As an avid ultrarunner, this is the first apple watch I'd ever consider. We aren't part of the apple ecosystem and I'm a bit resistant to join, so I am really excited to see the garmin or samsung equivalent to this
It cracks me up when people say Apple is evil go with Samsung. Samsung heir literally went to jail for bribing the Korean president, and that was just tip of the iceberg.
I don't see this as an "Apple is evil" comment. There are plenty of people who use Windows/Linux + Android for their computing environment, and for those people, jumping into the Apple ecosystem is an infeasible time/money/productivity commitment.
I don't think nhance was trying to say that Apple is evil, they are expressing a desire not to get sucked into Apple's ecosystem. Samsung's ecosystem lacks the breadth of Apple's and isn't nearly as good at creating vendor lock-in.
Correct. Apple products work well together, but also make it a huge pain in the ass if you don't buy everything from them. The kids have apple products and we can't manage them effectively because we don't have apple devices. This provides a strong disincentive to want to give them any more money.
Samsung was only mentioned because are there any other real competitors to a full smart watch?
Garmin will likely keep me because running gps for 10+ hours at a shot is important.
A full smart watch is far less of a priority.
(On Sunday I ran for roughly 10.5 hours, GPS active the entire time. When I finished, I had 33% of my battery left.)
Garmin will likely keep me because running gps for 10+ hours at a shot is important. A full smart watch is far less of a priority.
If you don't want to dive headlong into Apple's stuff, then a Garmin might very well be all the smart watch you need. It's been quite a few years since I used a Garmin as a full-time smart watch, but you can have notifications and messages (read-only if using an Apple phone) and even contactless payment on a Garmin. If we weren't a knees-deep Apple house, I'd just use my Garmin 945 as my smart watch.
For me, the Apple Watch is an Apple product that doesn’t unduly benefit from being all in on the Apple ecosystem but that may be just how I use it (or don’t).
Would you really switch to an iPhone just to use this watch? This is the thing with Apple products, especially accessories - only usable with a deeper dive in the lock-in.
I'm most annoyed that they've locked competent GPS tracking behind a $799 price tag. It's the one reason why I didn't get an Apple Watch originally. It was consistently less reliable and inaccurate in weird ways than similarly priced Garmin and others.
Yeah, there shouldn’t be any issues with GPS in an outdoor area, it’s only in cities where the buildings block/reflect the satellites that it’s an issue. (Maybe forests or valleys? Not sure.)
A-GPS doesn’t need to wait for a fix to be pretty accurate though, which is nice.
Independent tests have shown that the latest high-end Garmin devices are more accurate than previous Apple watches due to support for dual-frequency GPS. This makes a significant difference when signals are obstructed by buildings or trees. The new Apple Watch Ultra will now have feature parity so it should be just as accurate.
I have used both Garmin and Apple watch (currently rocking an Apple Watch 6), many distances from casual walks to full marathons. I have found the apple watches did fine? What didn't work for you?
This is a review of an Apple 5, and it's within a few % points of a Garmin
This would definitely be a game changer. I have a Garmin Fenix and the only thing it locks is the ability to use it for diving to 40m. Although Garmin has a similar watch for diving it locks the features I would use for Backcountry camping. If I can switch to an Apple Watch Over a sunnto or similar it would be a big boon
No, nor are there any generic air integrated Bluetooth units available at the moment but I expect that to change quickly. A smart play for Apple as the cost of a low-end rec dive computer makes this almost a no-brainer for anyone already in the Apple ecosystem and adding an air integrated unit makes it an easy sell in that market.
Apparently it does but because of the frequency used the signal gets so attenuated that the range is more like 10cm maximum. And both devices would need to be completely submerged.
Wireless air systems work in the kHz range, while bluetooth is up in the GHz range unfortunately.
I would love to see a system that uses ultra-high frequency noise in combination with the watch microphone, but it's doubtful manufacturers are going to want to support that.
Unlikely they can use bluetooth as the communications methods between the AI pod and the watch are custom and bespoke due to needing to work underwater and be super reliable.
WiFi doesn't work underwater, the signals don't propagate far enough. Most tank pressure transmitters use a different radio frequency band which does penetrate water. The Garmin devices use an audio signal instead.
I imagine if it was they would have said so with how much of these product launches are buzzword heavy. I imagine their next version would have air integration support.
If your question is about the decompression algorithm, then air is a minimum requirement, although I'd imagine it having Nitrox mixes too (these are just different inputs to the same algorithm).
If it's about reading the tank pressure, then most probably the answer is no.
I can't find anything saying it is and I somewhat doubt it because of that. I think if it did they would mention it. Oddly, I can't find anything from Huish or Suunto announcing this....
In any event, this isn't replacing my teric but I wouldn't mind diving with a backup.
"Your watch will help you find your way back to where you started" (Backtrack) is a neat sounding feature. I'll never be lost, because I just dropped a compass point.
It's a standard feature on handheld GPS units dating back to the late 90's, both waypoint and breadcrumbs - and also a commonly available feature on Garmin and other non-Apple devices going back quite a number of years.
Buy Apple products. You might not be a pro photographer, but you could be an Instagram legend. You will be an Instagram legend. Think of the likes. THINK OF THE FAME. How could it not happen with a device of this quality? Look at the photos. Look how gorgeous they are!
Just drop $10k on an Apple load-out and don't think too much about it. It's not like it matters. You'll make it back in no time, superstar. You're not like the rest of these norms. You're special. You're one of us. You're one of the crazy ones.
Welcome to your new, better, diamond-cut chamfered-edged life.
Or—much more simply—some people use a few of these features occasionally to take nice pictures of things they are doing, track their hikes on the weekend or whatever.
It amazes me to see the extents people will go to in order to pretend they can’t even conceive of simple scenarios.
Absolutely I can conceive of those scenarios. They make some tremendous products (even if they often get a pass on some pretty serious bugs and flaws).
They're marketing though is aspirational to the point of appealing to people's delusions of grandeur. Apple is very aware that barely any of their customers will be using a dive computer and most Pro phone customers won't be dealing with ProRAW, even if a minority genuinely appreciate it for their workflow.
This is going to sound made up, totally realise that, but that's kind of my point (it seems silly written out) - last night I was talking to a buddy of mine after the event and he said he's going out to get the Watch Pro at release. He's not a diver and hikes very rarely (locally, with good cell reception) so I asked why. The answer was the extra button, because it looks different from a normal one and people will know he has the Pro model. This is Apple's market, and they know it - the rest is just window dressing.
This dude can't afford a $900 watch right now.
It's not Apple's fault people make poor financial decisions, but they very much rely on it.
Why do people get so but hurt about Apple products? Yes vilify they for putting a good camera in their phones. It’s obvious an evil manipulating ploy, and the customers who buy it are all stupid pretentious morons who are chasing after fame!! And not you know, just regular people who’d appreciate a better camera in their next phone upgrade.
Doubt it. Consumers who buy competing smart watches from Garmin / Suunto / Coros / Wahoo do actually use those features. I see their activities posted on Strava and Facebook all the time. Apple is finally trying to compete in the same market.
Size is probably driven by the size of the electronics, size of batteries, and size of screen. You could probably get a usable system on a smaller screen, but the rest of it, I suspect, is already up against the limits of what we can manufacture today.
There is a general trend of huge watches though outside of these concerns. Omega seamaster used to be available in 36mm. No more. Even the larger ones went from 40mm to 41mm, and last year they upped it to 42mm.
Sure, and I would very much prefer that we had more small watches (and phones, while we're commiserating). I'm just questioning whether a thing recognizable as an Apple Watch can be any smaller than it is today.
May be we can start a new trend, but instead of Z-height and making things slimmer, let's just make the phone and watch thicker but smaller X,Y dimensions.
It is. Watches lost the timekeeping service long ago, so their main purpose now is /only/ being a symbol of status.
(Thats why I'm happy with my wristwatch, it shows the time and day of the month. Nothing more. I wouldn't mind a perpetual calendar, only to avoid those three days a year when they don't sync with the ideosyncrazies of the human's calendar)
They also mentioned being able to use it with gloves on. You'll need bigger controls for that. Plus reading and interacting with it underwater probably is better with a bigger screen as well.
Yes, I'd be happy with even just the the extra side button to start workouts and such, since whenever I put on the homescreen it mistakenly gets started when crossing my arms or such and gets pressed. I imagine that may eventually come to the regular models.
Most ladies, and many men like myself have small wrists, so the "small" apple watch is already quite large compared to normal watches for most woman or men with small wrists. The "large" would over hang on many of those people, so you can only imagine how a 49mm would fit for most woman and people with thin wrists.
I’m a man with 6 1/4” wrists, a 40mm traditional watch looks enormous on my wrist, I can’t even imagine what a 2” wide Apple Watch Ultra would look like.
My every watch is 36mm, I’d definitely buy a sub 40mm Apple Watch.
I'm more concerned about the safety aspects of using an app running on a consumer watch for this kind of purpose. We've all seen the "water resistance is not a permanent condition...limited warranty does not cover water damage" warning before.
Can a user of this app easily determine whether the waterproofing of the watch has been compromised, perhaps invisibly? After all, most Apple products rely on double sided adhesives and thin rubber membranes for waterproofing, due to sensors etc, but most other watches use a O-ring seal or similar. What happens if the App crashes, or the watch experiences a freeze/reboot during a dive? Will the app relaunch and handle its state correctly? Will the battery aging impact ability to prevent unexpected restarts in cold water?
My past experiences with mobile apps and devices has been that while in the vast majority of situations they work fine, due to the large feature surface area and constraints associated with being a general purpose device, there are caveats to using them for a fixed purpose, where preventing failure could be critical. This is usually why purpose made equipment like dive computers are bulky and expensive, and I'm not sure this is the answer.
I'm thinking this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison (literally) because the Mares equipment is designed specifically for the purpose of diving. The design of that device can be optimized for diving, and just diving, where an Apple Watch needs to include features like phone calls, a speaker, a microphone, and other sensors that aren't necessary for diving, along with the other software and user installed apps. Furthermore, the physical size and case design of the products I see on the Mares website is bulkier, which likely makes it easy to build it to be more robust to physical damage and waterproofing.
I have a Suunto Spyder which I bought around 2003. It was the first dive computer that was small enough to be worn as a daily driver.
The thing about Spyder is that I need to replace its battery every two-three years, but otherwise it still does exactly what it did in 2003.
The thing about AWU is that it will long be a deadweight brick, while my Spyder will just keep on going. That's what bothers me about Apple-made dive computers.
Already preordered and am looking forward to using it for freediving. The UX on dive watches has long been a nightmare, they are expensive, and the replaceable batteries open them up to waterproofing issues. Most computers also treat freediving/spearfishing as an afterthought so I'll probably create my own software for it. Maybe a business opportunity here...
The freediving UX on the Garmin Descent Mk2 series seems fine to me. Have you tried it? The battery is rechargable and lasts a long time so there's no need to replace it.
As someone who just threw down $500 USD on a Peregrine, I’m curious about this as well. I think there is a real market for this kind of thing, as evidenced by Garmin’s presence with their high end watches and the Teric. I felt like when I paid for the Peregrine I was mostly paying for the screen though - which it still remains to be seen how well this device will perform in that category. I could definitely see myself using the Apple as a primary and the Peregrine as a secondary in 5 years or so as they iterate and make improvements - Shearwater has long been the king of this space but they don’t have the R&D money Apple does.
I'm mostly experienced with < $500 dive computers, which maybe isn't a fair comparison, but now I have the choice between the expensive apple watch or a single-purpose expensive dive computer. With the Ultra I can also buy or build different software if the UX isn't working for my needs.
The only catch is the scuba diving (aka dive computer) feature relies solely on 3rd party app. It happens that Oceanic+ to be the first one and the first one that will requires a subscription.
I ordered and cancelled the order right after I read the fine lines of the 3rd party and subscription requirement of the app.
I guess I would go back to a better, dedicated dive computer at this price point then.
How can they call 36 hours of battery life "long"? The $799 version Garmin Fenix 7 solar (which they seem to be targeting) has an 18-22 days of battery life.
The last time I had a smartwatch with "long" battery life like that was 2018 with a Polar M600. I got tired of charging it all the time and upgraded to a Garmin with a week of battery life.
It really annoys me to have to charge my Apple Watch every day, especially because I want/need it for both sleep tracking and exercise tracking. If I use it for sleeping it invariably runs out of bettery during the night, then in the morning when I want to work out I have to charge it before the gym, it's just frustrating. I would LOVE three days of charge.
My tactic is to drop in on the charger before I start getting ready for bed, then put it back on when I’m ready to go to sleep. Because it charges quickly, that’s enough to give me power through the night and the next day.
I just don’t track sleep… I sleep fine but the couple times I’ve tried sleep tracking it has just made my sleep restless because every time my sleep got shallow I woke up thinking about “I wonder how my sleep tracking is going… man I’m gonna get the best sleep score!”
This is one of the main reasons I keep a Garmin for running (that, and real buttons on the Garmin, which Apple Watch Ultra might fix). I wear the Apple Watch at night, and if I didn't remember to throw it on the charger for a bit after waking up, well, no run for you because there's not enough battery. I mean, between those two activities (sleep tracking and running), I was constantly managing the battery charging because the damned thing won't last through a day.
That, and I was really doubtful that the Apple product would 100%-for-sure-no-excuses make it through a marathon, and I'm fast enough to qualify for Boston. No way it would have made it through the five hour trail marathon I ran a few weeks ago.
So I really, really want the Apple Watch Ultra just so I can pare down to one watch. But the Garmin 945 isn't even a year old, so we'll see what Apple has to offer next year.
I have a Series 4. I stick it on the charger in the evening when I've settled down on the couch to do the NYT crossword puzzle, watch TV, and read. I inevitably fall asleep sometime during that. Sometime in the next two hours I'll wake up to go pee, see that the watch is charged, and put it on, go pee, maybe go get a drink of water, and head to bed.
When I'm in bed I have the watch in theater mode and with notifications silenced.
When I'm awake, but not exercising, I generally have it in theater mode with notifications not silenced. I'll toggle it out of theater mode if I'm doing something where I'll want to look at the watch more than sporadically.
When I'm exercising I turn off theater mode. That's typically about 40 minutes every morning.
Most evenings when I stick it on the charger it is above 50%. A fair number of days it is above 66%.
This? Very informative website. Also I thought we talk about smart watches with GPS. Like 50 years ago we already had high precision mechanical watches that you dont need to charge ever...
Well, I never heard of that too. I wear Citizen. [0]
> Also I thought we talk about smart watches with GPS
I had a lengthy response here, but it was throttled.
To sum up: since the smartwatches became a thing I attempted multiple times to justify why I should buy one, but the need to constantly monitor it's charge level, along with my smartphone and whatever else (bt-headset, tablet, another smartphone - depending on the period) always killed the idea. I still use a wired earphones with the same reasoning - I don't want to bother with charging them, I just plug them in and they work.
And the main point is still what I don't [yet?] have a killer feature in any smartwatches what would offset the charging hassle. Especially if it needed to be charged everyday (I don't think anyone lives on a 36h cycle and forgetting to charge them in the evening means they would die around noon).
What is the value of having 18 days of battery on a device like this? To me there are diminishing returns pretty quickly when it comes to battery life. I agree, there is a lot of value if you are able to hit 72-96 hours and you can go away for a weekend without worrying about charging, but 18 days seems like a waste. Are people really regularly away from their chargers for that long? At that point, I would much rather have a lighter device or one with more features.
The value is you can leave it on your wrist without having to take it off all the time to charge it. Like a normal watch. It's one less thing to have to have go flat on you because you forgot to charge it the night before. One less thing to be a slave to charging.
> It's one less thing to have to have go flat on you because you forgot to charge it the night before.
But you don't need 18 days for that. Like I said, I understand wanting a few days. Why do you need a few weeks? It seems like at that point it becomes even more likely that you would forget to charge because it never becomes a routine.
the importance for me isn't actually the idle battery life itself (even for phones or laptops that isnt the case). The high battery life allows me to use GPS for 8-12 hours on my Coros, which is usually >20 days of idle use with infrequent HR, elevation, etc.
I recently returned from week long road trip, and while my wife would plug in and charge her Apple Watch every single night, I kept wearing my Pebble without a thought at all -- didn't even pack a charger.
Granted, it does have fewer features, but how good are all those whiz-bangs if the battery is dead?
7-10 days is the ideal time, which is what the original Pebble Steel was capable of. I used to charge it once a week on Monday in the office and it would easily last till the next Monday. Sadly mine died from the screen glitch issue, and right around the time that Pebble collapsed. I think the Time 2 Steel would have been an incredible watch.
I've been using a Skagen Jorn Hybrid smartwatch for the last few years. No digital display, but the time/date are set via bluetooth, and it has phone call notification, which is mostly what I want. I don't need to read emails or SMSs on my wrist. 6 months of battery life from a replaceable coin cell.
Honestly though, this is the first apple watch to appeal to me. Proper waterproofing, ruggedness, long enough battery life to go away for a weekend without a charger, always on screen. It's almost getting back to where Pebble was - they just need to stretch that battery a bit more with an ultra-low power mode. The cost is fairly high considering the functions I want though, so I'll need to use it in person before I put any money down. I do occasionally scuba dive too, so the dive functionality is actually fairly appealing as I don't own a dive computer any more.
If Apple would just not go full Apple on somethings, like allowing interop Qi standard and reverse wireless charging, you could just top it off from your iPhone (or Android or wireless charger).
I’d love to not have to charge my watch on a 10 day backpacking trip. I’m old enough that most of my formative camping trips were before cell phones, and taking a charger and battery on a hike seems crazy to me. :)
I don't need 18 days. I'd like to be able to go on a trip without worrying about bringing yet another charger though. So for me, getting to 6 or 7 days is the sweet spot. I'm guessing the AWU will hit 4-5 in low power mode for people who don't use it intensively. But of course the battery will only get worse over time, and if you're running in low power mode that takes much of the value out of having an AW in the first place.
I definitely agree with you. Even my Garmin Phoenix 5x plus will last multiple days with GPS usage for Backcountry camping. Another factor I worry about is the durability of the screen. Although you should always travel with backup Maps nobody wants to lose their primary navigation tool because a touch screen is nicer than Sapphire glass displays.
That said the Apple watch is a nicer experience than the Phoenix which I don't tend to take out of the house too often outside of activities now. Indeed the Apple watch is claiming to be usable for recreational scuba for which the Phoenix is not and you would need to use an alternative Garmin watch
Perhaps the next iteration of the ultra watch will have features to extend battery life beyond the 60 hours in low battery mode it claims and hopefully towards 100 hours (14 hours * 7 days) of usage on low battery
> Even my Garmin Phoenix 5x plus will last multiple days with GPS usage for Backcountry camping.
Sporadic GPS usage, I'm guessing, since Garmin themselves only claim 13 hours of GPU usage (can't tell if it has UltraTrac though - the 5x non-plus can do 50 hours in UltraTrac mode.)
UltraTrac on my Fenix 5 is pretty useless though, you may as well not be recording at all at that point. I'm not sure if it's gotten better on the more recent watches, but the reported mileage would be off by 30%+ and the resulting map wouldn't even come close to resembling my actual path.
That said, even in normal GPS only mode (no Gallileo/GLONASS), the 5 when it was new would get 30 hours of recording. Enough for most ultras, 3 days of backpacking if you record 8 hours/day, and also enough for a week trip with an hour of running every day.
I totally agree with you as well. I currently have a Garmin Fenix 6 pro and it lasts around 14 days. As someone who is into trail running and backpacking, a 36 hour battery life is untenable, and charging it every night seems like a pain.
The irony is that AirPods have a really great battery life (especially the carrying case) despite the small form factor, and are my go-to for long runs.
Dumb question, if I may, having never used a GPS smartwatch: How easy to use are the Garmin watches on the trails? Can I download a certain route (like from Alltrails or Trailforks or Gaia) onto it and then have it position + route me in the woods, with just GPS and no cell signal?
I don't really want a smartwatch (ugh, slack on my wrist? no thanks), but a backpacking safety companion would be awesome!
You can certainly download a GPX route from services like Alltrails to the Garmin Fenix 7 for purely offline routing—that's one of the watch's strongest features.
Additionally, you can do simple ad-hoc routing on the watch itself, while you're out on the trail, also totally offline.
For more complex ad-hoc routing, it can be easier to design a route on the Garmin Explore app on your phone and then sync it to your watch via Bluetooth. This works (also totally offline), but the problem is that Garmin Explore's UI and trail labeling kind of sucks, at least on iOS.
My preferred approach, if I'm out on a hike and want to set a new route to someplace, is to draw routes on Gaia GPS (which also has offline maps), then sync them to my Fenix 7 over Bluetooth for navigation. I wrote a Pythonista script to make this work well on iOS: https://github.com/mshroyer/pythonista-scripts/tree/master/G...
The real irony of the charge-at-night model is that you miss the single biggest source of error in human life: lack of sleep. Accurate sleep measurement is, on a day-to-day basis, far more valuable than many of the features advertised on this system. That said, the red night vision setting, dive computer capability, and the iPhone's satellite messaging capability are pretty awesome. Combined with the ability for the parent-child Apple Watch pairing capability, I can imagine a legit workforce management system (imagine a commander in Ukraine, for example, being able to manage his troops' sleep through basic watchstander schedule modifications).
The Apple Watch charging routine works best with 15-20 minute spurts when available. I will wear it to sleep, and charge it when I wake up for less than 30 minutes as I ready for a run or gym session. Then I charge it again while I shower. I never worry about battery life unless I travel.
> Accurate sleep measurement is, on a day-to-day basis, far more valuable than many of the features advertised on this system.
What's a good consumer device nowadays for that use case? I remember looking for some good sleep tracking (and heart health tracking) a couple of years and got hopelessly lost.
Only in "smartwatch" mode - ie. pretty much everything is turned off. In GPS mode, you get 73 hours (which is more than the 60 you get on the Watch Ultra in conservation mode, yes, but vastly lower than "18-22 days"!)
The Apple Watch battery life quote seems misleading due to this: "1. During normal use, Apple Watch Ultra can reach up to 36 hours of battery life with iPhone present."
Normal use WITH an iPhone present. I have a feeling the Apple Watch by itself in GPS mode will be much less.
The watch can have more or less battery life without a phone nearby; if you don't have a watch cellular plan it'd probably have somewhat more, since more features are turned off. Of course, if you want to force it you can use airplane mode.
On the Garmin devices, you start recording when you are performing an activity. The idea is that when you're running, riding, whatever, you start recording it as needed. The GPS doesn't run unless you're active.
You can leave the other sensors like HRM and pulseox enabled when outside of "activities," and bluetooth is connected by default when in an activity or not, so I don't know where your "everything is turned off" assertion comes from.
So this is 73 hours of actually being active. Even if you're moving all day, you wouldn't ever set it to record GPS data while you're resting, and you'd over double the battery life from what you describe.
I'm a moderately active person, riding and/or running several hours a week, and have an older Garmin device with HRM always on and pulseox enabled during sleep. I charge the thing maybe once a week, usually during a shower after a run. There's really just no way you can squint at this and come to the conclusion that Apple is in the same ballpark on battery life.
Battery is a big reason why I mostly don’t use my fairly old Apple Watch. Daily charging is mostly more trouble than it’s worth. As some point I may just get a new Fenix. I also don’t find any of the available Apple Watch outdoor apps all that great.
I've enjoyed 23 days of battery life with Amazfit Bip for four years, and will never get a watch that requires charging more often than, say, two weeks.
Agreed. They say this is for explorers and adventure, but it seems like I’d be out of charge after the first segment of a backpacking trip. Need a map of an area for the return or the next day? Good luck.
It's not a huge deal. When I go on multi-day backpacking trips, I carry battery packs and/or solar chargers with me anyway, because I need to be able to charge my phone.
If I'm doing some kind of outdoor activity, then I'm likely already carrying batteries for other things. I don't think it's the huge barrier most people here think it is. I guess if you're into ultra-light then yeah maybe it isn't the target market for you - but then why would you be carrying a huge watch in the first place rather than something light?
I mean, I tend to agree. FWIW, most people who do UL Backpacking use a smartphone for maps and a UL battery. I've taken my Apple Watch backpacking with me before, and keeping it charged wasn't a thing. Just one extra (short) cable to bring, I'd put it on the battery during dinner and camp setup.
The thing is though, I've only found it really useful if I'm doing stiff ascents and am not comfortable with my training. Mostly just to keep an eye on my heartrate, if my training/preparations are adequate for my trip, I don't use it at all.
Garmin Fenix cannot replace a phone, but has better battery life. The Apple Watch Ultra can do most of the things you'd need your iPhone for out on a trip.
If you are really UL, you can ditch the phone and just use the Ultra. Apple Watch + small battery is lighter than a Fenix + iPhone + battery.
I know they came out with an LTE-enabled Forerunner 945 late in its cycle. I don’t know if they’ll add similar functionality to other models, but that’s one watch with that feature.
Personally that device never interested me because:
1) if I can rely on cell phone signal, I’m likely doing a quick and simple hike where I don’t have to worry about draining my cell phone battery in the first place, or
2) if I can’t rely on cell phone signal (much more likely), which is especially likely in the US wilderness, then if I’m doing something precarious in a remote setting I’ll have to bring a beacon and satellite communicator anyway. Like an InReach Mini.
The fact that Garmin is releasing even higher end watches without cell phone connectivity likely indicates there’s not a lot of people buying nearly $1k fitness watches finding that functionality compelling.
Obviously people doing this are likely too narrow a segment for Apple. Like, why would Apple care that I’m not buying their watch? I was just engaged by their headline marketing for this watch until I saw the specs.
Agreed. I'm a competitive runner and nobody in that community is showing up to interval workouts with an Apple watch. I don't see this watch changing that, especially when better battery life and tracking (which is all the road/track running segment really cares about) can be had at a fraction of the cost with Garmin or Coros. The ultra/hiking community will run into problems with the 36 hour battery life, especially if they're using the map features.
I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.
Remember will be 60 hours in low power mode, and that seems to only disable things such as always on (which I always disable with hikes as drastically improves battery life and theater mode), and won't auto detect workout, but one can easily just set to hike or what not when starting the workout manually. 60 hours for all the benefits of the watch seems impressive. The 49mm size however will be the bigger issue presumably for most woman and men with small wrists, since the small was already large for that demographic.
I put in an order for one. I currently wear an Apple Watch Series 4 every day, which I use for logging workouts and other health metrics, and as a daily-driver smartwatch for receiving notifications, checking time and weather, etc. This seems like a really worthy upgrade to me - with the parts that interest me in particular being the improved battery life, larger and brighter screen, always-on display, and cellular support (which my current watch doesn't have).
> I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.
I would say basically anyone who likes their Apple Watch (and there are a lot of us out there), is comfortable with the size and aesthetic, and has $800 to blow on a smart watch.
Same with cyclists. Head units from Garmin or Wahoo are far superior but an Apple Watch could be a decent alternative if it at least supported ANT+ to connect a power meter and a range of sensors. Or Strava Live Segments (maybe they do via the Strava App?).
Currently The Apple Watch is a nice casual fitness tracker and the Watch Ultra doesn't change any of that.
I think this is a the first act from apple entering into active lifestyle market for the endurance/outback/mountain and outgoing folks.
It is definitely not for me this year, it does not have the battery life I need during an excursion and there is no possibility of charge on the go (like good old Garmin watches that you can charge while using during an activity).
But in few years it will advance the same way apple watch has advanced :-).
Now you see the Apple Watch Series N wherever you go, which is ~$400, not the Ultra. It will be interesting to see how common the ultra is over the next few years. My guess is it won't be super common, as it's large, fairly unattractive (IMO), and much more expensive for features that don't even match the competition that much of this Garmin/Ultra/etc type of demographic cares about.
There are third-party wireless chargers that can charge your phone, airpods and watch concurrently, but I agree, it seems silly having to deal with many small batteries on a daily basis.
The only long-lasting battery is the iPhone's, but it gained that capability years after it became common in comparable Android phones.
Though I would tend to agree with you (and many other commenters clearly do).
I think this is just how Apple markets themselves. They know that most of the people who buy the Apple watch are not going to use it for 100 milers, and don't need the extra battery life.
I love how they call it a "revolutionary new design", yet most people on the street likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the Ultra and non-ultra.
> I got the feeling it's one of those products designed for regular people who like to roleplay as explorers
This seems like an overly cynical take to me.
I agree that the marketing was a bit over the top, and most people who buy one will not be doing things like running ultra marathons in the Sahara. And for people who do those things, there are probably better watches out there from Garmin, etc.
But you don't need to be an explorer (or roleplay as one) to benefit from the longer battery life, larger and brighter display, improved GPS accuracy, improved audio and microphone quality, etc.
Exactly. I actually think it fits the casual outdoors-person quite well. I do weekend trips, offroading, some mountain biking, some scuba diving, work in the garage.. Something like this is great because a) it's durable and I don't have to baby it, and b) a lot of the features I want are there at a casually usable level. Simple dive computer? Sweet! Crash detection? Sweet! Battery that can last me for a weekend trip to the bush? Finally.
Kind of... Apple's sleep tracking is by far the best on the market[1]. However if your watch doesn't last many days it's a pain in the ass to use it that way, because you charge it overnight instead of tracking your sleep.
I don’t think their phone is going to get a lot of traction either, considering that the competitors phones all have about a week of battery life. My Nokia 5110 actually lasts about ten days without charging.
As a casual runner that does some track workouts, the extra button is my favorite feature of this new watch. The built in stopwatch app with screen buttons is miserable for timing workouts.
Now I just need to wait a few years for the extra button to trickle down to something that my family agrees is in budget.
Same, but slightly disagree about the UI, but can understand why it's not for everyone.
I finally upgraded my ageing 935 to a 955 after 3 or more years and I actually find the 955 to be a joyous experience day to day for everything I need to do and way more. The UI/UX actually feels somewhat well polished now.
Sure, some features and functions are buried, but the amount of functionality packed into it, which is quickly and easily accessible when you get the basic UI structure is unsurpassed IMO. Nothing ever feels more than a few button presses or swipes away, which is honestly a huge achievement given just how much they are packing in now.
The new daily reports and training/workout suggestions are almost always bang on in terms of matching I how feel along with their suggestions for easy days / hard days. The battery life and abundance of buttons just leaves Apple for dust IMO. Add in features like PacePro, easy workout building, training programs, race day planning, integration with everything imaginable - Di2 gears, power meters, etc. Apple will probably never handle a triathlon event - jumping seamlessly from Garmin watch -> Garmin cycle computer -> Garmin watch. I don't think Garmin should feel threatened by Apple here.
Nothing about Apple Watch appeals to me for my use case - running, cycling, swimming, hiking, training status, sleep tracking/recommendations, notifications, music/spotify integration. I've had a couple of Apple Watches over the years and they both got handed on to family members within a month or two. I've wanted to like it, but they are a long way off realistically serving my use-case and this new Ultra version doesn't look to come close either.
I've certainly had issues with Garmin - that atrocious week long service outage a year or two back and also some software updates that made me wonder if any internal QA had been done at all, but overall, Garmin have given me rock solid devices that are best in class IMO. My 935 still looked almost brand new after 3 years of hard usage and still gave me nearly week long battery life (with 5-7hrs running a week).
36/60 hours still seems pretty low to me honestly in an adventuring context. Apple had a great opportunity to innovate the watch massively but this is kinda disappointing. Software is cool, as always, but hardware is the let down. The bands seem pretty cool though.
Really hoping they solve the rumored glucose monitoring at some point. I've never owned an apple watch, but I would dump all my traditional watches, oura ring and CGM.
One thing confusing me is that there doesn't seem to be a real map view. There is a view displaying waypoints and a line tracing your route, but no map background. Some context around your current position can be very helpful when navigating. Strange that they didn't include it. The watch already has such a bright high resolution display, they could provide a much better experience than the competitors.
In the wilderness, they'd want to be using Satellite (data heavy) because most areas don't have useful Vector mapping unless they pull in a huge new trail database.
Sigh, Yes, wakeboarding is an extreme sport. Just because you personally might feel that it’s “not extreme enough” doesn’t change that fact. The category of extreme sports is about risks of serious injury or death, not about how “Rad” people perceive them to be.
> Contusions, abrasions, strains, sprains, low back pain and rib fractures are common injuries experienced in wakeboarding.
Not sure that list of example injuries supports the “risks of serious injury or death” claim, but ymmv. If “contusions and abrasions” needs to be spelled out, it seems like someone’s padding the list. :)
It's strange that they don't offer good outdoor maps. In the announcement video, they show how to find your way from your gps track displayed on a black background. It's not very helpful.
I use a third party application, WorkOutDoors, to get vectorial outdoor maps from OSM data on the Apple Watch Series 3. So it should be possible to offer maps by default on the new watch ultra that makes you an adventurer.
Off-road maps are something I'm OK with using a third-party app for, but there's one thing I can't stand with the current mapping features - line of sight or "as the crow flies" distance and directions off-road. I use FindMy with other people in outdoor and off-road situations quite a bit. I can see where other people are on the map, but I can't be told the straight line distance to any of them. You also can't ask for directions to another person if that person isn't next to a road. It seems like such a huge oversight that you can't tap on another person in FindMy and ask for directions and then be told something like "Head 700m at a bearing of 187 degrees to [other user's] location." Freeform walking directions are such a basic thing that I can't believe this is overlooked.
Why would you make the "action button" a fixed bright orange color? I want to be able to wear it whether I'm on a run or whether I'm going out.
EDIT: Yeah, international orange, cool - keep it as an option, but the vast majority of people buying this will never be in a situation where "international orange" is needed.
Oh, it's needed alright. It signals to the others in that sprint planning meeting that you are an extreme athlete who cares not for such things as aesthetics. And in case they can't quite make it out at the other end of the conference table, we'll make it bright orange.
You have to realize Apple is creating the equivalent of the luxury Mercedes G-Wagon for off-roading, when in reality a Jeep Rubicon (Garmin) addresses all of your real needs at 1/3 the price.
The problem with Garmin is that they obsessively fragment/segment/differentiate their market/products.
It's infuriating that such an expensive watch will be unable to do some basic feature because they want to sell a "golf" version of the watch or a "sailing" version and so on.
They'll also release some feature that clearly is possible to implement on even current products elsewhere in the lineup - and isn't even really implemented on the watch at all but just some processing done on their cloud. But you don't get the feature, even if you bought a current model elsewhere in the lineup, because only the new watches get it.
With increased competition, supply chain issues, and consumer spending tightening it's been amusing to see Garmin suddenly drop much of that; the Vivoactive 4 and Forerunner 255 are absent most of their typical segmentation crap. The Forerunner 255 is a running watch that supports cycling power meters, for example, which had been a feature that had been limited to their absurdly expensive, huge, gaudy-looking "Fenix" watches.
I generally agree with your points, but cycling power meters had been supported even on some older Forerunner models like the 935 that was released in 2017. It's cheaper and smaller than a Fenix, but internally shares much of the same hardware and software.
It seems like Garmin is missing out on an opportunity to upsell existing device owners on apps. Like if someone sails occasionally then they're probably not going to spend $800 for another smart watch with sailing features, but they might spend $20 to add the sailing app to their existing device.
Famously, Steve Jobs rescued Apple from oblivion largely by stopping their market segmentation and forcing the company to have "one great product in each major category". As in one phone, one PC, one music player, etc...
Meanwhile Apple's competition is flailing around releasing literally hundreds of minor model variations each, which all require design, parts sourcing, warehousing, warranty support[1], standards licensing, FCC approvals, etc...
Remember Nokia? They had something like over 100 phone models when Apple release the iPhone!
More models isn't more choice. It's more confusion, more fragmentation, more overhead, and more upset customers that can't get the combination of features they want.
[1] This one in particular is a killer, especially in some markets like California and Australia. Needing to keep spares on hand for legally-mandated warranty drags down the profitability or jacks up the price for a lot of companies that don't "get" the Apple Way of having fewer SKUs.
Garmin’s branding and segmentation is complete mess. After hour of browsing I still cannot figure out what to buy and the real differentiators. Their compare tool is useless. It has all the characteristics of no attention to details. The whole company is surviving simply because they turn off GPS, wifi and always on to boost the battery life to 5X. There is no other visible magic souse. It is also beyond me why Apple can’t simply add “modes” to extend battery life is same manner.
I'm an occasional outdoors person. A device with most of the Garmin features that is also a really good smartwatch for the everyday, which is 90% of my time, does appeal. A Garmin would collect dust for most of the year.
228 comments
[ 63.9 ms ] story [ 544 ms ] threadSamsung was only mentioned because are there any other real competitors to a full smart watch?
Garmin will likely keep me because running gps for 10+ hours at a shot is important. A full smart watch is far less of a priority.
(On Sunday I ran for roughly 10.5 hours, GPS active the entire time. When I finished, I had 33% of my battery left.)
If you don't want to dive headlong into Apple's stuff, then a Garmin might very well be all the smart watch you need. It's been quite a few years since I used a Garmin as a full-time smart watch, but you can have notifications and messages (read-only if using an Apple phone) and even contactless payment on a Garmin. If we weren't a knees-deep Apple house, I'd just use my Garmin 945 as my smart watch.
Significantly so, especially when paired with a phone (which users already own).
(Some do, but many of us specifically leave the phone at home, and run with our apple watches to save having a big clonkly phone)
Any source on that - because I really doubt it.
A-GPS doesn’t need to wait for a fix to be pretty accurate though, which is nice.
This is a review of an Apple 5, and it's within a few % points of a Garmin
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/11/apple-watch-series-5-spo...
Edit: Nope... found on https://www.oceanicworldwide.com/faqs/
Q: I have a wireless transmitter, can I connect it with the Oceanic+ app?
A: At the moment this option is not currently available.
I would love to see a system that uses ultra-high frequency noise in combination with the watch microphone, but it's doubtful manufacturers are going to want to support that.
If it's about reading the tank pressure, then most probably the answer is no.
In any event, this isn't replacing my teric but I wouldn't mind diving with a backup.
Fail.
The pitch is basically:
Buy Apple products. You might not be a pro photographer, but you could be an Instagram legend. You will be an Instagram legend. Think of the likes. THINK OF THE FAME. How could it not happen with a device of this quality? Look at the photos. Look how gorgeous they are!
Just drop $10k on an Apple load-out and don't think too much about it. It's not like it matters. You'll make it back in no time, superstar. You're not like the rest of these norms. You're special. You're one of us. You're one of the crazy ones.
Welcome to your new, better, diamond-cut chamfered-edged life.
It amazes me to see the extents people will go to in order to pretend they can’t even conceive of simple scenarios.
They're marketing though is aspirational to the point of appealing to people's delusions of grandeur. Apple is very aware that barely any of their customers will be using a dive computer and most Pro phone customers won't be dealing with ProRAW, even if a minority genuinely appreciate it for their workflow.
This is going to sound made up, totally realise that, but that's kind of my point (it seems silly written out) - last night I was talking to a buddy of mine after the event and he said he's going out to get the Watch Pro at release. He's not a diver and hikes very rarely (locally, with good cell reception) so I asked why. The answer was the extra button, because it looks different from a normal one and people will know he has the Pro model. This is Apple's market, and they know it - the rest is just window dressing.
This dude can't afford a $900 watch right now.
It's not Apple's fault people make poor financial decisions, but they very much rely on it.
How many people use 8TB of SSD storage? Fail.
(Thats why I'm happy with my wristwatch, it shows the time and day of the month. Nothing more. I wouldn't mind a perpetual calendar, only to avoid those three days a year when they don't sync with the ideosyncrazies of the human's calendar)
As a small-wristed male, I would also love a thin watch, without a lot of the sensors.
My every watch is 36mm, I’d definitely buy a sub 40mm Apple Watch.
Plenty of ladies have larger risks than me (a man)
Are folks wanting something the size of a jacket button?
"along with recreational scuba diving to 40 meters with the new Oceanic+ app."
I was looking at $1,000 Garmin watches and was really not excited at buying one.
Can a user of this app easily determine whether the waterproofing of the watch has been compromised, perhaps invisibly? After all, most Apple products rely on double sided adhesives and thin rubber membranes for waterproofing, due to sensors etc, but most other watches use a O-ring seal or similar. What happens if the App crashes, or the watch experiences a freeze/reboot during a dive? Will the app relaunch and handle its state correctly? Will the battery aging impact ability to prevent unexpected restarts in cold water?
My past experiences with mobile apps and devices has been that while in the vast majority of situations they work fine, due to the large feature surface area and constraints associated with being a general purpose device, there are caveats to using them for a fixed purpose, where preventing failure could be critical. This is usually why purpose made equipment like dive computers are bulky and expensive, and I'm not sure this is the answer.
The thing about Spyder is that I need to replace its battery every two-three years, but otherwise it still does exactly what it did in 2003.
The thing about AWU is that it will long be a deadweight brick, while my Spyder will just keep on going. That's what bothers me about Apple-made dive computers.
I ordered and cancelled the order right after I read the fine lines of the 3rd party and subscription requirement of the app.
I guess I would go back to a better, dedicated dive computer at this price point then.
I’d still like a month of battery life though!
That, and I was really doubtful that the Apple product would 100%-for-sure-no-excuses make it through a marathon, and I'm fast enough to qualify for Boston. No way it would have made it through the five hour trail marathon I ran a few weeks ago.
So I really, really want the Apple Watch Ultra just so I can pare down to one watch. But the Garmin 945 isn't even a year old, so we'll see what Apple has to offer next year.
I have a Series 4. I stick it on the charger in the evening when I've settled down on the couch to do the NYT crossword puzzle, watch TV, and read. I inevitably fall asleep sometime during that. Sometime in the next two hours I'll wake up to go pee, see that the watch is charged, and put it on, go pee, maybe go get a drink of water, and head to bed.
When I'm in bed I have the watch in theater mode and with notifications silenced.
When I'm awake, but not exercising, I generally have it in theater mode with notifications not silenced. I'll toggle it out of theater mode if I'm doing something where I'll want to look at the watch more than sporadically.
When I'm exercising I turn off theater mode. That's typically about 40 minutes every morning.
Most evenings when I stick it on the charger it is above 50%. A fair number of days it is above 66%.
Retina display with 2k nits. I guess it looks awesome.
I prefer my garmin too. I charge it like two times a month and my gps fixes very fast and is very accurate
/s but only so slightly
This? Very informative website. Also I thought we talk about smart watches with GPS. Like 50 years ago we already had high precision mechanical watches that you dont need to charge ever...
Well, I never heard of that too. I wear Citizen. [0]
> Also I thought we talk about smart watches with GPS
I had a lengthy response here, but it was throttled.
To sum up: since the smartwatches became a thing I attempted multiple times to justify why I should buy one, but the need to constantly monitor it's charge level, along with my smartphone and whatever else (bt-headset, tablet, another smartphone - depending on the period) always killed the idea. I still use a wired earphones with the same reasoning - I don't want to bother with charging them, I just plug them in and they work.
And the main point is still what I don't [yet?] have a killer feature in any smartwatches what would offset the charging hassle. Especially if it needed to be charged everyday (I don't think anyone lives on a 36h cycle and forgetting to charge them in the evening means they would die around noon).
https://www.citizenwatch.com/us/en/product/AU1065-58E.html?c...
If you're concerned about battery life then Garmin has models which can run for over a month, and have solar charging.
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/854515
But you don't need 18 days for that. Like I said, I understand wanting a few days. Why do you need a few weeks? It seems like at that point it becomes even more likely that you would forget to charge because it never becomes a routine.
Granted, it does have fewer features, but how good are all those whiz-bangs if the battery is dead?
I've been using a Skagen Jorn Hybrid smartwatch for the last few years. No digital display, but the time/date are set via bluetooth, and it has phone call notification, which is mostly what I want. I don't need to read emails or SMSs on my wrist. 6 months of battery life from a replaceable coin cell.
Honestly though, this is the first apple watch to appeal to me. Proper waterproofing, ruggedness, long enough battery life to go away for a weekend without a charger, always on screen. It's almost getting back to where Pebble was - they just need to stretch that battery a bit more with an ultra-low power mode. The cost is fairly high considering the functions I want though, so I'll need to use it in person before I put any money down. I do occasionally scuba dive too, so the dive functionality is actually fairly appealing as I don't own a dive computer any more.
(which just happened to me)
Recharging every 36 hours seems reasonable to me, even in very austere conditions.
That said the Apple watch is a nicer experience than the Phoenix which I don't tend to take out of the house too often outside of activities now. Indeed the Apple watch is claiming to be usable for recreational scuba for which the Phoenix is not and you would need to use an alternative Garmin watch
Perhaps the next iteration of the ultra watch will have features to extend battery life beyond the 60 hours in low battery mode it claims and hopefully towards 100 hours (14 hours * 7 days) of usage on low battery
Sporadic GPS usage, I'm guessing, since Garmin themselves only claim 13 hours of GPU usage (can't tell if it has UltraTrac though - the 5x non-plus can do 50 hours in UltraTrac mode.)
That said, even in normal GPS only mode (no Gallileo/GLONASS), the 5 when it was new would get 30 hours of recording. Enough for most ultras, 3 days of backpacking if you record 8 hours/day, and also enough for a week trip with an hour of running every day.
It’s totally valid to think that a different product more clearly suits your needs - you don’t have to fake incredulity about it.
The irony is that AirPods have a really great battery life (especially the carrying case) despite the small form factor, and are my go-to for long runs.
I don't really want a smartwatch (ugh, slack on my wrist? no thanks), but a backpacking safety companion would be awesome!
Additionally, you can do simple ad-hoc routing on the watch itself, while you're out on the trail, also totally offline.
For more complex ad-hoc routing, it can be easier to design a route on the Garmin Explore app on your phone and then sync it to your watch via Bluetooth. This works (also totally offline), but the problem is that Garmin Explore's UI and trail labeling kind of sucks, at least on iOS.
My preferred approach, if I'm out on a hike and want to set a new route to someplace, is to draw routes on Gaia GPS (which also has offline maps), then sync them to my Fenix 7 over Bluetooth for navigation. I wrote a Pythonista script to make this work well on iOS: https://github.com/mshroyer/pythonista-scripts/tree/master/G...
What's a good consumer device nowadays for that use case? I remember looking for some good sleep tracking (and heart health tracking) a couple of years and got hopelessly lost.
He’s a professional scientist specialising in sleep research and the reviews concentrate on data/accuracy only.
This. This is how they will beat Putin. Sleep apps.
The explorer focus was just wacky.
Without any gloves too.
Only in "smartwatch" mode - ie. pretty much everything is turned off. In GPS mode, you get 73 hours (which is more than the 60 you get on the Watch Ultra in conservation mode, yes, but vastly lower than "18-22 days"!)
Normal use WITH an iPhone present. I have a feeling the Apple Watch by itself in GPS mode will be much less.
That will be an interesting figure to find out when people start reviewing them.
You can leave the other sensors like HRM and pulseox enabled when outside of "activities," and bluetooth is connected by default when in an activity or not, so I don't know where your "everything is turned off" assertion comes from.
So this is 73 hours of actually being active. Even if you're moving all day, you wouldn't ever set it to record GPS data while you're resting, and you'd over double the battery life from what you describe.
I'm a moderately active person, riding and/or running several hours a week, and have an older Garmin device with HRM always on and pulseox enabled during sleep. I charge the thing maybe once a week, usually during a shower after a run. There's really just no way you can squint at this and come to the conclusion that Apple is in the same ballpark on battery life.
I know, I've owned and used Garmin watches since 2011.
> your "everything is turned off" assertion comes from.
Garmin's own measure of battery life - GPS, Pulse Ox, etc. all turned off => smartwatch mode.
> There's really just no way you can squint at this and come to the conclusion that Apple is in the same ballpark on battery life.
Indeed not.
So my guess is their thinking is:
- Garmin has 10 times the battery life
- We have a 10 times better user experience
- Most "outdoorsy people" (or prosumers or, let's face it, lazy people who want to look cool) will prefer user experience over battery life
- So we prioritize on that
It actually looks exactly like these ads.
Their competitors: Garmin, coros all offer weeks of battery life with tradeoffs people in this segment happily make.
I get 20 days of battery life on my coros pace 2. Charging a apple watch every night or two would not be acceptable.
The thing is though, I've only found it really useful if I'm doing stiff ascents and am not comfortable with my training. Mostly just to keep an eye on my heartrate, if my training/preparations are adequate for my trip, I don't use it at all.
If you are really UL, you can ditch the phone and just use the Ultra. Apple Watch + small battery is lighter than a Fenix + iPhone + battery.
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/854515
Personally that device never interested me because:
1) if I can rely on cell phone signal, I’m likely doing a quick and simple hike where I don’t have to worry about draining my cell phone battery in the first place, or
2) if I can’t rely on cell phone signal (much more likely), which is especially likely in the US wilderness, then if I’m doing something precarious in a remote setting I’ll have to bring a beacon and satellite communicator anyway. Like an InReach Mini.
The fact that Garmin is releasing even higher end watches without cell phone connectivity likely indicates there’s not a lot of people buying nearly $1k fitness watches finding that functionality compelling.
Obviously people doing this are likely too narrow a segment for Apple. Like, why would Apple care that I’m not buying their watch? I was just engaged by their headline marketing for this watch until I saw the specs.
Does it make phone calls?
I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.
> I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.
I would say basically anyone who likes their Apple Watch (and there are a lot of us out there), is comfortable with the size and aesthetic, and has $800 to blow on a smart watch.
Currently The Apple Watch is a nice casual fitness tracker and the Watch Ultra doesn't change any of that.
It is definitely not for me this year, it does not have the battery life I need during an excursion and there is no possibility of charge on the go (like good old Garmin watches that you can charge while using during an activity).
But in few years it will advance the same way apple watch has advanced :-).
The only long-lasting battery is the iPhone's, but it gained that capability years after it became common in comparable Android phones.
I think this is just how Apple markets themselves. They know that most of the people who buy the Apple watch are not going to use it for 100 milers, and don't need the extra battery life.
I love how they call it a "revolutionary new design", yet most people on the street likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the Ultra and non-ultra.
This seems like an overly cynical take to me.
I agree that the marketing was a bit over the top, and most people who buy one will not be doing things like running ultra marathons in the Sahara. And for people who do those things, there are probably better watches out there from Garmin, etc.
But you don't need to be an explorer (or roleplay as one) to benefit from the longer battery life, larger and brighter display, improved GPS accuracy, improved audio and microphone quality, etc.
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU
Now I just need to wait a few years for the extra button to trickle down to something that my family agrees is in budget.
I finally upgraded my ageing 935 to a 955 after 3 or more years and I actually find the 955 to be a joyous experience day to day for everything I need to do and way more. The UI/UX actually feels somewhat well polished now.
Sure, some features and functions are buried, but the amount of functionality packed into it, which is quickly and easily accessible when you get the basic UI structure is unsurpassed IMO. Nothing ever feels more than a few button presses or swipes away, which is honestly a huge achievement given just how much they are packing in now.
The new daily reports and training/workout suggestions are almost always bang on in terms of matching I how feel along with their suggestions for easy days / hard days. The battery life and abundance of buttons just leaves Apple for dust IMO. Add in features like PacePro, easy workout building, training programs, race day planning, integration with everything imaginable - Di2 gears, power meters, etc. Apple will probably never handle a triathlon event - jumping seamlessly from Garmin watch -> Garmin cycle computer -> Garmin watch. I don't think Garmin should feel threatened by Apple here.
Nothing about Apple Watch appeals to me for my use case - running, cycling, swimming, hiking, training status, sleep tracking/recommendations, notifications, music/spotify integration. I've had a couple of Apple Watches over the years and they both got handed on to family members within a month or two. I've wanted to like it, but they are a long way off realistically serving my use-case and this new Ultra version doesn't look to come close either.
I've certainly had issues with Garmin - that atrocious week long service outage a year or two back and also some software updates that made me wonder if any internal QA had been done at all, but overall, Garmin have given me rock solid devices that are best in class IMO. My 935 still looked almost brand new after 3 years of hard usage and still gave me nearly week long battery life (with 5-7hrs running a week).
/s
> Contusions, abrasions, strains, sprains, low back pain and rib fractures are common injuries experienced in wakeboarding.
I use a third party application, WorkOutDoors, to get vectorial outdoor maps from OSM data on the Apple Watch Series 3. So it should be possible to offer maps by default on the new watch ultra that makes you an adventurer.
EDIT: Yeah, international orange, cool - keep it as an option, but the vast majority of people buying this will never be in a situation where "international orange" is needed.
You have to realize Apple is creating the equivalent of the luxury Mercedes G-Wagon for off-roading, when in reality a Jeep Rubicon (Garmin) addresses all of your real needs at 1/3 the price.
It's infuriating that such an expensive watch will be unable to do some basic feature because they want to sell a "golf" version of the watch or a "sailing" version and so on.
They'll also release some feature that clearly is possible to implement on even current products elsewhere in the lineup - and isn't even really implemented on the watch at all but just some processing done on their cloud. But you don't get the feature, even if you bought a current model elsewhere in the lineup, because only the new watches get it.
With increased competition, supply chain issues, and consumer spending tightening it's been amusing to see Garmin suddenly drop much of that; the Vivoactive 4 and Forerunner 255 are absent most of their typical segmentation crap. The Forerunner 255 is a running watch that supports cycling power meters, for example, which had been a feature that had been limited to their absurdly expensive, huge, gaudy-looking "Fenix" watches.
It seems like Garmin is missing out on an opportunity to upsell existing device owners on apps. Like if someone sails occasionally then they're probably not going to spend $800 for another smart watch with sailing features, but they might spend $20 to add the sailing app to their existing device.
Meanwhile Apple's competition is flailing around releasing literally hundreds of minor model variations each, which all require design, parts sourcing, warehousing, warranty support[1], standards licensing, FCC approvals, etc...
Remember Nokia? They had something like over 100 phone models when Apple release the iPhone!
More models isn't more choice. It's more confusion, more fragmentation, more overhead, and more upset customers that can't get the combination of features they want.
[1] This one in particular is a killer, especially in some markets like California and Australia. Needing to keep spares on hand for legally-mandated warranty drags down the profitability or jacks up the price for a lot of companies that don't "get" the Apple Way of having fewer SKUs.
Garmin is targeting the actual market of consumers who are going deep outdoors. Apple is targeting the much bigger market of everyone else.
I'm an occasional outdoors person. A device with most of the Garmin features that is also a really good smartwatch for the everyday, which is 90% of my time, does appeal. A Garmin would collect dust for most of the year.