And like people who complain that apples laptops are too expensive you'll be bringing out examples with far fewer features, slower processors, worse displays and battery lives that only exist when the user doesn't track or run anything I'm guessing.
If you think Garmin watches are at all comparable to apple watches while still maintaining those long battery lives you've never used a Garmin watch for anything.
So many vacuous claims about supposed missing features, worse displays, worse battery life... and yet the only hard evidence/example in this entire comment chain is the horrible battery life of the apple watch...
> Because all of those things impact battery life.
Oh 'all' of those zero specific things you mentioned impact battery life? Ok.
Anyway, I don't even care what the battery life is - my initial comment in this chain is replying to a guy who didn't mention any of these elusive (apparently taboo to name) missing features - they literally just tried to argue that lower batter life is an advantage because they can't keep a routine otherwise. Pointing out how absurd this reasoning is seems to trigger a bunch of other apple fanboys, which is just hilarious tbh.
Processing power, screen size and quality, active monitoring quality, AOD. There are a few things that will hugely impact battery life.
Lower battery life literally doesn't matter if you can charge it in the time it takes you to get ready in the morning. It has zero impact on usability.
The maximum battery lives advertised on sites are literally for doing nothing anyhow. My Garmin definitely does not have a multi day charge when I'm using it to track swimming.
You are doing the tech equivalent to her knees are too pointy.
If you think Garmin watches are at all comparable to apple watches while still maintaining those long battery lives you've never used a Garmin watch for anything.