Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#181

Post by browningstreet »

solardev wrote: post #161
lukeinator42 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Yes.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#182

Post by h4waii »

Daneel_ wrote: post #177
h4waii wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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).

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#183

Post by Daneel_ »

maratc wrote: post #74
evgen wrote: 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.

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#186

Post by Daneel_ »

freetime2 wrote: post #166
brundolf wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the feeling it's one of those products designed for regular people who like to roleplay as explorers

> 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…

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#187

Post by gnicholas »

slg wrote: post #48
drewg123 wrote: post #16

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.

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 rathe…

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#188

Post by Kon-Peki »

killjoywashere wrote: post #162

I love the intro: Men wanted for hazardous journey [[omitted: to the South Pole. Small wages, bitter cold,]] long months of complete darkness, constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success. http://www.antarctic-circle.org/advert.htm

They should have included a modern day job posting:

> Antenna Rigger - McMurdo, Antarctica

   Frequently climbs towers up to 150' feet in height to perform all normal rigging duties as required.
https://ghgcorp.applicantpro.com/jobs/2218096.html

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#189

Post by fumar »

killjoywashere wrote: post #175
lukeinator42 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#190

Post by [deleted] »

freetime2 wrote: post #166
brundolf wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the feeling it's one of those products designed for regular people who like to roleplay as explorers

> 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN