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

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#81

Post by zimpenfish »

randomfool wrote: post #46
seanp2k2 wrote: post #27

Fenix 5 owner here who recently upgraded to the Ultra. For daily stuff and "normal" workouts, it's way more useful. I get alerts from my cameras with useable images when they detect faces around our house, for example. I can do useful things like watch my grill temp + probe temp from the watch. The face customization experience is a LOT better than the Fenix. It feels like an entirely different class of device with t…

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…

> Garmin can do 50hrs of it.

Isn't that in UltraTrac mode though which is essentially useless (based on my experience using it with my Fenix 5, anyway)?

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#82

Post by teruakohatu »

exabrial wrote: post #38
seanp2k2 wrote: post #27

Fenix 5 owner here who recently upgraded to the Ultra. For daily stuff and "normal" workouts, it's way more useful. I get alerts from my cameras with useable images when they detect faces around our house, for example. I can do useful things like watch my grill temp + probe temp from the watch. The face customization experience is a LOT better than the Fenix. It feels like an entirely different class of device with t…

Your Garmin had an option to load a credit card and tap-pay, no Ultra needed.

In my country, New Zealand, Garmin pay only supports cards from one bank and about five random credit cards issued by stores and consumer credit firms. It is exceptionally disappointing.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#84

Post by goosedragons »

zimpenfish wrote: post #81
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…

> Garmin can do 50hrs of it. Isn't that in UltraTrac mode though which is essentially useless (based on my experience using it with my Fenix 5, anyway)?

The newer Fenixs can do 50 hours of regular GPS mode. Not even including solar.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#85

Post by goosedragons »

exabrial wrote: post #38
seanp2k2 wrote: post #27

Fenix 5 owner here who recently upgraded to the Ultra. For daily stuff and "normal" workouts, it's way more useful. I get alerts from my cameras with useable images when they detect faces around our house, for example. I can do useful things like watch my grill temp + probe temp from the watch. The face customization experience is a LOT better than the Fenix. It feels like an entirely different class of device with t…

Your Garmin had an option to load a credit card and tap-pay, no Ultra needed.

The 5 Plus does, the regular 5 does not. So it depends what they have. Garmin Pay is pretty poorly supported in some countries too.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#86

Post by goosedragons »

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 an amateur runner but you're not a casual runner. I run about 35KM a week and I am in the 99% percentile of Garmin users (with a connected watch I guess) for running distance. Most are doing sub-10.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#87

Post by ohgodplsno »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #77
nindalf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had to guess, what percentile of the general population are you in when it comes to fitness?

I’d probably rank quite well amongst the general population. But I’m talking about fitness enthusiasts here, specifically the subgroup of long distance runners. Within that group I’d probably be “not bad”…

You run 4-5 marathons a year. That is more than many professional runners, who usually limit themselves to 4 a year max, because of the sheer amount of stress a marathon puts your body through. Add in the ultras, and you are running more than pretty much anyone being paid to do so.

You do not rank "quite well". You rank in the 0.1%, and even amongst fitness enthusiasts, you also rank easily amongst the top 10%. Not necessarily in terms of speed, but in raw distance done.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#88

Post by AmericanChopper »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #87
AmericanChopper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d probably rank quite well amongst the general population. But I’m talking about fitness enthusiasts here, specifically the subgroup of long distance runners. Within that group I’d probably be “not bad”…

You run 4-5 marathons a year. That is more than many professional runners, who usually limit themselves to 4 a year max, because of the sheer amount of stress a marathon puts your body through. Add in the ultras, and you are running more than pretty much anyone being paid to do so. You do not rank "quite well". You rank in the 0.1%, and even amongst fitness enthusiasts, you also rank easily amongst the top 10%. Not n…

That’s not a very good way of looking at things. Professional marathon runners have a completely different set of priorities to me, and perform at a massively different level. Eliud Kipchoge has only run 2 marathons so far this year, I have run 3. That doesn’t make me 1.5x fitter than Kipchoge, or say anything at all really about the relative level of fitness between him and I.

I run a lot because I love to run. But I don’t set a competitive pace in any of the events I attend. I would claim to have rather strong knees, but that doesn’t translate into pace or fitness, just into mileage and a certain level of resistance to knee injuries.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#89

Post by totetsu »

Woeps wrote: post #79
nharada wrote: post #70

Comments in this thread are fairly dismissive of the Ultra as a serious competitor for Garmin's high end sport watches, and this article seems like an example of it not stacking up. But if I was Garmin I'd be terrified of Apple coming into the space. I was at Fitbit when the first Apple watch came out, and we laughed at how inferior it was to many of our products for the first several releases. Then around series 3 w…

Meh.... 18 hours vs 18 days of battery life and an ridiculous price gap. I think that's all that needs to be said.

How many people buying the Garmin are only using it for day hikes, or a few day trips where they're taking along a mobile battery anyway to charge their phone to take photos. I'd guess the % of people who need 18 days of battery life is very small.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#90

Post by AmericanChopper »

jojule wrote: post #53
AmericanChopper wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 temperatu…

Just my own anecdata I guess. I’ve always found heartbeat and location tracking to be a lot better with the Garmins. I haven’t trained with the new Apple Watches yet though, so maybe I’m completely wrong…
Post reply on HN