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

Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

jooonas.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#51

Post by AmericanChopper »

ak217 wrote: post #44
AmericanChopper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support Is the target market really concerned about this? I’ll chew through a $200-300 pair of shoes in 4-6 weeks, and I’m more-or-less a casual runner. The cost of attending events is much more than that. I probably would buy a Garmin if I was really taking things seriously, but the Apple Watch does what I need, and even if I brought a brand new one every ye…

What's your weekly mileage? Are you doing something extreme to your shoes? Most runners don't spend, nor could they afford to spend $250 per pair of shoes that wear out in 6 weeks. Try $100 every 6 months instead. Events do add up but for most runners it comes out to roughly the same as the shoes or less. Running is popular because it's affordable. You might be projecting your rarefied well funded lifestyle onto the…

About 60 miles (and I weigh about 180lb). I probably do 4 or 5 marathons a year, and a couple of ultras. My mileage isn’t excessive for people who complete marathons around the same pace as I do, or better (of which there are many, many people), and every time I look around the field at an event, it’s full of $200-$300 energy return running shoes.

Perhaps most of them don’t train in their race shoes, but that’s honestly a bad practice.

Endurance sports is a pretty boujee hobby. Running is the cheapest one, but it’s not that cheap if you really get into it.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#52

Post by abstract_put »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #48
r0fl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top result on Google for how many km should running shoes last Experts recommend you replace your running shoes every 500 to 750 kilometers. That's roughly every 300 to 500 miles, which equates to approximately four to six months for someone who runs 20 miles a week. What are you doing replacing your shoes every 4 weeks?

I typically get around 400-600 kms out of a fresh pair of running shoes before the tread is completely gone and the energy return structure stops returning energy. I typically run about 100km/week. A bit less if I’m tapering, or injured (not very often), or on holiday. I also walk a lot, which I have different shoes for, but that adds an extra few pairs to the annual shoes bill as well. Edit: I probably go through sh…

> I’m more-or-less a casual runner

> I typically run about 100km/week

This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#53

Post by jojule »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #32
infotogivenm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh... I think there is an enormous gap between “pro athlete” and “normal smartwatch user” that does not diminish to just “fashionware”. The battery life sucks tho, thats what keeps me from using one. I think the health and exercise features are more than fine enough for “non-pro athletes”. No idea what “renting from apple” means but it does not seem to be the watch for you.

Garmin sensors are more precise, and the off the shelf analytics are better. Everything else in that parent comment is nonsense. Apple Health data is very easy to download and share with 3rd parties (say a 3rd party that has better analytics than Apple Health offers, for instance…). I don’t get the battery complaints either. I only ever charge mine while I’m in the shower, and I don’t really have any problems. The on…

Any proof for Garmin sensors being more precise?

TheQuantifiedScientist on his YouTube channel has great tests for many wearable devices and their sensors. His assessment has been very favorable for AW Ultra on HR, location and sleep when compared to Garmin devices: for sleep tracking Garmin is very inaccurate, for HR and location Fenix 7 and Ultra are identical. Fenix 6 and older are poor.

Blood oxygen and temperature seems to be quite inaccurate on both.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#54

Post by jojule »

ghaff wrote: post #49
randomfool wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not using your Garmin for hiking is very surprising. Primary reason is that tracking position for the duration drains battery where Garmin can do 50hrs of it. This gives me a .gpx file of the route for future reference and passing to friends. Second is that while tracking it's 10x easier to check current distance and elevation on a watch vs phone. I head out with a list of mileage for every notable waypoint (water, t…

Maybe I got a lemon but after taking way too long to conclude this was the case, the Fenix 5 just never gave me correct distances and I gave up on using it. Tried all the usual setting changes. For a day hike, my Apple Watch 3 is adequate but battery life is a bit marginal. I assume the Ultra will be sufficiently better that day hikes (which is mostly what I do) will be fine.

Location on Fenix 5 is quite inaccurate compared to Fenix 7 or Ultra - especially with tree cover.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#55

Post by AmericanChopper »

abstract_put wrote: post #52
AmericanChopper wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I typically get around 400-600 kms out of a fresh pair of running shoes before the tread is completely gone and the energy return structure stops returning energy. I typically run about 100km/week. A bit less if I’m tapering, or injured (not very often), or on holiday. I also walk a lot, which I have different shoes for, but that adds an extra few pairs to the annual shoes bill as well. Edit: I probably go through sh…

> I’m more-or-less a casual runner > I typically run about 100km/week This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".

I cannot consistently qualify for majors, I have never been paid to run, and I’ve never entered a race that I had the intention of winning, and I have a normal job and social life. Perhaps you could qualify it by saying I’m a casual _endurance_ runner. But I am very much a casual. My lifestyle might be vastly different from a sedentary lifestyle, but it’s not so different from that of all the other casual marathon runners out there.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#56

Post by ghaff »

jojule wrote: post #54
ghaff wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I got a lemon but after taking way too long to conclude this was the case, the Fenix 5 just never gave me correct distances and I gave up on using it. Tried all the usual setting changes. For a day hike, my Apple Watch 3 is adequate but battery life is a bit marginal. I assume the Ultra will be sufficiently better that day hikes (which is mostly what I do) will be fine.

Location on Fenix 5 is quite inaccurate compared to Fenix 7 or Ultra - especially with tree cover.

I mean my Apple Watch 3 is spot-on compared to the Fenix 5 which could be off by double-digit percentages. I found the Fenix 5 was pretty accurate on straight paths. But, yeah, tree cover, switchbacking up hills, etc. really threw it off.

I totally get all the arguments in favor of the Fenix 7 or related. It's really a question IMO of whether you want a mostly dedicated watch for relatively hardcore outdoor activities or if you want an Apple Watch and its ecosystem to do routine day-to-day smartwatch things while also doing a lot of outdoor activities better than prior Apple Watches though probably not overall as well as a dedicated device.

I was sort of on the fence prior to the latest announcement but, for me, the Ultra seems the pretty clear choice.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#57

Post by ghaff »

infotogivenm wrote: post #26
exabrial wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they sunsetting devices that still boot and literally just work fine? So wasteful.

The devices continue to work the exact same way… apple just does not choose to spend the money adding new features to it (or in more likelihood, testing that new features that require newer hardware do not screw the old device up). The watches still appear in the Watch app etc. If there is a bug to fix (like security), the device/versions will often end up getting out of band updates for even longer.

I have an Apple Watch 3. I will probably buy an Ultra. And I plan to continue using the Apple Watch 3 for a lot of routine wear indefinitely. Probably won't use a lot of apps beyond a watchface and random local walks though.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#58

Post by jrnichols »

Even though I've only had it since Friday morning, I love the Ultra so far and see a lot of potential for it.

I think that there's a big enough market where the Garmin devices and the Apple Watch Ultra will both coexist and fill their own niches. I'm looking forward to what we see on the Ultra here in the future. this was a fun article and I love seeing users already working on this.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#59

Post by ip26 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #55
abstract_put wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m more-or-less a casual runner > I typically run about 100km/week This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".

I cannot consistently qualify for majors, I have never been paid to run, and I’ve never entered a race that I had the intention of winning, and I have a normal job and social life. Perhaps you could qualify it by saying I’m a casual _endurance_ runner. But I am very much a casual. My lifestyle might be vastly different from a sedentary lifestyle, but it’s not so different from that of all the other casual marathon ru…

You’re definitely no beer league athlete. I think “amateur athlete” used to be the right term here, before it gained the negative connotation.

As for the target market, I’m torn whether Apple is seriously going after athletes or whether it’s actually mostly marketing, as with their “pro” laptops.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#60

Post by ghaff »

jojule wrote: post #2

Lack of offline maps are a showstopper for using the new Apple Watch Ultra for multi-day hiking. This post tests the only workaround against Garmin Fenix.

Here's a counterpoint. If I actually want to look at a map, I look at my phone or a paper map. I find squinting at a map on a watch way too small to be useful. The apps I've used on both Garmins and the Apple Watch have a map screen that I basically never use.
Post reply on HN