Live data from Hacker News

Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

apple.com

81–90 of 229 posts

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#81

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.

Well, because they are different products with different features and a different set of trade-offs.

It’s totally valid to think that a different product more clearly suits your needs - you don’t have to fake incredulity about it.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

18 hours is all day… 36 is long

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’d still like a month of battery life though!

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#83
post #74
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bluetooth doesn't work underwater as far as I know.

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carry a small battery pack.

that's a lot of weight to add for backpacking. every bit counts when you're going 20 miles up and down hills.

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?

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 adhe…

My dive computer (mares) is also a consumer device. Why would Apple Watch be worse ?

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#87

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.

Try a Garmin. Even the low end ones have way, way more battery life and lots of buttons.

I would advice a $18 Casio and $20 mp3 player, both with a physical buttons... but they xan't stream your favourite Spotify tracks, I suppose?

/s

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#88
post #21

Apple is missing the mark in this segment. 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.

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#89
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought this was a thing of a past? Mine easily lasts 4-5 days if I turn off wifi and bt (which I assume you don't need much when backpacking).

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#90
post #10

Still no Apple Watch for ladies... They're all enormous!

No update in the mini phone form factor either. Even as a 6' tall dude, I would appreciate more emphasis on the smaller devices.

+1. Especially as other manufacturers would soon follow.
Post reply on HN