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

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#141

Post by secabeen »

underbluewaters wrote: post #125
sylvainkalache wrote: post #12

What I am the most excited about is the dive computer feature! "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.

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...

Interesting. Shearwater is the dominant player in both dive computers and freediving watches. They don't meet your needs?

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#142

Post by pedalpete »

arberx wrote: 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.

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#143

Post by brundolf »

arberx wrote: 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.

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

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#144

Post by benjaminberlin »

zimpenfish wrote: post #119
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.

> 18-22 days of battery life. 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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#145

Post by ratg13 »

zimpenfish wrote: post #119
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.

> 18-22 days of battery life. 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"!)

If you turn on GPS tracking on the Apple watch the battery will only last about 6-8 hours.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#147

Post by nradov »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #117
alberth wrote: post #114

People are getting hung up on battery life. 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 rea…

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#148

Post by musictubes »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #24
cmcmcm wrote: post #10

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

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.

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#149

Post by musictubes »

heavymark wrote: post #102
teolandon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can ladies not wear big watches?

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 had always heard that the regular Apple Watch was one of the smaller (smallest?) smart watches out there. Is that not the case?

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#150

Post by whichdan »

chrisBob wrote: post #37
cmcmcm wrote: 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.

I forgot where I read it, but there's a rumor that Apple is only planning to release a Mini phone every other year.
Post reply on HN