You get a middle ground device, that is suitable for many different individuals, who don't require a specialized device, you get to carry less weight on your ride, and allows you to re-route dynamically based on road conditions and weather?

I carry a "cat video viewing device" when cycling! I use the Cycle Meter app on the device to track my monthly/years mileage... for $5 a year... it's a good app. I don't view/watch it when I ride. I keep the "cat video viewing device" in a zip-lock bag in a jersey pocket. I do have a little el-cheap-o bicycle computer (speedometer) to see stats (and time) as I ride... and to keep track of the bicycles mileage.

It all makes more sense.... when we don't call it a phone.

Pretty widely understood in the industry that the voice capabilities of the phone are not the most important functions anymore. Some suppliers had to learn that the hard way (ask Nokia).

J.

+1. I really depend on my little pocket PC! It does so much... texting, my cycling app, diet app, weather app, lighting, security camera, and entry control, even TV remote. I don't make many phone calls.... but I've even used it for phone calls too.

A text is probably better than a voice call in an emergency anyway. You get your message across faster, the recipient can be in a noisy place, you need less battery power and less network access to send a text. People are often able to have a text message sent from the mountains where voice calls would be impossible, it happens when you crest a ridge or go by an opening in the woods and can kind of reach a tower for a split second. Even 911 is starting to respond to SMS.

I still prefer to keep some juice in the phone battery, but it's not like I'm going to have to attend a book club discussion by phone in the middle of a ride.

I can't remember which industry luminary said it, but the comment was that we used the term "personal computer" decades too soon. Very true.

I'm in the tech business and I monitor the industry trends for disruptive technologies. It's pretty apparent to me that the smartphone/personal network technologies that are emerging with the smartphone as the "personal network server" are going to become very disruptive to a lot of companies. One of those that I'm interested to see how they adapt (if they do) are the Personal Navigation Device (PND) companies like Garmin and others. Every year, the smartphones take pretty substantial bites out of their market space. In Garmin's case, where they are focused on things like Health and Fitness markets, smartphones with network appliances like sensors and things like the RFLKT+ are taking serious bites out of their sports specific GPS devices. Then with the advent of things like the Apple Watch, their running and fitness products are under assault as well. The only way out of it is innovation, and I just don't know what that will be but hopefully they do since I like Garmin as a company.

I was pretty disappointed as I've been looking at this Edge 1000 I have at home as I compare it to the iPhone/Rflkt+/Cyclemeter combo. With the exception of lack of mapping support on the RFLKT+, I think the UI and the ability to customize the display as well as it's small size are just really big advantages for the personal network/smartphone approach. Garmin will need to really up it's UI game so that a user has a lot more creative latitude in selection a lot more than just the number of fields on a given screen. They are also going to need to find a way to not need the phone for connectivity or something. They have no performance advantage in sensors and the performance of sensor to head unit is pretty much identical to the smartphone world.

At this point the difference in functionality between the stand alone GPS units are the smartphone competitors are not significant anymore. The smartphone competitors have matured to the point where they lead in some key feature areas too. Going back even two years ago, there was a substantial advantage to the GPS based devices, that is not true any longer and differentiation for a standalone GPS device is largely gone to the point where, at best, it's "taste great/less filling" until you consider cost where the GPS units are at a significant disadvantage.

J.

RE: John80: "At this point the difference in functionality between the stand alone GPS units are the smartphone competitors are not significant anymore.
+1, I use Wahoo fitness app and Duotrap sensor calculating wheel distance while some of my friends are using high end garmin, and others MapmyRide GPS.. 30 mile rides compare at +/- .1 mile, negligible. Screen display in sun is another nonfactor. First, I rarely have a problem seeing the display when I look at it.. which is not very often because the Wahoo app is calling out full ride averages (Cadence, distance ,mph, etc ) on the 1/2 mile and segment averages on 5 minute intervals .. so there's no reason to be watching the screen except for the occasional look. Battery usage varies by phone. Two hour rides with my Lg3 uses approx 25% with music on and wahoo display working at all times. I have not compared elevation gains, etc with somebody that has altimeter, but, I've read Strava elevation gain calculations are fairly accurate.

My advice is to try a few smartphone apps before buying a dedicated computer.

The Apple Watch isn't seen as a competitor to Garmin's fitness products, for several reasons. Even "Cult of Mac" wrote an article about how Garmin's watch is better than Apple's, for running etc.

There's some truth to your comparison of the Edge units to smart phones, but (1) you overstate your case a bit, and (2) Edge bike computers aren't Garmin's most innovative sports products. :( But they still have advantages over smart phones, like: battery life, ruggedness, weather-proof-ness, and ability to use maps and routing without network access. Also the phone's price advantage is less compelling when you think about buying custom mounts, reflector kits, waterproof bags, and batteries, let alone replacement costs should you crash. Plus Firstbeat data. It's less of a slam dunk than you make it sound like.

Their new watch tells you how a workout affected your fitness, how long you need to rest and your current recovery status, has graphs for elevation, heart rate, power, displays text messages and emails, and the battery can last weeks. I think they're listening to your advice to innovate just fine. Suunto and Polar GPS watches even do heart rate while you're swimming!

PS - More and more phones these days have barometric altimeters and aren't limited to (not very good) GPS elevation.

The 1000 is mostly overkill for features other than maps.

The only option is to make the unit into a cell phone. With a separate monthly fee for data (no thanks!). (The newer units can use WiFi or BT for connectivity, but that's very short range.)

The smartphone suppliers are huge in their own industry, but in the health and fitness business, they are upstarts. If you believe the Reis and Troutt Marketing Warfare guys, the way to do that is to attack from an edge, never directly and utilize guerrilla tactics to gain marketshare. That is exactly what the smartphone suppliers are doing with watches - granted, they are not as capable as the top end of the PND supplier's products, but they are 50-70% and they take away a lot of the volume and make it much more difficult to have a sufficiently large war chest to counter attack. That is exactly what is happening in health and fitness PND products.

Things like ruggedness, battery life etc.. are all being handled. Samsung is apparently coming out with a waterproof phone. There are all kinds of case options. There are now "display" products like the RFLKT+ that utilize the personal network and take away the battery usage problem especially for someone who feels they have to carry their phone with them for safety reasons. There are battery sleds that work super well (look at iBattz stuff, for instance).

That's the whole point - the differentiation has been dramatically narrowed. That takes away big hunks of market share and reduced the value proposition of the PND suppliers to their customer base. Market share shrinks and costs go up due to reduced volume until the market is ceded to the upstarts. Note: This exact thing played out with Garmin and their smart phone that they ultimately abandoned just as it was coming to market. So, we've already seen this movie before.

Innovating by adding bushel baskets of features isn't differentiation anymore because the average consumer typically won't use them or doesn't want to take the time to use them. So they have marginal, or at least reduced, market value. It's kind of like when the car market hit it's glut of overcapacity and the cupholder war started.

If I was looking for a fitness watch, I'd probably not consider an Apple Watch. But if I had an Apple Watch, and I decided I wanted to go about more specific fitness tracking, I'd not be likely to go out and buy another watch just for fitness tracking. I'd be likely to get a smartphone app and just use the sensor in the watch and track it on my phone since I'd be carrying that anyhow. That's the competition aspect, not as a head to head competitor. Do head to head competition in an established market as an upstart and you lose. You sidle your way in and take what you can in a Pak-man style. If you don't think that the Apple Watch and other similar competitors won't have a huge impact on the fitness market, then we ought to place our bets for claim chowder two years from now. Industry analysis are putting first year Apple Watch sales at something like 30 million. My bet is that is way more than the number of full featured fitness watches have ever been sold.

After buying that Edge 1000, I was astounded at how little advantage there is in a PND based bike computer over the smartphone. Equally surprising to me was how much better the smartphone based bike computer are in key areas like UI and connectivity.

J.

Using a barometer to measure altitude gain is still the best available method. Whatever Strava is doing, it's using publically-available data (which means it isn't likely any more accurate than another site using elevation (DEM) data).

... which you have to buy for each new phone you get.

... more stuff that you have to replace with every new phone.


It's not clear what "exact thing" you are talking about.


It was a fairly bad GPS unit and a fairly bad/old phone built by a company with zero experience building phones in a mature phone market.

I typically buy them for other reasons than for using with the bike (i.e. business travel) but they are also useful on the bike.

In my case, the Cyclemeter app at $5, the Blue S/C sensor for speed and cadence ($60), the RFLKT+ for $129 (total of $194) give me the feature set of about what the Edge 1000 does for $650. For that, a consumer can buy a fair number of battery cases..... Also worthy to note that an Edge 1000 won't have any connectivity on the ride unless it is tied to a phone. The opposite case is not true (obviously). When the Edge 1000's full feature set is not available until you have the competitor on board (smartphone), then what does that mean for long term viability?

This is exactly what I was saying - the difference between a PND based bike computer and a smartphone based bike computer is pretty much in the "taste great/less filling" state. There are tiny differentiators from one approach to the other, but there is no longer an obvious best choice between the two. That is going to be extremely disruptive to the PND based suppliers. When you factor in cost - which is a big one - PND based devices are in trouble.

J.

2014 article with an elevation test... interesting results with some devices using barometric altimeter.
GPS Elevation Accuracy Test: Smartphone Apps vs. Dedicated GPS | Singletracks Mountain Bike News

I buy batteries that can charge any phone. But phone-specific battery cases must work for some people.

To do these simple things, spending $650 for the 1000 makes no sense.

You can spend around $360 for an Edge 810 and a speed/cadence sensor and get navigation (without needing a phone). That's a more realistic alternative.

For it to have connectivity without a separate phone, it would need to be a phone itself with a monthly fee for that connectivity. No thanks!

The RFLKT+ is completely useless without a phone, isn't it?

Not very interesting (or surprising) The difference is just noise. You need real gain for the signal to exceed the noise. The level of accuracy that many people expect gain data has is not realistic.

Samsung's Galaxy phones cost in the ballpark of $600. People don't realize that because they pay for the phone by overpaying for service every month, in exchange for a phone subsidy. But if you damage it in a crash, you're not getting another one for $1. A coworker of mine just spent $35 on a phone mount for his handlebars. The RFLKT+ is $100. The battery pack you're talking about is another expense, depending which one you get. Earlier you were talking about the cost disadvantage of a dedicated GPS but now we're talking about a $150 Garmin 500 going up against a $750+ Samsung system.

The economics are much worse for anyone who already owns a power meter, or even a chest strap HRM or speed and cadence sensor.

There's no doubt that smart phones will keep being pressed into service as cycling and running computers. Or that many users will find them lacking. If I only ever rode an hour or two at a time and only in good weather and only where I have reception, and didn't mind buying new sensors for the hell of it, my phone would work for me too.

I am an old retired tech guy. My Home Theater used an 8 foot screen over a decade ago.... and I was voice controlling my home automation over 8 years ago. Keeping my systems technologically up-to-date has been far more difficult than building them was. We can't guess the future.

So much changes. Many tech items... so endeared to us today... will be like a forgotten Walkman tomorrow. It is unlikely any of the Gates or Jobs children will ever ascend to manage any technology empire. Microsoft and Apple will likely be only as important as Zenith, RCA, and Sony in a decade or two.

Many people at the forums still think the ole golden age of Bicycles will return.... to change the world into a pedal powered Utopia. I expect changes.... bigger than the human imagination. Because.... that is the way it has always been.

You have to compare feature set to feature set. That's where the Edge 1000 comes in although the smartphone user has virtually the same feature set or better for a 45% or more discount under the cost of the 810 not to mention the 1000! So, I'd agree, the 810 and 1000 are both in jeopardy from smartphone based systems. There is no way this does not jeopardize Garmin's margins and cause them to have less dedication to this market over time. I say that as a fan of Garmin as a company too.

And with this statement of yours:

Thank you, you've eloquently and succinctly made my point for me. Now you realize the serious problem that PND suppliers face.

J.

No, not really. Smartphones will keep mostly ignoring the (small) market that the 1000 fills.

You'll have to (genererally) keep buying new cases for every new phone and have to mount something overly large on your handlebar (if you want navigation) or be stuck with something limited like the RFLKT+.

Using smartphones works for some people but they don't work for everybody (and it doesn't seem like the ways they don't work will be fixed anytime soon).

The 45% discount includes no navigation with the RFLKT+. It's not the "same feature set" at all! (The RFLKT+ is a completely reasonable product but it doesn't serve everybody's needs.)

The fact that the RFLKT+ works for you indicates that you bought the 1000 for wrong/unreasonable reasons.

I'm at a loss here. First you're saying the feature set in the Garmin doesn't matter because you don't understand the features. Next you're saying you can't just ignore features that are missing in a product. But it seems like what's really going on here is you have to constantly shift the goal posts to make it seem like smart phones are the obvious and only way to go.

Sticking with the OP question... "Why buy a GPS.. when I can I use a phone app?"

I see most of the pros as external; Weather proof, compactness, display visibility, battery life, less expense in case of crash... though the weight of those factors is debatable as I have no problems with any of those using a cell.

And I have yet to see a critical difference in data measurement accuracy between cell apps (using GPS only) and a dedicated computer. Yes, there were occasional spikes in realtime speed using GPS only. That went away once I installed the DT Sensor and connected to the app. But, the bottomline is my ride result details always showed the same end data (Dist, Avg Speed, Elevation Gain, etc)on Strava as my friends using the computers.

I wouldn't tell anyone NOT to buy a dedicated computer unit.. but, I would offer to try out a few of the free cell apps using GPS as a starting point. Wahoo is pretty slick with/without using sensors. Learn how to sync and upload to other apps like Strava. It'll provide a baseline for making a better decision of what features you'll want when the time comes to move up to dedicated computer.

I don't think the GPS accuracy is much different. (Having a barometer is better for elevation gain.)

I've said much the same thing to people.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that the piling on of features gets a lot of them lost in the noise. At some point, few consumers look at them or even understand how to use them. For example, what percentage of users do you think actually use the feature of tweeting their position out on a regular basis? 2%? 5%? When that happens, it's like trying to sell a car based on the great cupholders.

I'm not trying to say that one is better than the other because they both have their strengths (i.e. "tastes great/less filling"). What I am saying is that the market is such that the PND based supplier's business, which they owned in whole before, is now probably approaching 50% or better shared with the smart phone based applications. That is not good news for PND suppliers because they are going to depend on volume to keep their costs down. Without low costs and relatively high selling price, their margins suffer and therefore their long term ability to answer the competition.

Already, RideWithGPS offers turn by turn directions through the RFLKT+ from their smartphone app. Again, an example of sidling of and taking market share. It's not perfect but it's pretty good and pretty good is the clear enemy to perfect.

Navigation is also offered through the smartphone by any number of apps. More sidling over and taking market share.

You can buy a LOT of cases for the price delta between the two approaches. More sidling up and doing the Pac-man thing on PND based market share.

Riding with my Edge 1000 on the handlebars alongside my RFLKT+ based system and comparing them leads me pretty directly to the conclusion that for most of what I think most cyclists want from a computer, there is little functional difference. The premier standalone GPS bike computer is not significantly advantaged over the capabilities of a smartphone based set up. Think of that for a minute. The down market units are going to have even a tougher time competing.

Then there is the question about what does the next iteration of the RFLKT or similar look like? v2.0 could, and probably will, wipe out even more differentiation at a reduced price. The technology is already there and is not rocket science. Low barrier to entry in this too. This is just asking for another competitor to jump in here.

I agree with you, the RFLKT+ is not the solution to everybody's needs (see explanation above). I am saying that the smartphone apps+hardware is moving over and pushing the PND guys out of large segments of this market that they previously owned and in which they enjoyed high selling prices now eroded. I also am saying that the vast majority of the bike computer market is and can be met by a smartphone app. There is less room for a PND based solution.

The problem is that the PND bike computer units are not a high volume product. Losing substantial market share is going to be tough in a market that is decent volume, but not high volume. Costs go up fast. It becomes harder to get a good ROI on expensive R&D. I think it's going to be a tough long term strategy for PND companies in this market just like the Garmin phone was when smartphones hit the market in 2007. Like I said, we've seen this movie before.

I like the characterization from above of the serious barrier that the smartphone guys have where the PND device would have to incorporate a phone in order to do attack the smartphone's strengths and what it can do already. That is a serious position to stake out and from a competitive perspective is going to be all but impossible to dislodge. If I were a PND CEO, that would be keeping me up at night.

J.