Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking • Hacker News Board

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#91

Post by zikduruqe » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 10:29 AM UTC

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…

> The other big benefit I see is cellular.

This. I seldom if ever leave the house with a phone during a normal day or on my bike rides. I use my Apple Watch SE on moderate rides (50 to 100 miles), use NFC during rest stops, and pull up the occasional map when I forget a turn. Cellular is a big plus. And if one day in the future, I can get a cellular enabled Apple Watch that is standalone and not dependent on having an iPhone, I'm first in line. I have no reason to carry an iPhone with me.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#92

Post by nicoburns » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 10:40 AM UTC

teruakohatu wrote: post #82

exabrial wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the UK the situation is similar, but that didn’t seem like a major blocker to me. I just opened an account with the supported bank.

On the plus side, it does seem to be widely supported at payment terminals (I’ve yet to find anywhere that accepts card payment that doesn’t accept garmin pay)

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#93

Post by savrajsingh » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 12:29 PM UTC

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…

Do you think apple held off for 20 years because some of Garmin’s patents are expiring? Interested to know the behind the scenes of the inevitable patent issues.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#94

Post by _fat_santa » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

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.

Apple will definitely take the more casual part of the market, the folks going on day hikes. But Garmin will I think stay king among the more serious hikers. The battery life is the Achilles heel of the Apple Watch, it really needs to be at least ~3 days long before anyone serious is even going to consider it.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#95

Post by abstract_put » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 1:39 PM UTC

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…

Yeah, I get that. I think just a terminology thing. It seems like you're using "casual" to describe your mindset whereas I'm understanding "casual" to be offhand, or without significant investment. Forgetting about the absolutely massive time investment, spending > 2000$/year on running shoes alone is a distinctly not-casual thing to do.

> it’s not so different from that of all the other casual marathon runners out there

Maybe this is the disconnect? People who have ever run a marathon at all are < 1%, and people who continually run marathons casually are a niche within that niche. If the audience is "people who run more than 50km per week" then I think "casual" probably gets the right idea across, that's just a teeny tiny audience.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#96

Post by _fat_santa » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 1:39 PM UTC

totetsu wrote: post #89

Woeps wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'd guess the % of people who need 18 days of battery life is very small.

It's not that you will need 18 days of battery life, it's simply knowing that you have it there. If you're going off for 3-4 days on a hike, there's a possibility your trip is getting extended by bad weather, wild animals, and whatnot. Knowing that's a possibility you always pack extra gear, and the idea of your main map on the trail dying is not an option.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#97

Post by D13Fd » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

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.

The vast majority of people who walk are those doing long walks or day hikes rather than multi-day hikes. That's the audience Apple is targeting here.

That fits my use. I go on 1- to 4-hour walks pretty regularly and the existing Apple Watch is already helpful for rough distance/time/calorie tracking. If the Apple Watch didn't exist, I'd probably have a Garmin, but I'm pretty happy with the "good enough" tracking features on it. I like that the Ultra shows that they care about this market.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#98

Post by D13Fd » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

zikduruqe wrote: post #91

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…

> The other big benefit I see is cellular. This. I seldom if ever leave the house with a phone during a normal day or on my bike rides. I use my Apple Watch SE on moderate rides (50 to 100 miles), use NFC during rest stops, and pull up the occasional map when I forget a turn. Cellular is a big plus. And if one day in the future, I can get a cellular enabled Apple Watch that is standalone and not dependent on having a…

> if one day in the future, I can get a cellular enabled Apple Watch that is standalone and not dependent on having an iPhone

Not sure what you mean here, but right now Apple Watch cellular models can be set up to be independent of the iPhone that set them up (meaning a different number & alerts), although you are still reliant on having that phone to configure them.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#99

Post by D13Fd » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 2:27 PM UTC

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.

It's only a showstopper for using it for multi-day hiking with no other map system.

The watch still has many helpful features outside of being your exclusive postage-stamp-sized map system.

Re: Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking

#100

Post by D13Fd » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 2:31 PM UTC

hakcermani wrote: post #69

skunkworker wrote: post #4

Hopefully other apps like AllTrails will support offline maps eventually. It honestly surprised me that they didn’t

thought Alltrails does ! its not automatic, but one can download for select routes .. oh must be a paid feature ..

I like Alltrails but their Watch app certainly seems dependent on their phone app. If you open it without your phone nearby, it will just say "Waiting for the AllTrails App" or something similar.