GPS running watch...Garmin vs TomTom vs Apple Series 2 "Nike+"

Mac

I have a Garmin 210 HR, it's about 6 years or so old.
It's fine but painfully slow to pick up the GPS signals (up to 1-2 minutes)
I'm a bloke and this obviously equates to "I need a new toy"!!!

I make no apologies for being the kind of bloke that wants the best (he can afford) and that design and styling are important to me in some (but not all) things I buy.
It's not to pose as most of the time nobody but me will see it as I don't usually wear running watches as an everyday watch and don't currently attend a club either.
It's just that it brings me pleasure?

I like the idea of the Apple watch series 2 (Nike+ version or otherwise) as either way it has GPS, optical HR (my preference) and more than enough running specs for my pathetic and sporadic shuffling. However it's also very expensive although when talking about other top GPS watches not too much?

I also like the Garmin 630. Although it has far more advanced features than I will ever know about let alone use I still like it's styling and build quality. I only wish it had optical HR built in as I know I'll never bother with the HR strap (I never have in 6 years with the 210) but would like some HR dependent feedback on occasion such as calories etc.

I like the idea of music built in so I can ditch the phone or iPod and I already have BT earplugs.

The Apple has this, so does the Tom Tom 3 and I think some others like Polar but not (so far) any of the Garmins that I know of?

The Tom Tom isn't really my cup of tea as it's bulky and I'd prefer whatever I buy to actually look something like a watch?

So, any experiences with Apple watch series 2? How was/is it for running?
Does it have a virtual partner type function (like the Garmin) so you can run against previous runs or a preset distance/time?

I do want a new watch.
I don't desperately need one (but I do want an upgrade and quicker GPS locking)

I appreciate that for my level of running there are many, far cheaper options but ...well I just don't like them?
It seems that to get a nice looking, quality build GPS running watch that would be acceptable to wear when not running you have to go for top spec models with far more features than you need?

For example, the Garmin 230/235 has more than enough features for me but it just doesn't have the same look as the 630, which has metal buttons, nicer strap and a generally better quality finish.

I do have slim wrists so anything larger than the Garmin 630 or similar for example would just look silly.
For example, The Suunto Spartan looks great but  its just too big.

So does anyone have any other options I could consider or reviews/feedback from any of the above mentioned watches?

Thanks in advance

Mac.

runspoonrun

The Apple Watch is terrible for running. I have one for day-to-day wear and love it for that, but for anything other than basic tracking it's useless, and even then it's not great (check out DC Rainmaker's recent review).

If you like the 630 but want OHR look at the 735XT, it has all of the advanced functionality of the 630, plus multisport and OHR. Although honestly save for the buttons the build quality between the 630 and 235 isn't really that great. Or hold on, as rumours are that new 6xx and 9xx watches are on the horizon.

Guy

It depends on what you want to do with it. I have both the Apple Watch 2 and Garmin 235.

In terms of accuracy, I don't find the Apple Watch any worse than the Garmin (overall accuracy over the same routes is pretty close). However, it is let down at present by the quality of the running apps available. The standard Workout app is perfectly good for measuring runs, splits etc, but has fairly limited data, and exporting it to a running log is a pain. Many of the other apps can only be used if you are carrying your iPhone with you (which rather defeats the purpose of having GPS running watch). Things have improved in the last couple of weeks with Strava finally releasing a standalone Watch app, which gathers plenty of data, and enables you to view it on Strava. However, the Watch app itself is still pretty basic, and the screen can't be customised (it is annoying, for instance, that mileage is hidden in the bottom left corner and only goes to one decimal point).

The Nike app can be used without an iPhone, and is ok, but pretty basic, and again hard to export data.

For most of the Apple Watch apps the current pace displayed is very inaccurate.

So for running a Garmin is easier to use, more customisable, and easier to export data. Also, if you want to program intervals that can be done easily on a Garmin - I have yet to find an app that will do that well on the Apple Watch without carrying your iPhone.

However, the Apple Watch obviously does rather more than most Garmins - as well as looking better, and having a much better display. It is also convenient having a watch that you can wear all day but also use for running. As time goes on the apps available are likely to get better, particularly as Strava listens to runners' feedback and updates its app.

I find the Apple Watch perfectly good for what I need, and hardly ever use the Garmin now.

Mac

Thanks, interesting...
I only want or should I say need the basic running watch functions anyway.

Other than the obvious features like Time, Pace (current and average) and Distance I would like the following features...
Virtual partner (user pre-set time/distance runs & running against your own past runs?)
Calories (preferably current per miles and overall for session?
To be honest everything else is just icing on the cake, which in all honesty I'll probably never use or even bother learning to use.
I never download onto logs or apps as I'm just not that serious.
I'll probably never use the smart watch functions either such as emails, calls etc.

My only reason for considering higher end watches like the 630 is that I don't like look and feel of the 230/5 or 735 as they lack (in my humble opinion) the step up in build and styling that I perceive in the 630 ?
Heck I like the metal buttons!!!
All the models with a more basic specification all seem to look a little cheap and nasty?
(Again, in my humble opinion, other opinions are available)
If they made the 235 in exactly the same case as the 630 I'd be all over it, well possibly as the 630 doesn't yet have an optical HR and the Garmin's don't seem to support on-board music?
Both of which are on my "want" list if at all possible.
Also the 230/5 is also I think a little larger than the 630?
A negative for me.

The Apple watch would again tick that box for me and I suspect have all the features I will ever need or use?
My only concern about the Apple watch is the reported inaccuracy of the pace function?
If it's true and is significant then that would bother me as it's hard to monitor improvements if one of the fundamental units of measuring that performance is inaccurate and has unacceptable variance?
Does the Apple watch have the virtual partner function and what calorie measurements can it give?

Mac

Just as a slight aside.
I have noticed the New Balance "Run IQ2" watch and at first look it seems very nice and even has a bit of a Suunto look to it?.
However what has stopped my interest in it's tracks is what I feel to be a very short sighted view on how you download your music onto it?
It states that you can only download from Google Play, which seems a little limiting don't you think?
I even asked their customer services if music could be downloaded/dragged and dropped etc. from any other platform i.e. iTunes etc. which is where all my music is (although I suppose it could be on my laptop HD too)
I don't use Google Play and I have read about other watches that will let you drag your music from whatever platform you use,?
It seems daft to limit an expensive piece of kit to those who use Google Play doesn't it?
It rules it out for me no matter how good the rest may or may not be.
Perhaps it's just me?

Guy

The Apple Watch measures calories - how accurate it is I don't know, as I never bother much with that.

I can't say I have noticed a virtual partner function on any of the apps - but again it is not something I ever use. You could have a look at the apps and see if they mention it.

As to accuracy, what I have found inaccurate (on some but not all apps) is the current/lap pace display. Many of them don't seem to be smoothing the data sufficiently whilst you are running, so the pace jumps around from (say) 4:00 min to 10:00 min miling, whilst you know that you are doing something in between.

The average pace being displayed for the entire run is generally accurate, as is each of the split times that comes up whilst running; so too are the overall mileage/splits when looking at them after the run. It is current pace that seems to be a problem.

Since a virtual partner function presumably requires accurate current pace to be of any use whilst running, you might find that a problem.

Getting music onto the Apple Watch is very easy.

Mac

Thanks Guy, I actually only really use the average pace.
I glance at it every now and then during the run and of course check when I finish a run.
I've noticed that current pace fluctuates dramatically even on my Garmin 210 so tend not to use it.
I see your point about the virtual partner relying on accurate current pacing so perhaps if I want that feature to be usable and of any value I should perhaps look at watches that have the virtual partner and  a more accurate current pace?

I think the Apple watch appeals because of the build quality and display (as does the Garmin 630)
Also I like an interface to be easy and straightforward and not to have to navigate through a protracted menu system and a myriad of features I don't need to get to those that I do need?

Mac

As I read more about these things it seems a pretty consistent theme that optical HR is not very reliable on any of these watches and that perhaps I should look at a quality watch that doesn't have it (like the 630)?
Having said that, I do like the idea of having some HR function as and when I want it even if it's just to check my calories accurately or generally check out my fitness (hopefully) improvement.