5 ms·

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.

by arberx 4y ago

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.

scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
I don’t think this is actually the target segment. This is who the targeted consumers for this device aspire to be, not who they actually are.
- cypress66 4y ago
  Kind of... Apple's sleep tracking is by far the best on the market[1]. However if your watch doesn't last many days it's a pain in the ass to use it that way, because you charge it overnight instead of tracking your sleep. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU https://youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU
  - layer8 4y ago
    Some people therefore buy two watches, one for sleep tracking and one for daytime use. Seems to work out well for Apple.
krisdol 4y ago
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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  It's not a huge deal. When I go on multi-day backpacking trips, I carry battery packs and/or solar chargers with me anyway, because I need to be able to charge my phone.
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
    I thought this was a thing of a past? Mine easily lasts 4-5 days if I turn off wifi and bt (which I assume you don't need much when backpacking).
    - firstSpeaker 4y ago
      It depends how many photos you take!
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Carry a small battery pack.
  - tenacious_tuna 4y ago
    that's a lot of weight to add for backpacking. every bit counts when you're going 20 miles up and down hills.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      If I'm doing some kind of outdoor activity, then I'm likely already carrying batteries for other things. I don't think it's the huge barrier most people here think it is. I guess if you're into ultra-light then yeah maybe it isn't the target market for you - but then why would you be carrying a huge watch in the first place rather than something light?
      - riversflow 4y ago
        I mean, I tend to agree. FWIW, most people who do UL Backpacking use a smartphone for maps and a UL battery. I've taken my Apple Watch backpacking with me before, and keeping it charged wasn't a thing. Just one extra (short) cable to bring, I'd put it on the battery during dinner and camp setup. The thing is though, I've only found it really useful if I'm doing stiff ascents and am not comfortable with my training. Mostly just to keep an eye on my heartrate, if my training/preparations are adequate for my trip, I don't use it at all.
    - rewtraw 4y ago
      Garmin Fenix cannot replace a phone, but has better battery life. The Apple Watch Ultra can do most of the things you'd need your iPhone for out on a trip. If you are really UL, you can ditch the phone and just use the Ultra. Apple Watch + small battery is lighter than a Fenix + iPhone + battery.
      - deegles 4y ago
        Are the battery packs with a solar panel on them worth it?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nluken 4y ago
Agreed. I'm a competitive runner and nobody in that community is showing up to interval workouts with an Apple watch. I don't see this watch changing that, especially when better battery life and tracking (which is all the road/track running segment really cares about) can be had at a fraction of the cost with Garmin or Coros. The ultra/hiking community will run into problems with the 36 hour battery life, especially if they're using the map features. I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.
- heavymark 4y ago
  Remember will be 60 hours in low power mode, and that seems to only disable things such as always on (which I always disable with hikes as drastically improves battery life and theater mode), and won't auto detect workout, but one can easily just set to hike or what not when starting the workout manually. 60 hours for all the benefits of the watch seems impressive. The 49mm size however will be the bigger issue presumably for most woman and men with small wrists, since the small was already large for that demographic.
- freetime2 4y ago
  I put in an order for one. I currently wear an Apple Watch Series 4 every day, which I use for logging workouts and other health metrics, and as a daily-driver smartwatch for receiving notifications, checking time and weather, etc. This seems like a really worthy upgrade to me - with the parts that interest me in particular being the improved battery life, larger and brighter screen, always-on display, and cellular support (which my current watch doesn't have). > I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for. I would say basically anyone who likes their Apple Watch (and there are a lot of us out there), is comfortable with the size and aesthetic, and has $800 to blow on a smart watch.
- thirdsun 4y ago
  Same with cyclists. Head units from Garmin or Wahoo are far superior but an Apple Watch could be a decent alternative if it at least supported ANT+ to connect a power meter and a range of sensors. Or Strava Live Segments (maybe they do via the Strava App?). Currently The Apple Watch is a nice casual fitness tracker and the Watch Ultra doesn't change any of that.
nickthegreek 4y ago
I don't think they missed the mark by shear amount of these I see on wrists everywhere i go.
- nerdwaller 4y ago
  Now you see the Apple Watch Series N wherever you go, which is ~$400, not the Ultra. It will be interesting to see how common the ultra is over the next few years. My guess is it won't be super common, as it's large, fairly unattractive (IMO), and much more expensive for features that don't even match the competition that much of this Garmin/Ultra/etc type of demographic cares about.
- as_bntd 4y ago
  *sheer amount I had to double check tbf
ASalazarMX 4y ago
There are third-party wireless chargers that can charge your phone, airpods and watch concurrently, but I agree, it seems silly having to deal with many small batteries on a daily basis. The only long-lasting battery is the iPhone's, but it gained that capability years after it became common in comparable Android phones.
pedalpete 4y ago
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.
brundolf 4y ago
I got the feeling it's one of those products designed for regular people who like to roleplay as explorers
- freetime2 4y ago
  > I got the feeling it's one of those products designed for regular people who like to roleplay as explorers This seems like an overly cynical take to me. I agree that the marketing was a bit over the top, and most people who buy one will not be doing things like running ultra marathons in the Sahara. And for people who do those things, there are probably better watches out there from Garmin, etc. But you don't need to be an explorer (or roleplay as one) to benefit from the longer battery life, larger and brighter display, improved GPS accuracy, improved audio and microphone quality, etc.
  - Daneel_ 4y ago
    Exactly. I actually think it fits the casual outdoors-person quite well. I do weekend trips, offroading, some mountain biking, some scuba diving, work in the garage.. Something like this is great because a) it's durable and I don't have to baby it, and b) a lot of the features I want are there at a casually usable level. Simple dive computer? Sweet! Crash detection? Sweet! Battery that can last me for a weekend trip to the bush? Finally.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
maratc 4y ago
I don’t think their phone is going to get a lot of traction either, considering that the competitors phones all have about a week of battery life. My Nokia 5110 actually lasts about ten days without charging.

by arberx 4y ago

scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago

I don’t think this is actually the target segment. This is who the targeted consumers for this device aspire to be, not who they actually are.

cypress66 4y ago
Kind of... Apple's sleep tracking is by far the best on the market[1]. However if your watch doesn't last many days it's a pain in the ass to use it that way, because you charge it overnight instead of tracking your sleep. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU https://youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU
- layer8 4y ago
  Some people therefore buy two watches, one for sleep tracking and one for daytime use. Seems to work out well for Apple.

krisdol 4y ago

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 4y ago
It's not a huge deal. When I go on multi-day backpacking trips, I carry battery packs and/or solar chargers with me anyway, because I need to be able to charge my phone.
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  I thought this was a thing of a past? Mine easily lasts 4-5 days if I turn off wifi and bt (which I assume you don't need much when backpacking).
  - firstSpeaker 4y ago
    It depends how many photos you take!
chrisseaton 4y ago
Carry a small battery pack.
- tenacious_tuna 4y ago
  that's a lot of weight to add for backpacking. every bit counts when you're going 20 miles up and down hills.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    If I'm doing some kind of outdoor activity, then I'm likely already carrying batteries for other things. I don't think it's the huge barrier most people here think it is. I guess if you're into ultra-light then yeah maybe it isn't the target market for you - but then why would you be carrying a huge watch in the first place rather than something light?
    - riversflow 4y ago
      I mean, I tend to agree. FWIW, most people who do UL Backpacking use a smartphone for maps and a UL battery. I've taken my Apple Watch backpacking with me before, and keeping it charged wasn't a thing. Just one extra (short) cable to bring, I'd put it on the battery during dinner and camp setup. The thing is though, I've only found it really useful if I'm doing stiff ascents and am not comfortable with my training. Mostly just to keep an eye on my heartrate, if my training/preparations are adequate for my trip, I don't use it at all.
  - rewtraw 4y ago
    Garmin Fenix cannot replace a phone, but has better battery life. The Apple Watch Ultra can do most of the things you'd need your iPhone for out on a trip. If you are really UL, you can ditch the phone and just use the Ultra. Apple Watch + small battery is lighter than a Fenix + iPhone + battery.
    - deegles 4y ago
      Are the battery packs with a solar panel on them worth it?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nluken 4y ago

Agreed. I'm a competitive runner and nobody in that community is showing up to interval workouts with an Apple watch. I don't see this watch changing that, especially when better battery life and tracking (which is all the road/track running segment really cares about) can be had at a fraction of the cost with Garmin or Coros. The ultra/hiking community will run into problems with the 36 hour battery life, especially if they're using the map features. I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.

heavymark 4y ago
Remember will be 60 hours in low power mode, and that seems to only disable things such as always on (which I always disable with hikes as drastically improves battery life and theater mode), and won't auto detect workout, but one can easily just set to hike or what not when starting the workout manually. 60 hours for all the benefits of the watch seems impressive. The 49mm size however will be the bigger issue presumably for most woman and men with small wrists, since the small was already large for that demographic.
freetime2 4y ago
I put in an order for one. I currently wear an Apple Watch Series 4 every day, which I use for logging workouts and other health metrics, and as a daily-driver smartwatch for receiving notifications, checking time and weather, etc. This seems like a really worthy upgrade to me - with the parts that interest me in particular being the improved battery life, larger and brighter screen, always-on display, and cellular support (which my current watch doesn't have). > I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for. I would say basically anyone who likes their Apple Watch (and there are a lot of us out there), is comfortable with the size and aesthetic, and has $800 to blow on a smart watch.
thirdsun 4y ago
Same with cyclists. Head units from Garmin or Wahoo are far superior but an Apple Watch could be a decent alternative if it at least supported ANT+ to connect a power meter and a range of sensors. Or Strava Live Segments (maybe they do via the Strava App?). Currently The Apple Watch is a nice casual fitness tracker and the Watch Ultra doesn't change any of that.

nickthegreek 4y ago

I don't think they missed the mark by shear amount of these I see on wrists everywhere i go.

nerdwaller 4y ago
Now you see the Apple Watch Series N wherever you go, which is ~$400, not the Ultra. It will be interesting to see how common the ultra is over the next few years. My guess is it won't be super common, as it's large, fairly unattractive (IMO), and much more expensive for features that don't even match the competition that much of this Garmin/Ultra/etc type of demographic cares about.
as_bntd 4y ago
*sheer amount I had to double check tbf

ASalazarMX 4y ago

There are third-party wireless chargers that can charge your phone, airpods and watch concurrently, but I agree, it seems silly having to deal with many small batteries on a daily basis. The only long-lasting battery is the iPhone's, but it gained that capability years after it became common in comparable Android phones.

pedalpete 4y ago

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.

brundolf 4y ago

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

freetime2 4y ago
> I got the feeling it's one of those products designed for regular people who like to roleplay as explorers This seems like an overly cynical take to me. I agree that the marketing was a bit over the top, and most people who buy one will not be doing things like running ultra marathons in the Sahara. And for people who do those things, there are probably better watches out there from Garmin, etc. But you don't need to be an explorer (or roleplay as one) to benefit from the longer battery life, larger and brighter display, improved GPS accuracy, improved audio and microphone quality, etc.
- Daneel_ 4y ago
  Exactly. I actually think it fits the casual outdoors-person quite well. I do weekend trips, offroading, some mountain biking, some scuba diving, work in the garage.. Something like this is great because a) it's durable and I don't have to baby it, and b) a lot of the features I want are there at a casually usable level. Simple dive computer? Sweet! Crash detection? Sweet! Battery that can last me for a weekend trip to the bush? Finally.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

maratc 4y ago

I don’t think their phone is going to get a lot of traction either, considering that the competitors phones all have about a week of battery life. My Nokia 5110 actually lasts about ten days without charging.