DC Rainmaker Review
-
@isazi Why mention the brightness? In my opinion, a few reasons:
-
It’s one of the specs and he’s covering the specs. As you note, in other reviews he mentions how higher specs here don’t mean much and he’s repeating that here. Let’s call this the “objective” element here, and this is where his “it’s bright enough for my use” lives.
-
He has an overall position that the Race 3S starts at too high a price. I believe he’s pointing out the “lower specs” here to suggest “why not a lower price if you’re going with lower specs”. Let’s call this the “subjective” element. I think it’s fair to have a quarrel with this part.
-
As you note, in the video he has this “elephant in the room” theme going on, and let’s call this the “stylistic” element. It’s not a regular feature of his review. It’s slightly odd he does it here, but when I first watched it, the conclusion I has was: “Ray generally likes this watch and if it was at a lower price or if he liked it less, he’d have a different stylistic framing.”
That is, if the watch simply sucked: bad HR, bad GPS, etc. then there’s little need for the elephant metaphor, as it’s just a trash fire all the way down. However, given he does like it, but subjectively thinks the price isn’t right, he wants to call attention to some “paper cut” areas that gives him that conclusion.
Where I think he could have done better was to try to “work the problem” a bit more; that is, try to figure out why the pricing is what it is. In my mind, this is largely due to dropping the non-titanium model, so there’s no cheaper entry point. And I think one of the reasons for that is the existence of the Run series, which was not a thing when the original Race S came out. I believe Suunto removed the non-titanium option for Race 3S to have “more room” between Run series and Race S series. It also likely helps inventory management to have less SKUs to sell.
As an example of another company who recently did a similar thing with a different tech product, let’s look at Apple and their Apple TV.The last (3rd gen) Apple TV in 2022 had two prices, $129 for WiFi (64GB) and $149 WiFi+Ethernet (128GB) . In June they raised to $199 and $249 due to increasing costs of components. Now in October, the 4th gen is released, and there’s only an Ethernet/128GB version at $299.
If one only compared the $299 new model for the $249 version it was replacing, one could likely justify it. However, if one only wanted 64GB and last they checked saw the $129 pricing and missing the increase of that to $179, then it looks like a $170 price jump!
Back to Suunto, this is what I think Ray’s issue with the Race 3S is. If you only look at “original Race S” and “new Race 3S options” the “starting point” has changed. I think Ray could have done a better job with explaining the overall market thing by bringing the Run series in, and this would have been a good time to “combo” the review with the Run 2 which he has not done yet (likely due to too many things going on at once).
I think “objectively” Ray is fine; he doesn’t lie about facts, and he makes an effort to test things like GPS and HR. I think “subjectively” Ray is also fine, as he typically explains why he thinks the way he does. I don’t need to always agree with him; I just want to know where he got there. I think “stylistically” Ray also is usually pretty good, but in this case the “elephant” thing may not have done what he wanted, or perhaps it did do what he wanted “don’t forget these minor points” but at the cost of being easy to ignore his largely positive evaluation.
-
-
@raven said:
I think “objectively” Ray is fine; he doesn’t lie about facts, and he makes an effort to test things like GPS and HR. I think “subjectively” Ray is also fine, as he typically explains why he thinks the way he does. I don’t need to always agree with him; I just want to know where he got there. I think “stylistically” Ray also is usually pretty good, but in this case the “elephant” thing may not have done what he wanted, or perhaps it did do what he wanted “don’t forget these minor points” but at the cost of being easy to ignore his largely positive evaluation.I never said anything against Ray as a person or as a reviewer, I have been following him since 2013, I am a paying member on his website for maybe ten years already, and often went to his open house when we lived in the same city. He is still my favorite sportwatch reviewer
However, I still think that the comments on the display are too negative, especially when he goes on saying that this display is old technology and they probably had spares in the factory and so they used them. When he reviews watches with GPS chipsets that support only one band, he says that, and immediately adds something like “but I do not care, if the watch is accurate specs don’t matter”. In this case it feels to me that he uses more space to complain about the screen, and only a brief mentioning of the fact that it is actually 100% fine.
Watch: Suunto Vertical 2 Titanium Black
Blog: isazi's home
-
@isazi yep, he clearly has more complimentary approach to reviewing when it comes to one american brand registered in switzerland
-
@isazi So the complaint is “ To be super clear here, I have no issue with seeing the display at all. Period, hard-stop” is too short a comment, and he should have extended this more positive view to multiple paragraphs?
If you say so. I think that suggests Ray’s viewers and readers are not intelligent enough to synthesize all the remarks to a singular conclusion: “the display, regardless of what the specs say, is good to use.” I didn’t have a problem coming to that conclusion. I don’t “count words” pro and con and decide whichever side “won” based on word count.
-
If you say so. I think that suggests Ray’s viewers and readers are not intelligent enough to synthesize all the remarks to a singular conclusion
Your faith in humanity is bigger than mine, but you are probably also younger than me
Watch: Suunto Vertical 2 Titanium Black
Blog: isazi's home
-
@raven I think another reason he mentioned the brightness is to point to the broader market trend. Many competing watches are now offering 3,000 nits or more. Ray notes that the Race 3s screen is perfectly visible in use, but it may still be worth highlighting that buyers are paying a premium for a 2026 watch that does not necessarily match some of the display specifications that competing products have already moved to. I think the real issue is less about day to day visibility and more about whether the hardware aligns with the premium price point it’s being sold at and if we are just focusing on the display specifications here, then no, it doesn’t make sense, hence why he considers it an elephant.
-
If indeed there is no steel version because of the Run 2 then that’s a massive own goal as the Run 2 is severely limited compared to the Race 2/3 such as no 3rd party integration support, no SuuntoPlus etc.
I’d still get a Race 2 (titanium is on discount) but if I wanted something newer, I’d get the Coros P4P.
-
If indeed there is no steel version because of the Run 2 then that’s a massive own goal as the Run 2 is severely limited compared to the Race 2/3 such as no 3rd party integration support, no SuuntoPlus etc.
I’d still get a Race 2 (titanium is on discount) but if I wanted something newer, I’d get the Coros P4P.
I should be clear that idea, “no steel due to Run” is my speculation and I haven’t seen any statement by Suunto in that regard. There may have been other reasons. I agree they should have continued to offer the cheaper model (and in my Apple TV example, think removing the cheaper model was a mistake there too).
-
If you say so. I think that suggests Ray’s viewers and readers are not intelligent enough to synthesize all the remarks to a singular conclusion
Your faith in humanity is bigger than mine, but you are probably also younger than me
I guess the main thing I’d ask you, isazi, is whether you read/viewed Ray’s remarks on this and thought he was saying “Suunto should have used higher spec brightness rather than what they used.” If so, then either Ray wasn’t clear enough, or I myself misinterpreted him. I thought he was saying “this tech is fine, no need to change it, but the overall entry cost of the phone is too high compare to last gen,” and the spec comparison was more in showing what others at this higher price point are doing. Basically, what @strain notes above, which I agree with.
If we both agree that Ray wasn’t asking Suunto to put in “better brightness” then I’m not very concerned if there’s some people out there with worse comprehension skills. I don’t need reviews dumbed down for the lowest common denominator of intellect.
-
I’m not very concerned if there’s some people out there with worse comprehension skills. I don’t need reviews dumbed down for the lowest common denominator of intellect
simplicity isn’t the enemy of intelligence, often it’s the proof of it…
-
I’m not very concerned if there’s some people out there with worse comprehension skills. I don’t need reviews dumbed down for the lowest common denominator of intellect
simplicity isn’t the enemy of intelligence, often it’s the proof of it…
That’s orthogonal to my comment. Of course, making something overly complex without cause isn’t ideal, and simple things that do the job are worthwhile.
What I mean is Ray shouldn’t have to explain every sports term in every review. Should he explain how GPS works before he talks about the accuracy each time? For a Suunto review, does he need a long digression on how exactly CTL/ATL/TSB works? One might argue that, yes, he should do this, if his audience is “people new to a fitness journey who have never had a fitness watch before.”
If that’s your position, then fine. If you want Ray’s reviews to be short as possible, that’s your prerogative, but a five second video: “Suunto Race 3S. Decent watch. Overpriced.” sadly likely won’t give him YouTube ad revenue long term, but I do admit that’s harder for people to misinterpret.
-
@raven Allow me to disagree with the “overpriced” part in your post because when Race 1S Ti (without sapphire crystal) was released cost 450€ and now Race 3S Ti with sapphire crystal, better oHR sensor and other improvements, costs 500 €.
Again, hopefully Suunto will release a stainless steel version for the folks who for one or another reason don’t want the titanium version. -
@raven Allow me to disagree with the “overpriced” part in your post because when Race 1S Ti (without sapphire crystal) was released cost 450€ and now Race 3S Ti with sapphire crystal, better oHR sensor and other improvements, costs 500 €.
Again, hopefully Suunto will release a stainless steel version for the folks who for one or another reason don’t want the titanium version.The point is the Race S was also released in a non-titanium version that was cheaper, making an overall lower “starting point” in cost, of €349 I believe. So it’s 43% more expensive now if using the “entry point” costs (and we presume the person who cares about this neither cares about titanium nor sapphire).
For those who do want titanium and sapphire, the pricing is not as bad of course, and given the “RAMageddon” affecting tech pricing overall is understandable. The “pricing problem” is for people who want cheaper entry points.
-
@raven Again, your reasoning is misleading. Liesheng not releasing stainless steel version for the time being is one thing. Race 3S Ti costs 500€, i.e. 50€ more than the Race 1S Ti which didn’t feature titanium is completely another thing. I get charged 50€ more compared to Race 1S titanium and in return I get sapphire crystal and better oHR. Not too shabby I’d say.
-
@raven Again, your reasoning is misleading. Liesheng not releasing stainless steel version for the time being is one thing. Race 3S Ti costs 500€, i.e. 50€ more than the Race 1S Ti which didn’t feature titanium is completely another thing. I get charged 50€ more compared to Race 1S titanium and in return I get sapphire crystal and better oHR. Not too shabby I’d say.
Where am I being misleading? I have specified that I am talking about the perspective of someone who does not care about titanium nor sapphire and is budget conscious. They may be looking to Suunto, Coros, etc. as an alternative to more expensive Garmin watches. For this hypothetical individual, they had a decent option with the original Race S. That is no longer the case for the Race 3S. Now, they can look at the Run 2 instead, and I noted that in a previous reply.
If you point out where exactly it am trying to mislead people, then I can address the discrepancy. Instead, I think we are talking about two different things. You want to talk about someone who cares about titanium and sapphire and requires that in a watch. I am not.
-
Please be correct, I said your reasoning is misleading, not you. I’d add to that flawed reasoning, as well. No offense, not a personal attack against you.
How did you calculate that number 43%? Because you presumed that Suunto is supposed to release (I hope they do) a cheaper version of the watch? In the first place, did Suunto guarantee us that they’d be a cheaper version of R3S? I can only hope but certainly I can’t expect for sure that Suunto will release a cheaper version of that device. Suunto didn’t promise me anything. What if Suunto’s strategy is positioning R3S as a high performance premium watch and a cheaper price doesn’t fit that strategy? I don’t know, I don’t have any internal info and I prefer to not make any assumptions or presumptions.
Whatever Suunto’s strategy is, the success or failure thereof ultimately will be decided by customers voting with their wallets.
Suunto 3S for 50€ euro offers more than Race S1 at the time of its release. That’s a fact. And, yes coming with some presumed numbers like 43% about a non-existing entry-level product (cheaper 3S possibly without titanium and/or sapphire) is totally misleading and flawed reasoning.
For example, Run 2 (even Run 1 for that matter) is totally enough for the sport activities that I do. There’s only one problem for me there – the R1&2 lists of activities are software limited. So people like me who use activities outside of those lists buy something more expensive than R1 or R2. So, look for other alternatives and voted with my wallet. -
Please be correct, I said your reasoning is misleading, not you. I’d add to that flawed reasoning, as well. No offense, not a personal attack against you.
How did you calculate that number 43%?How did I calculate it? Maths.
Entry price for Race S: 349€
Entry price for Race 3S: 500€(500 - 349) / 349 = 0.433 (43%)
However, checking my work, I made one flaw. I used your 500€ value without checking it, rather than looking it up, as I live in America and more used to USD. Technically, the Race 3S price is 499€, so let’s redo the maths:
Entry price for Race S: 349€
Entry price for Race 3S: 499€(499 - 349) / 349 = 0.43 (still 43%)
Let’s do it in USD too, why not?
Entry price Race S: $349 USD
Entry price Race 3S: $599 USD(599 - 349) / 349 = 0.716 (71.6%)
-
@raven So, again your misleading reasoning. You keep insisting on having your imaginary cheaper version of S3S. Pay attention, as of today Suunto doesn’t offer that. Hence your calculations based on that flawed logic are totally useless for any comparisons.
-
@raven I think the appropriate comparison is with the Ti version of Race S, that makes the difference only 50 euros. This has been stated several times. I suspect Suunto opted for better materials this time around. When Race S was released there was only a steel version, the Ti version came later. I tested a steel version and found the Ti version much more comfortable. I think DCRainmaker used the wrong version of the S for price comparisons.
-
@raven I think the appropriate comparison is with the Ti version of Race S, that makes the difference only 50 euros. This has been stated several times. I suspect Suunto opted for better materials this time around. When Race S was released there was only a steel version, the Ti version came later. I tested a steel version and found the Ti version much more comfortable. I think DCRainmaker used the wrong version of the S for price comparisons.
I agree if one wants to compare based on materials, features, etc.
However, if one is just looking at entry prices, that doesn’t matter. Let me bring up the Apple TV comparison again:
Apple TV (3rd gen) 2022
$129 for WiFi (64GB) and $149 WiFi+Ethernet (128GB)Same model, June 2026: $199 and $249
October, the 4th gen is released, and there’s only an Ethernet/128GB version at $299.
Someone wants an Apple TV box and doesn’t need a lot of storage. Last year, they could spend $129. Earlier this year, they could spend $199. Today, they’d need to spend $299. (Or look for the older model, which I’ll note for Suunto in a moment.)
Back to Suunto. Someone wants a Race S series as it’s a smaller watch. Previously they could get it for $349. With the Race 3S they need $599.
Now to be fair, Suunto is continuing to sell the Race S, so the answer for the budget conscious person is to buy that model if cost is the fundamental concern. Pointing out that Suunto changed the entry point is valid though, in my mind. It’s a different point than comparing the most similar titanium to titanium models. One can do both examinations; doing one does not deny the other and different people will value different things. If one comes into buying a watch with a demand for titanium, then my “entry point” examination is not a concern. If one does not care about titanium, then comparing to the old titanium is not a concern as the person would have went with steel given a price emphasis.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login