Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4)
-
@thanasis Thats very impressive. I think you will see a bigger difference close to high buildings or mountains - this is where the new update brought big improvements in my limited experience with it.
But the A3P is still a great watch. Too bad not all the functions are supported anymore đ«€ -
@jussim
I was getting the same (about 6-7%/hr in activity) using the latest firmware. I downgraded to the previous firmware yesterday - following the advice in this thread - and a 2.5hr run this morning used 6-7% total. So close to normal burn rate of 2-2.5%/hour.
Itâs still using a lot of battery outside of activity - e.g. 5% last night for 7hrs of sleep - but it was doing this long before the latest firmware.I donât know how Suunto define âsmartwatch modeâ but my watch has never got close to the claimed 21 days unless I turn everything off other than basic timekeeping. Whereas it has always met (until the latest firmware) the training time claims, at least in performance mode (though not in endurance mode).
-
@powderdrop I agree with most of what youâve said.
However - the realm of sports and smart watches is merging to a certain degree. Some people will prefer a sports watch as it lasts longer, doesnât look like a toy and is sturdier.
I believe that Suunto is pivoting into those less hardcore users with more lifestyle and wellbeing features being developed and implemented instead of simply being a tank of a trail runners watch.
As for the quality of the update - to me itâs simply of poor quality, but itâs been like this for a while. The OHR issue is a rather big one but there were also certain UX issues that took months to fix. This is super annoying and screams of poor quality and lack of polishing.
I see two problems with Suuntoâs firmware currently:
-
Too many features in one public release which leads to long times between releases and plenty of frustration in case major bugs emerge. More smaller releases could be a better strategy.
-
Lack of public testing on a wide group of users. Current public release should have been a public beta, open for two weeks for testing that would be enough for the OHR bug to emerge.
-
-
@Ćukasz-Szmigiel said in Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4):
Lack of public testing on a wide group of users. Current public release should have been a public beta, open for two weeks for testing that would be enough for the OHR bug to emerge.
I think Coros does a good job with this (better than Garmin). Before the quarterly production firmware update there is an open public beta testing. There is no final release date communicated, as it depends on the beta testing. And during the open beta test bugfixes are released if necessary, so that users can also test the fixes. They always provide a blog post outlining new features so everybody knows what to test.
Suunto is the complete opposite. Everything is a big secrecy (there arenât even release notes for beta SA updates) and in the end everybody is surprised if the limited number of beta testers donât find every bug.
After this OHR debacle Suunto should also think about public beta testing. In the end everyone wins: early adopters can play around with new features, user have the impression that their feedback counts and we all get a more stable product. There are so many people who really like Suunto products and could give valuable feedback. We all want Suunto to succeed, donât we?
But I know that implementing open beta tests is not a trivial task.
-
@wmichi this sounds ideal.
-
@wmichi This is also my experience. Coros get a gold star for their open beta implementations (and for very stable final FW releases). Garmin get a tinpot halfstar for the beta releases and for ignoring most of the userfound bugs.
-
Software testing in the case of Suunto is a total disgrace. For several last releases now there is always some major disaster, inability to synchronize with the phone, battery drain (still not resolved), now OHR and WiFi not working.
The problem with the contour lines and navigation messages has not been solved for over a year. There is still no proper support for several Bluetooth devices, but we have new colours, new watch faces and other fancy carousels in the menu.I donât know if there is anything positive to write about the testers. Incompetence or there are too few of them.
There is definitely a huge problem with the quality of the software and the way it is tested and released. -
@maszop said in Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4):
Incompetence or there are too few of them.
I think itâs more of a systematic problem - not related to the people.
-
@Ćukasz-Szmigiel But when reporting a problem on the forum, testers often deny it and blame the user or the hardware itself. So you can come to different conclusions.
Since the Suunto 9 Peak Pro I have written (and not only me) about problems with measuring elevation gain in strong winds and the answer is always that there is no problem.
There were a few similar cases. -
@MKPotts downgrade actually is the best Option for me, too. Until suunto solve some existing problems
-
@maszop you are right, but some suunto âtestersâ Here everytime Posts: they dont have this ProblemsâŠ
Now you know all about some Software problems if the Suunto testers dont have our Problems, the Software rolls out sorry Joke ends Here. -
@GiPFELKiND A testerâs job is to find bugs in software. If they never find them, or even deny them, maybe they should do something else?
-
@maszop said in Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4):
@GiPFELKiND A testerâs job is to find bugs in software. If they never find them, or even deny them, maybe they should do something else?
This is rather curious statement. I work with software (in a way) and sometimes problems occur that cannot be reproduced. This isnât necessarily the problem of the tester and is almost always more related to the application itself. When you consider the number of different variables in the watches (and use cases) itâs no wonder that some issues slip under the radar. Iâm not talking about the most recent update (before a pile-on starts). Iâm just saying that we shouldnât start to blame the âtestersâ for not finding all bugs.
Software is never bug-free - thatâs pretty much a fact of life.
In the meantime, itâs much more important to be outdoors running/ walking/ cycling/ skiing etc. than worrying about heart rate tracking failing in the middle of a session. The world still turns, and hopefully you enjoyed the activity anyway.
That was the whole point. after all Suunto Race Titanium
Suunto 9 Peak Pro
Suunto Ambit3 Peak
Polar OH1 -
@MKPotts said in Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4):
Is there are news on Suunto issuing an official firmware rollback for the S9PP, that was mentioned in this thread about 10 days ago?
Iâm now only 7 days from a race that will take me about 35hrs, where I intended to use the S9PP as my primary navigation device, with a watch that drains 6-7%/hour in performance mode since (and only since) the firmware update.
Iâve seen the posts explaining how to complete an âunofficialâ rollback but Iâm reluctant to do that in case it 1) bricks the watch (is this likely/a real risk?) and/or 2) I successfully roll back only to find the watch forces the update before my race and (worst case) I donât realise until it fails partway through my race.
You will not have problems rolling back firmware. Iâve done this quite a bit.
-
@wmichi 100% agree, most of the problems could be avoided through public beta testing. I hope Suunto will consider implementing a public beta testing process.
-
@wakarimasen said in Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4):
When you consider the number of different variables in the watches (and use cases) itâs no wonder that some issues slip under the radar
So, perhaps there arenât enough testers, or maybe a beta program should be in action prior to the public release?
-
@Ćukasz-Szmigiel said in Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4):
@wakarimasen said in Software update 2.39.20 (2024 Q4):
When you consider the number of different variables in the watches (and use cases) itâs no wonder that some issues slip under the radar
So, perhaps there arenât enough testers, or maybe a beta program should be in action prior to the public release?
Wouldnât disagree with that, but the previous comment was quite different
Suunto Race Titanium
Suunto 9 Peak Pro
Suunto Ambit3 Peak
Polar OH1 -
@wakarimasen For firmware updates: Development -> internal testing (some field testers)-> private beta (the whole field tester club) -> public beta (open to everyone interested) -> public release. As you said, there are a lot of variables/use cases, thatâs why testing with a lot more people makes sense. But there needs to be a dedicated feedback channel. Support should not be bothered with beta users.
-
@wmichi Sounds good to me!
-
One more bug I have noticed since the update.
It supposed to be 16150 (Instead of |6150)
But it is minor
