After my recent musings on a bike GPS computer, I kept looking around at various options out there, and am now starting to contemplate the question, “Would it be better to have two, dedicated sport, GPS devices, or would a more expensive multisport device be the better choice?” Before I ramble for a bit, the tl;dr is that I don’t have a solid answer yet. What I do have is lots of considerations to think about.

When considering a multi-device strategy there are lots of parallels in the tech world. For a long time people have asked if they should get an all-in-one computer, or something that is broken into components (computer, monitor, etc.). Let’s take a look at some of the pros and cons of both ways of doing things.

Two devices

One of the biggest issues that gets brought up when considering multi vs single devices is the idea that you can upgrade and replace each device independently of each other. Therefore, when the latest and greatest new running watch comes out you can upgrade your running device and keep getting more life out of the cycling device, or vice versa. Also, if there are features that you don’t like about one device, you don’t need to worry about those features impeding the use of the other device.

There can also be some cost savings when going the multi-device route, as you can optimize the price of devices to just the features that you want. If you really want the best running watch you can get, but don’t care about as many features on the cycling side, then the multi-device option means you can spend your money on the better device and not spend as much on the other.

One final argument in favor of two devices is the form factor. A cycling device is designed to be mounted and accessed from the handlebars of a bike, whereas a watch is meant to go on a wrist. There are watch mounts for bikes, but you’re still dealing with a wrist based form factor.

Single device

On the side of a single multisport device there are a few counter arguments to the two devices camp, as well as some unique things that only apply to a single watch. First, one of the biggest advantages of a single device is that it is just that, a single device. That means that if you want to bike, run, swim, hike… whatever, you don’t have to carry multiple devices. You can just use the same watch for everything. It also means that you have one less device to worry about keeping charged and ready to go depending on your activity for the day.

Cost can also play the opposite way with the single device route. If one of your sports takes precedence and you start looking for the best and greatest device for that sport, you may find that you’re going to end up with a device that is a multisport device anyway. Or, worst case you’ll end up with a device that is so close in price to a multisport device that you won’t save any money anyway.

Multisport watches also tend to have the largest feature sets of any devices. Because of their cost the often are packed with the latest and greatest that the manufacturer is trying to promote. A multisport device might be the only device that a manufacturer sells that has all the same features in one watch. If you want those features, you’re going to end up with a single device.

One of those big features is battery life. If you’re someone who spends a long time running or biking, you tend to look for the best battery life you can find. The multisport devices are the kings of battery life, as they take into account activities such as ultra running races that can for on for over 10 hours.

Choices

Like I said before, I don’t have any answers to the question yet. This is a peek into the thought process that is going on in my head. I also have probably not even considered all the various factors, making this blog woefully incomplete. However, this is where my head is at right now, and I’m looking forward to seeing what companies like Garmin throw at us in the next six months. In particular that rockstar that is the 310xt is long overdue for a solid refresh.