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.
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.
I know they came out with an LTE-enabled Forerunner 945 late in its cycle. I don’t know if they’ll add similar functionality to other models, but that’s one watch with that feature.
Personally that device never interested me because:
1) if I can rely on cell phone signal, I’m likely doing a quick and simple hike where I don’t have to worry about draining my cell phone battery in the first place, or
2) if I can’t rely on cell phone signal (much more likely), which is especially likely in the US wilderness, then if I’m doing something precarious in a remote setting I’ll have to bring a beacon and satellite communicator anyway. Like an InReach Mini.
The fact that Garmin is releasing even higher end watches without cell phone connectivity likely indicates there’s not a lot of people buying nearly $1k fitness watches finding that functionality compelling.
Obviously people doing this are likely too narrow a segment for Apple. Like, why would Apple care that I’m not buying their watch? I was just engaged by their headline marketing for this watch until I saw the specs.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think this is a the first act from apple entering into active lifestyle market for the endurance/outback/mountain and outgoing folks.
It is definitely not for me this year, it does not have the battery life I need during an excursion and there is no possibility of charge on the go (like good old Garmin watches that you can charge while using during an activity).
But in few years it will advance the same way apple watch has advanced :-).
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.