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

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#31

Post by drewg123 »

dwighttk wrote: post #22
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 hours is all day… 36 is long

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#32

Post by case0x00 »

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#34

Post by krisdol »

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.

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#36

Post by endemic »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13
88840-8855 wrote: post #9

How many people will ever use any of those features? 0.01% of the watch owners? Fail.

It's not about using the futures - it's about imagining a life in which you use those features.

It's about the dopamine hit you get when you buy something you think is cool.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#38

Post by systemvoltage »

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.

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.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#39

Post by entropie »

imchillyb wrote: post #15
Sakos wrote: post #3

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.

Apple Watch is significantly more accurate than a Garmin or other handheld 'portable' GPS unit. Significantly so, especially when paired with a phone (which users already own).

> Apple Watch is significantly more accurate than a Garmin or other handheld 'portable' GPS unit.

Any source on that - because I really doubt it.

Re: Apple Introduces Apple Watch Ultra

#40

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

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.
Post reply on HN