Run 2
-
@Egika maybe this gets also updated… And available with nylon…
-
So the Run 2 would be more comfortable for running in the park, joining run clubs, and wearing to sleep. and the V2 for actual races.
-
@suuntastic Cleary stated on the website, 35g is only the watch without any straps.
-
So the Run 2 would be more comfortable for running in the park, joining run clubs, and wearing to sleep
A friend of mine did the OCC with the Run
-
@snow superb!!!
-
@TrailEyes There’s a video out from DaveDoesFitness that also may be a bit confused on the 4GB / 64GB differences.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjgS1ZaShC4&pp=ugUHEgVlbi1VUw%3D%3D
From about 2:50 into the video, I’ll attempt a transcription:
“Suunto Run 2 now comes with maps on the higher storage option. So, that’s right, we’re getting two versions here. The Suunto Run 2 retails at $349 and that gets you the 4 gig version. Or $399 gets you the 64 gig version, which is where all your offline maps and music will be living.”
Does not quite say “no maps on 4GB” directly, and didn’t see a “Suunto told me” comment (no one’s really commented yet), but this makes the third reviewer who either jumped to conclusions or filmed working with wrong or outdated info.
On the other hand, a video by Quantified Scientist gets things right, noting the two storage options and correctly states both can receive offline maps.
So either several people made the same assumption/mistake, or was given poor info from their Suunto rep (who easily could also have been mistaken, rather than a last minute spec change). I’d say in either way, that’s a bit on Suunto for not ensuring the proper info was out there for everyone.
-
I’d say in either way, that’s a bit on Suunto for not ensuring the proper info was out there for everyone.
Good pull on that video. I’ve been trying to dance around something that’s in the back of mind with all this, but it’s likely less about poor Suunto communication and probably more about poor communication from their U.S.-side PR agency. I certainly could be wrong about that, but I’ve been burned with false information before from the new agency that took over in 2025 and just had some friction with them in general.
As a journalist, I mostly wish that the reviewers, when presented with the new information about the functionality of the 4gb version, would acknowledge it. Their responses have felt too dodgy.
-
As a journalist, I mostly wish that the reviewers, when presented with the new information about the functionality of the 4gb version, would acknowledge it. Their responses have felt too dodgy.
On the other hand, as a journalist, do you think it’s common to simply “lie” and say Suunto representative told them something if that never happened? Seems to me the Suunto person being references could easily show up, say “I never told you that,” and call them out for a blatant lie.
So I think from a simplicity point of view, “never ascribed to malice what can be explained by incompetence,” the answer here is not that reviewers are lying about things but instead there was miscommunication. Whether that originated from the Suunto rep who spoke to the reviewers, or the reviewers themselves mistranslated, I have no idea. The reason I’d personally put more “blame” on a Suunto rep (or a US representative acting on their behalf, sure) is that’s their main job to work with these people. Meanwhile, Des, Ray, Chase the Summit, etc are also reviewing Coros, Apple, Garmin, etc. and juggling a lot more things. Sure, they should get things right too, but if and when they make an error, I’d expect them to say something like “ah, I missed that,” and not “someone told me the wrong thing.”
Also, regarding the overall “conspiracy theory,” I gave about a last minute change, while that might explain a Suunto rep giving “wrong” info, I’m not even sure I buy that either. Look at the people who, when told Coros was adding maps to their 4GB model, instantly went “this is a response to the Suunto rumors, they decided to beat them to the punch” which I think is also a bit unlikely. I think feature sets and timelines are setup farther in advance, and making a change like this with a few days notice is unlikely. Instead, I expect both Coros and Suunto had “parallel development,” both independently thinking it was a good idea to “push maps down” as a competitive advantage over Garmin in particular.
On another note, I’ve noticed the Run 2 maps are like the Race S ones I have — that is, not as detailed with lack of street names, etc. that you can get on higher models. I wonder if this is the start of a “three tier system” as we’ve already had “breadcrumbs vs. maps” and now perhaps we will have “breadcaps, basic maps, advanced maps.” If so, I could see Garmin doing something like that on a 570 successor, marking a middle ground but keeping full maps on the ir 9xx line.
-
@raven I definitely don’t think at all that they lied about what the rep said – as noted before, they never really said they were told the 4gb didn’t have maps, only that the 64gb did have maps.
But I also feel that acknowledging that an error was made, correcting it and even apologizing for it is actually a whole lot easier when you are apologizing on behalf of someone else and you weren’t truly at fault. I myself am guilty of getting defensive when an error I’ve made (I’ve been a journalist for 25+ years) was because of my oversight or misunderstanding of a topic – it’s easy to feel dumb about that kind of thing and fear your credibility has been shaken. But if the error was rooted in a source/contact or in someone who works under me, then that’s super easy to smooth things over with the complainer and acknowledge where the error happened, state the correction and affirm doing better moving forward.
I’m sure you and I may see the responses from the reviewers (and the situation as a whole) just a bit differently, and that’s fine. That’s kind of tricky part with texting and comment sections and things like that – tone is so hard to convey when it’s just a one- or two-line response to something. Maybe I’m reading more into those responses than I should. Maybe Suunto’s PR agency is looking at this thread and wondering why I’m dogging on them
I do agree that those reviewers are juggling a zillion different products and operating systems, so it’s impossible to keep it all straight. I commend them for that! I kind of like when I’ve done reviews and could be a bit more niche and not spread myself too thin. For example, I’ve done a lot of trail running shoe reviews, but I really specialized on the rare brands in the North America market. You’ll never see me reviewing Hoka or Saucony or Brooks, but I’m more than happy to put on the miles in Rossignol, Helly Hansen, Dynafit, and Arc’teryx. I liked being able to focus on the subset.
-
Also, regarding the overall “conspiracy theory,” I gave about a last minute change, while that might explain a Suunto rep giving “wrong” info, I’m not even sure I buy that either. Look at the people who, when told Coros was adding maps to their 4GB model, instantly went “this is a response to the Suunto rumors, they decided to beat them to the punch” which I think is also a bit unlikely. I think feature sets and timelines are setup farther in advance, and making a change like this with a few days notice is unlikely. Instead, I expect both Coros and Suunto had “parallel development,” both independently thinking it was a good idea to “push maps down” as a competitive advantage over Garmin in particular.
There was Suunto media event for journalists during UTMB week. I suppose that is when Suunto initially revealed Run 2. This makes me think that the 4GB version initially wasn’t supposed to have maps and that is what journalists were told, and then Suunto changed that in the last moment in response to Coros update making maps available on entry level Pace watches. Changing the restriction in software would be trivial. But again, that is just my speculation.
On another note, I’ve noticed the Run 2 maps are like the Race S ones I have — that is, not as detailed with lack of street names, etc. that you can get on higher models.
As someone who tried to use labels on Vertical 2, I think having labels on a smaller 1.32 inch wouldn’t be useful anyway because of how small and difficult to read the font is. Based on poll that I ran on Reddit, the majority of responders had difficulties reading labels even on 1.5 inch R2 and V2 displays. Personally, I can’t read labels on V2 even though I’ve never had difficulties with that when using Fenix 6X/7X devices. I think Suunto needs to improve label rendering before making it more widely available; otherwise it would do more harm than benefit - more opportunity for reviewers to criticize it. Besides, it is possible that the OS v3.0 running on Run 2 simply doesn’t have label rendering code yet. I am pretty sure that downloaded maps have labels regardless of what device you download maps for, so restricting that on device makes little sense, but who knows!
-
Also, regarding the overall “conspiracy theory,” I gave about a last minute change, while that might explain a Suunto rep giving “wrong” info, I’m not even sure I buy that either. Look at the people who, when told Coros was adding maps to their 4GB model, instantly went “this is a response to the Suunto rumors, they decided to beat them to the punch” which I think is also a bit unlikely. I think feature sets and timelines are setup farther in advance, and making a change like this with a few days notice is unlikely. Instead, I expect both Coros and Suunto had “parallel development,” both independently thinking it was a good idea to “push maps down” as a competitive advantage over Garmin in particular.
There was Suunto media event for journalists during UTMB week. I suppose that is when Suunto initially revealed Run 2. This makes me think that the 4GB version initially wasn’t supposed to have maps and that is what journalists were told, and then Suunto changed that in the last moment in response to Coros update making maps available on entry level Pace watches. Changing the restriction in software would be trivial. But again, that is just my speculation.
Yes, that’s a good summary of the situation I was postulating. I just don’t know if “trivial” is correct as a way to describe things simply due to not having experience in this particular realm, but having some experience QA testing hardware in other contexts, where there’s quite a bit of ridgity on when certain changes are allowed. It may have been easier here given the 64BG existed and had the feature.
But again this is just minorly amusing inside baseball. If it turns out Coros only added maps to their model in response to knowing what Suunto was doing and then Suunto also altering plans due to Coros, that’s all fun in a spy vs. spy way but a couple months from now there’s going to be people deciding what to get and if they are comparing these two models it’ll be based on what they had now and not what was originally planned in development.
As for the “three tiers of maps” thing, that’s just my mind wandering and thinking how Garmin in particular, if they notice a threat from other companies providing maps at lower price points, might try to address it while still keeping the most premium experience on 9xx and Fenix.
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