had numerous Garmin items over the years but my sports watch experience actually with Polar in the 00’s. Eventually I graduated to Fitbit in 2018(?), then joined Garmin with a Vivoactive 4 in 2019/20(?), which was replaced by a FR265 in 2024. I was happy with both Garmin watches.
However, I took a punt on an Apple Watch Ultra (and recently AWU2) and am now struggling to return to Garmin as a result.
I don’t care whether it’s technically a sports watch, or smart watch; much like I don’t really care if my car is awd or 4wd. So long as it does what I want/need.
So the data I see on my Garmin is great (HR, body battery, recovery time, etc) and the battery is fantastic. But when my Ring doorbell/lights go off, or I get messages, etc, it all feels so much ‘better’ on my AWU2. I do genuinely use my phone less with the AWU2. I know some of this is Apple not allowing Garmin access the same as they do to their own watch. But there is a difference, as a user, that I perceive in Apple’s favour.
I looked at treating myself to Fenix 8. Except I cannot find anywhere to look at a Garmin watch. Running shops cannot hold stock of them as they’re expensive and so they just hold the FR165/265, everything is sealed anyway and then you’re relying on shop’s staff to show you theirs. But that conversation is generally “mine is an older model, so imagine a brighter bigger screen and no scratches”.
Bigger chain-outlets may have some on display, but the staff have no idea and cannot help you, plus idiots seem to play with the watches, which causes them to be in a permanent state of crash (I’ve been back several times to see if they rebooted and they’re still unusable). Plus the F8 is basically a grand!!!
If I buy the lovely looking F8 I spent £200 more than the retail on the AWU2, there’s no store to try before you buy, plus the functionality won’t really be any better than my FR265 (just maps, torch, better looking) and the F8 was/is glitchy upon release.
So I plod on with inferior fitness/health metrics, risk the battery life (I just charge the AWU2 every time I shower/bath – not gone flat yet) and accept my dad ran marathons and trained for the Comrades using a basic timer on some 80’s digital.
Yes Garmin are rugged, battery life is great and you don’t look like you’re properly training wearing an AWU2. Both the AWU2 and F8 are compromises. But ultimately I think more and more people will start to succumb to Apple/Samsung type of smart watches and tolerate their short comings, for the gains they can appreciate. Particularly when you look at the price of the F8! Then when you look at other sport watches, like Suunto Vertical for £500, or Amazfit for £300! The decision to go Garmin is even harder!
I’m sure I will be back in a Garmin one day, but only after my AWU2 gives up and I’ve seriously considered every other option first.
I do like Garmin and am harsh on them, as I feel let down and as though they’ve taken my custom for granted. I’d much rather wear a Garmin, but I just cannot bring myself to do that currently now I’ve tried the alternatives.
thank you very much for your considered comment and the story of your journey in tech!
This is a key thing: “So long as it does what I want/need.”
one thing i’ve come to appreciate more over the years with this blog is that (obviously) people want different things HOWEVER at the same time, LOTS of people invariably assume that everyone else is like them and that the tech world only works in one way, the way they intimately understand. I try to put some different perspectives on this site from time to time, not necessarily ones that describe me and my real-world behaviour.
You mention your father’s training. another revalation of mine was that one of my best triathlon performances, my best hm performance and a few others came without using tech. you kinda dont always need a watch to tell you what ‘flat out’ is 🙂
That’s really the interesting part, people assume that everyone else does sports and activities like themselves or their circle of friends. But the reality is quite varied. And when you take a look at your own training you may be surprised what devices you use the most. While I have an Enduro 8, Stryd, and HR straps, more than often enough I might just go for a run with my AWU2. I don’t always need to quantify my life. I read on another blog an article along these lines and I am putting a few quotes here from it:
“convenience over raw performance” or in a more elaborated language “Practicality and ease of use edged out specs in my sport watch showdown”.
https://liviunastasa.com/2025/01/26/the-unlikely-winner-of-my-2024-fitness-tech-experiment-convenience/
for me, in the context you and the article are coming from, I find myslef similar in some respects. I’m also a bit of a collector and also interested in sports physiology. so i’ve always tried to keep a single, clean ecosystem of data. which is very hard when you do what i do (I’ve kinda given up in recent years). so i tend to always wear my sports logger and take something else out as well.
i went to the gym the other day to do yoga (of all things) and only wore Apple Watch. When i cam home i wondered why i bothered to do that. it was literally a pointless thing to do (FR965 has my complete data). My apple data isnt complete and i certainly didn’t need to look at anything on the watch. if anything it got in the way a bit and made a noise or two that spoilt the harmony in the room.
Nice article with some valid points!
Biggest weakness of Garmin imho is their software development process and the lack of quality in that area. I understand it’s complex, with lots of devices sharing much of the code base and features, but other companies show it can be done.
The amount of bugs on release of the Fenix 8 was staggering (and you can question the fact that a couple of well known YouTube reviewers seem to ignore this for Garmin devices but double down on it when it’s for, say, Wahoo. You know who I mean…).
The beta program is a mess. Feature requests aren’t listened to (disabling Virtual Partner, anyone?). The Explore website is having performance issues for months on end and lacks feature parity with the apps. The redesigned Explore app has potential but misses that quality touch.
My GPSMAP 67 has clearly reproducible bugs in key functionality. Feedback of Garmin Support on these bugs is non-existent. A map display issue also affecting maps sold by Garmin itself plagued all devices for at least 6 months before it was finally solved by Garmin.
On the other hand I’ve had few issues with my Edge 1040 and now Edge 1050. The Edge 1030 Plus had frequent sensor disconnects and reboots.
ty!
depends when you bought the 1050. I deliberately held off for a while and was impressed with what I saw.
the bug fix log that purcahsers at launch must have experienced is huge.
interesting comment on Explore.
I will comment on two points:
I have a Fenix 3HR for 7 years now. The battery is replaceable, as on many other (not all) Garmin models. That is a reason to buy a Germin watch in the 1st place.
MIP screens are dull but great for battery life and great for viewing in sunlight. Latest models come with a choice mip or AMOLED (Fenix 8, instinct 3).
Also, do Apple or Samsung offer solar charging?
sure, with Garmin – battery is King
I buy a Fénix every few years precisely because of some of the weak points: it lasts, does not bother me with everyday charging and notifications, battery is still decent after four years, no monthly subscription.
Maybe Garmin’s happy with a costumer that spends 600 to 900 euros every 4 to 6 years for a few decades. My total lifetime value will probably be a few thousands, zero marketing euros. If I sense their CEO is unhappy with this and shifts strategy, I’ll move to Coros.
Smartphone integration: yes, Apple and Samsung can integrate better with their own Smartphones. Would be a terrible strategy for Garmin to try one-upping them in that game (remember the Nüvi?)
As for wireless charging: given a choice between a titanium back and wireless charging, would you prefer the plastic back? Thought so. I find that amost-standard Garmin plug surprisingly reliable, only ever had problems with (some) third party cables and the socket on my VA4s remained reliable until the battery decayed to the point of daily charging. And besides, cramming both into the crowded confines of a watch sems incredibly wasteful and I surely would not want to carry some wireless mat for lightweigt travel when a tiny adapter on the charging cable I carry anyways is all I need.
Where I do see room for improvement is their understanding of the target market: apparently they only consider Lily and Vivomoves as meant for people who are a bit into sports but not enough to get a forerunner or similar. Not for athletes who are already deep into the Garmin ecosystem but who want a off-workout device that does not compromise on health monitoring. When they introduce a new Elevate, they should release a nice Lily and/or Vivomove alongside the Fenix or whatever device gets it first. The Venu 3 appears to perhaps target that market, but I wouldn’t really consider that a “civilian dress” alternative to a more athletic watch, because on the surface, it’s not really all that dfferent from a Forerunner.
I had never thought about having other products integrate with the connect ecosystem before, but that point really speaks to me.
This comes from the perspective of someone who likes to use Garmin devices for sports, but also wear a mechanical watch. That means I often wear a Garmin vivosmart 5 on my right wrist. Compared to so many other products out there, it feels like ancient technology and yet, fitness trackers are an area where Garmin now seems disinclined to invest.
I get that, because I know I’m not the majority of Garmin’s users. I also know from forums that there are a vocal minority who do feel similar though.
Letting users like myself buy a tracker from a different brand, like Fitbit, and have the day to day stuff integrate with all the training data from our Garmin devices might actually help keep me locked in.
Super interesting!
yes
i was thining more inegration from products that garmin do not supply a competitor equivalent (so that excludes your Fitbit 🙂 )
more like Eight Sleep or Oura data
Given they have a device that’s already light years behind everyone else, and that they seemingly have no intention of replacing it anytime soon, one could argue that Garmin isn’t actually trying to compete.
But yeah, point taken. 🤔