Nike+ GPS Watch Initial Review
This review will come in two parts, today’s blog will concentrate on the aesthetics of the watch and compare it alongside the Garmin and Mobile phone apps. It will very loosely talk about how accurate it is as I will be reserving full judgment until Sunday when I will be doing a proper measured event. I have always assumed my Garmin watch to be pretty accurate but it seems unfair to compare the readings unless the distance is accurate…
My first impressions of the watch were that it certainly looks a lot nicer than my 405, time has obviously been spent trying to create a stylish watch perhaps people will wear casually. However, it is pretty chunky which is understandable considering what is in it. The box had limited instructions but that seems common now with tech – enough guidance to get you online and to read more.
Technically you could just go out for a run without syncing the watch – however, most of the watch settings are configured through the Nike connect app so it’s wise to be ‘online’ with this watch. It seems unlike the Garmin counterpart this watch has very little it can do without being online, to it’s defence the Garmin offline tool is pretty pants but i’m sure useful to some (and there are paid for offline tools too). Odd things are configured on the computer and not the watch, most peculiar was watch sounds. In my opinion that is something which belongs in a settings option on device?
I already have a Nike account so can’t run through that process, when I did it many years ago it was simple so I assume it still will be! After plugging the phone in (unhiding the USB connector in the strap) the watch talked with the Nike site and seemed happy to connect. Once fully charged it was time for a run…!
As I’m on the recovery stages following the marathon so far the distances run with it have been relatively short. The watch is pretty damn easy to use there is no denying that. With only 4 menu options; clock, run, history and records, it’s pretty difficult to get lost! Selecting ‘run’ presents you with more options determining whether you will be using the shoepod (which is supplied – one up on the Garmin), heart rate monitor or GPS – chose what you want and that’s it away you go!
As I mentioned earlier, when running there is very little displayed, given the size of the screen I would have expected a better use of display to at least give the option of more information. For me if running with a HRM, I like to see, at minimum, time elapsed, distance and heart rate. I would also like to see average pace just so I don’t have to do maths in my head as I run. From what I can tell on this device I have the option of 2 blocks of information, everything else I can get to via the buttons but requires fiddling whilst running, never good!
After finishing the run and connecting it to the computer via the USB device, which I found a bit odd and dated – I would have expected Bluetooth sync or something similar! I checked the online site. I hoped Nike had done a bit of work online since I last visited, the site used to be pretty cool, a visual masterpiece, clean and simple. All good apart from the last point, why have a complex device but only present information in a basic way? Fortunately, tucked away was a button that said Nike+ Beta, now this was better! Much more granular information displayed but still well designed. Nike have obviously spent a lot of time and money on this site and it has been worth it.
The whole process from start to finish was seamless and very easy. This watch is perfect for the casual runner due to it’s simple interface. However, there is one thing that let’s it down, the cost. If this device had come in at around the £100 mark I think I would have been happy to recommend it (as I do the Garmin 305′s) however at nearly £200 it seems a bit pricey. Especially considering the Nike+ app for the iPhone is about £2 and I would expect the target audience to be the same? As I don’t have a 4g iPhone I haven’t compared the watch and the app but I would expect the results to be very similar!
I’m still really surprised by the decision to make these, they are pretty much solely for runners so no good for cyclists or triathletes and by the time you have added £50 for a heart rate monitor it competes with the likes of Timex, Garmin and Polar of which I suspect all of the later are more useful especially for multi disciplines. I always expected a Nike+ watch would come but not with a GPS built in. I wanted and hoped for a simple and small device which could interface with the iPhone app providing readouts from that, I suspect if such a device could be created it would be cheaper too!
I will reserve final judgement until next week following the 10k. Ultimately if the watch is 100% accurate then regardless of my thoughts on it’s look or functionality, the watch does what it needs to do!
Initial verdict Garmin 405 (£182.08) vs Nike+ (£189), Garmin 405 wins, however for beginners and those on a budget the 305 (£116.12) trumps the lot of them hands down. Come back next week for a distance review!





Having promised a review of all of the technology I run with for some time I have finally decided to pull my finger out and actually do it. It seems fairly obvious to review my Nike+ device first as it is one of the first gadgets I really purchased to use whilst running and I am still using it. At a later point I will create a subsequent review of my Garmin Forerunner watch should anyone want to know about that!

Lance Armstrong: It's not about the bike