Garmin faf!

meanredspider

Flasher wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I can't be bothered to list the endless issues I've had with Garmin. Or the endless list of issues my friends have had. But they send a rubber bung....

User error, i'd suggest, but of course you're way too smart for that to ever be the case.

I've had a 705, 800, and now a 1000 for riding, my kids use a Drive 40 and Nuvi 40 in their cars and my car's built-in uses Garmin maps and the only trouble I've ever had was when the 705 refused to mount, it was out of guarantee, but I called Garmin and they swapped it over for a reconditioned unit.

"User error" - ha, I fully expected you to say that. Regardless of the fact that each of the people I'm thinking of who have had issues are engineers in consumer electronics, if a product is designed properly there shouldn't (ideally) be any "use error" (as opposed to "user" error). In fact, try telling FDA that your device had "user error" - too bloody funny.

bungle73

meanredspider wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Flasher wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40004&t=13081232#p20151303

Just a terrible company with dreadful customer service.

That's just incredible! I'm blown away! They really sent him a little bit of rubber that should have lasted the life of the product but didn't FREE OF CHARGE???!!! :shock:

I can't be bothered to list the endless issues I've had with Garmin. Or the endless list of issues my friends have had. But they send a rubber bung....

I'm not sure what you mean by "should have lasted the life of the product but didn't"? How do you know it didn't last? You don't. All we know is that the cover was "missing". Second of all rubber is a substance tat deteriorates over time anyway, so why would you expect it to last as long as the rest of the unit?

Pretty much by definition. When you design a product, you consider the environment and the use cases and the expected lifetime and you design each of the bits to last the lifetime of the product. If they don't, then it's a failure of the product (unless it's had accidental damage). And, yes, rubber deteriorates - so don't use it or supply a number of spares with the unit or, whoopy doo, supply free spares.

So what material would you have used to do the same job then? Rubber is the best option. And since they do seem to be sending out free spare I don't know what you're complaining about really.....especially since, as I already pointed out, you ave no idea why the poster needed a new in the first place.

flasher

meanredspider wrote:

Regardless of the fact that each of the people I'm thinking of who have had issues are engineers in consumer electronics, if a product is designed properly there shouldn't (ideally) be any "use error" (as opposed to "user" error). In fact, try telling FDA that your device had "user error" - too bloody funny.

Maybe you and your consumer electronics engineer pals should read the instructions, they even come in multiple languages too.

FDA? We're talking about a road navigation/trainig device, not an Olympus PCF-Q260AL

meanredspider

Bungle73 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Pretty much by definition. When you design a product, you consider the environment and the use cases and the expected lifetime and you design each of the bits to last the lifetime of the product. If they don't, then it's a failure of the product (unless it's had accidental damage). And, yes, rubber deteriorates - so don't use it or supply a number of spares with the unit or, whoopy doo, supply free spares.

So what material would you have used to do the same job then? Rubber is the best option. And since they do seem to be sending out free spare I don't know what you're complaining about really.....especially since, as I already pointed out, you ave no idea why the poster needed a new in the first place.

I don't know what material or which grade (there are literally thousands, if not, tens of thousands) I'd use but that's why we have materials engineers because they are experts. But I'd also come up with a concept that didn't rely so much on the material. It's the difference between a company like Fiat and Mercedes (at least historically) - Mercedes parts are generally beautifully designed and assembled using excellent materials (even on a C Class built to a budget).

And I'm not complaining. I just find it very funny that an example of excellent customer service is Garmin managing to send out a 50p spare FOC.

meanredspider

Flasher wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Regardless of the fact that each of the people I'm thinking of who have had issues are engineers in consumer electronics, if a product is designed properly there shouldn't (ideally) be any "use error" (as opposed to "user" error). In fact, try telling FDA that your device had "user error" - too bloody funny.

Maybe you and your consumer electronics engineer pals should read the instructions, they even come in multiple languages too.

FDA? We're talking about a road navigation/trainig device, not an Olympus PCF-Q260AL

Yeah. So they need to read the instruction on what to do when their Garmin 800 fills with water. Or the screens on various Forerunner 4XX models freeze. Or when the device refuses to connect to a computer. Or when the battery runs out from fully charged in an hour. Or when the Garmin 1000 screen goes completely blank and refuses to respond to any buttons or actions. Or....(life's to short to list all the issues of these crappy products).

And, as I read recently: a user interface is like a joke. If you need to explain it then it's not very good.

FDA - Food and Drug Administration: they regulate medical devices in USA. The thing about medical devices is that you want them to be safe and you want them to be effective. You don't want to kill people and you want to treat them. FDA sets out regulations 21CFR820 (recent copied by ISO in 13485:2016) that sets out how to design and manufacture medical devices - from electric toothbrushes to MRIs. The regulations are very simple (thinner than a Garmin manual in one language) because it's just good practice. There's absolutely no reason why all consumer electronics companies shouldn't just follow the regs - if they did, they'd make better products. The thing is, once you're very familiar with the regs (15 years for me) you can quickly see where manufacturers have cut corners vs good practice. Garmin cut more corners than most. Wahoo will eat their lunch.

meanredspider

flasher

Garmin sell 100's of thousands of sat nav's, for 99.9% of those users they function perfectly well, yet you come here and troll the company, believing yourself to be cleverer, smarter and more informed than those users, designers and builders, you must be familiar with The God Complex?

meanredspider

Flasher wrote:

Garmin sell 100's of thousands of sat nav's, for 99.9% of those users they function perfectly well, yet you come here and troll the company, believing yourself to be cleverer, smarter and more informed than those users, designers and builders, you must be familiar with The God Complex?

Feel free to share the data that says 99.9% of Garmin users are satisfied.

In the meantime, have you read the Bolt thread and the comments vs Garmin?

I couldn't possibly comment vs the users but I certainly work and have worked with better designers and builders. And, yes, it's my job to be better informed so I hope to god that I am.

meanredspider

Not even 3 stars! http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-edge-820 ... 60775668uk

Whereas nearly 5 stars

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/wahoo-elemnt-bo ... -computer/

And, the pass mark for a half decent product is 4.3 stars in the consumer electronics world. Less than 3 stars and the companies I've worked for would be looking to kill the product.

flasher

meanredspider wrote:

Not even 3 stars! http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-edge-820 ... 60775668uk

Whereas nearly 5 stars

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/wahoo-elemnt-bo ... -computer/

And, the pass mark for a half decent product is 4.3 stars in the consumer electronics world. Less than 3 stars and the companies I've worked for would be looking to kill the product.

Picking and choosing a single product to try to prove a point, what a cheap shot.

On Wiggle the following get:

Garmin 1000 4.5 stars
Garmin 520 4.5 stars
Garmin 25 4.5 stars

As for the Wahoo, it does look good, the more products the better for the consumer.

meanredspider

Flasher wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Not even 3 stars! http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-edge-820 ... 60775668uk

Whereas nearly 5 stars

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/wahoo-elemnt-bo ... -computer/

And, the pass mark for a half decent product is 4.3 stars in the consumer electronics world. Less than 3 stars and the companies I've worked for would be looking to kill the product.

Picking and choosing a single product to try to prove a point, what a cheap shot.

On Wiggle the following get:

Garmin 1000 4.5 stars
Garmin 520 4.5 stars
Garmin 25 4.5 stars

As for the Wahoo, it does look good, the more products the better for the consumer.

Garmin 1000 alone barely makes 4 stars http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-edge-100 ... -computer/

And you should have seen the numbers the first year after launch - stunningly bad - I had one and returned it as not fit for purpose.

I'm just struggling to validate your 99.9% of happy users. So, it seems, are you.

flasher

meanredspider wrote:

Garmin 1000 alone barely makes 4 stars http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-edge-100 ... -computer/

And you should have seen the numbers the first year after launch - stunningly bad - I had one and returned it as not fit for purpose.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-edge-100 ... ce-bundle/

You need to check the pros/cons, to see how these things get marked down.

Cons: 2-Poor software, 2-Poor instructions, 2-Unreliable, that's 6 of the 294 who reviewed, also 94% of reviewers would recommend this product.

meanredspider

Out of 136 reviews, there's 7 that give it just one star. That says to me that 5% of people that bought it thought it was rubbish. I'm still struggling to validate your 99.9% - and so are you.

Bring the data and I'll join back in else I'm done wasting my time.

kingstongraham

meanredspider wrote:

Out of 136 reviews, there's 7 that give it just one star. That says to me that 5% of people that bought it thought it was rubbish. I'm still struggling to validate your 99.9% - and so are you.

Bring the data and I'll join back in else I'm done wasting my time.

It says that 5% of those that reviewed it thought that their unit was rubbish. Not of those that bought it. But you know that.

flasher

No, 6 give it one star and 265 4/5 stars.

Flasher wrote:

Garmin sell 100's of thousands of sat nav's, for 99.9% of those users they function perfectly well, yet you come here and troll the company, believing yourself to be cleverer, smarter and more informed than those users, designers and builders, you must be familiar with The God Complex?

I stand by this whether you can validate it or not.