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 we started saying things like "actually it would be really nice if we had this too", and now (series 8) they're clearly the smartwatch leader in most dimensions.
I hope Garmin can remain competitive in this space, but Apple's massive resources and the long term strategy that enables is very hard to compete with.
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.
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.
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.
I bet apple has a solar charger of some sort sitting in a table in their R&D department now: maybe it’s a strap, maybe it’s under the screen? I’m thinking it’ll just be for the watch and not the phones (they get too hot sitting in the sun) I think we’ll see it when satellite SOS comes to the watch.
Yes in the future maybe Apple will eat Garmin's cake and lunch. But for now its just a shiny not-so-useful gimmick compared to Garmin's. I bought my wife same Garmin as author compares to, I have few friends who are deep into drinking Apple's cool-aid... and its uncomparable device for outdoors.
One is jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, the other possibly the best civilian gadget for map-on-wrist hiking (apart from 7 series which are way too expensive but stack up on that shininess better).
Plus lets not forget a very important point skimmed in article, where Apple fails even if rest would be comparable - miserable battery life. The topic is about going to wilderness, and gadget desperately needing recharging much more often is simply vastly inferior to one needing less. Also they seem much less rugged, which is pretty bad for outdoors where you bang watches against trees and rock frequently.
So situation for outdoors is unlike in phones segment, where on most fronts (but far from all) when you pay Apple money you get a very decent and capable phone. In watches you get just OK watches within their segment (compared to products from Xiaomi, Samsung etc.)
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.
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 the responsive touchscreen and bright screen that refreshes quickly. The Fenix feels like a souped-up version of the Timex Ironman Triathlon watch I had in the 90s (with Timex Datalink to sync data with a PC via CRT flashes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Datalink ).
As far as which I'd take backpacking: neither. The Fenix isn't a better UX than our iPhones, and we already take battery backups for the phones + put them on airplane mode with low brightness and get ~2-4 days of battery life out of them that way (usually shutting them down completely at night). The watches aren't worth the grams yet -- it's weight I'd rather spend on a nice phone pocket for my backpack (I like the Prometheus Design Werx SPX Pouch). I'm hopeful that another year of software updates for the Ultra might fix that -- if it did have useable topo maps + dynamic offline route planning, it might be worth it.
The other big benefit I see is cellular. Now, when I go for a run / bike ride / etc I don't actually need my phone, and if I'm confident that I might stop somewhere with Apple Pay, I might not need my wallet either. Back when I was riding pretty seriously, it was common for folks to just bring their ID and some cash. I'm also excited about the prospect of using the watch as a fully-featured bike computer, given it's about the exact same size as the old Polar bike computers I used to love.
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, turns, elevation of passes, etc). I'm constantly checking this and only if I'm questioning my route do I pull out my phone.
Weight: Fenix is heavy- 945 is better, Coros Pace 2 even better.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Ultra has almost the double physical battery and may have some exclusive optimization to GPS and HR that may not come to other watches when released later this year.
Just buy a Garmin if you want to do anything -useful- with your watch for sports or outdoors. Apple is 5-10 years behind their reliability or battery life. And if you’re going somewhere without a cell signal… or god forbid, you don’t have (shudder) wifi, it’ll tick right along.
Not to mention they don’t sunset their products after 12 months… your watch will get updates for a long time. They’re also -very- repairable to boot.
Sure they’re 5-10 years behind, but I wouldn’t underestimate Apple’s ability to create a thriving ecosystem.
Any Garmin app developers worth their salt should be scrambling to port their existing apps to the Apple Watch platform. It’s currently an under-supplied market, and failing to tap into that opportunity is a bad business strategy.
Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they extend the user repair program to this sector.
Also, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that they sunset their products after 12 months. They might refresh them, but that doesn’t change the software support cycle.
Not at all, Garmin is not fashionware like Apple. You buy Garmin because you are an athlete that needs an actual complete product that is tested and bullet proof; where you own the hardware, and you’re not ‘renting’ it from Apple. If you want to flash how fancy you are to your coworkers and have a second iPhone, you buy the iwatch.
Apple does not hold a candle to Garmin’s software for sports and training… they have everything from an actual desktop app that works (gasp) without an internet connection, an online portal where you can freely download all of YOUR data (gasp) if you choose the connected option, and the sports and training analytics is light years ahead of Apple.
And besides, Apple can’t receive ANT+ signals from connected sensors, and BLE battery life is abysmal in comparison.
The only thing Apple has on Garmin is the have app stores full on apps, but that’s it. Nobody is using their Garmin to play Candy Crush but that misses the point.
> 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 year it wouldn’t have much impact on the costs of this hobby.
Doesn’t matter. Your applications could choose not to include certain iOS versions anymore. And then you’re SOL, even if you’ve paid for the app but now the online component doesn’t work because they changed their APIs.
I just find it weird that in their reveal event they portrayed all these people doing extreme sports in the middle of nowhere, climbing some huge mountain with the watch, and then you find out it has a battery life of 36 hours at most.
You're supposed to carry a power bank to your climbing expedition and charge your watch constantly? How impractical is that.
Well, if you're climbing some huge mountain in the middle of nowhere you probably need to charge your Garmin as well.
Garmin absolutely has better battery life. But if you can see your way to charging the Apple Watch more frequently it seems more interesting for a combination of regular smartwatch use and day activities. And, if you are climbing huge mountains in the middle of nowhere, I assume purchasing a specialized watch if you want one is the least of your expenses. (Or something like an InReach.)
I feel like if you are going on a week long hike, carrying a power bank is not that noticeable compared to everything else you need. A power bank that fits in your pocket would power the watch for a month.
Agree on every point except sunsetting in 12 months. What are you referencing there? They just this year sunset new OS versions for the Apple Watch 3, which was released in 2017 (the 4 came out in 2018).
Also the minimum repair cost ($499). The Apple repair pricing may work for laptops and even phones, but for a not for a watch designed to be taken diving, skiing, mountaineering and trail running.
Garmins repair costs are much more reasonable and for things like broken screens there are third party options.
"""
AppleCare+ for Apple Watch, Apple Watch Nike, and Apple Watch Ultra extends your coverage3 and includes unlimited incidents of accidental damage protection. Each incident is subject to a $69 service fee plus applicable tax for Apple Watch and Apple Watch Nike, and $79 service fee plus applicable tax for Apple Watch Ultra.2 In addition, you’ll get 24/7 priority access to Apple experts by chat or phone.
"""
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.
I’ve been hanging on to my Series 3 for years now waiting on a watch refresh that brings another useful sensor or expands the screen large enough to make the watch usable for at least viewing Twitter-size content.
Along comes the Ultra with a massive footprint and a temperature sensor (albeit one only useful for monitoring averages). My time has finally arrived.
And then it turns out that the usable screen size is essentially a rounding error compared to the Series 7 and the temp sensor is limited to reproductive tracking (guessing this is a regulatory thing).
Huh, I didn’t know about the sleep tracking being able to record wrist temp. That’s something at least.
I suppose I’ll have to see it in person, but the pixel jump between the Ultra and the 7 is sub-2% while the jump between 6-7 was 16-17% iirc.
I also read a worrying mini-review comment on 9to5Mac from an Ultra owner that some of the watch faces are somehow displaying SMALLER than on the poster’s 7. Can’t direct link the comment so I quoted the relevant snippet below. Obv I’m taking it with a grain of salt until I see confirmation but it would be an odd thing to lie about so specifically.
“Face on Metropolitan is indeed smaller on the Ultra. 28mm diameter on Ultra, 29mm on 45mm Series 7!”
Offline map situation on Ultra is complicated. WorkOutDoors + Garmin Explore combination is a decent workaround, but nowhere as robust as Garmin Fenix. Various details may make the workaround no-go for you: do you have access to the Garmin Explore app, is having only a small map acceptable for you, is the battery life sufficient for you, is routing on watch a must have for you, …
European smartphones (Nokia) in 2010: "here are offline maps of the entire developed world free of charge". Americans in 2022: "offline maps - yay or nay?".
I think that the iOS built-in map component does not support offline vector maps. Most apps (with exception of WorkOutDoors) use that and cannot support improper offline without Apple updating the component.
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.
Readit News
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 we started saying things like "actually it would be really nice if we had this too", and now (series 8) they're clearly the smartwatch leader in most dimensions.
I hope Garmin can remain competitive in this space, but Apple's massive resources and the long term strategy that enables is very hard to compete with.
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.
One is jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, the other possibly the best civilian gadget for map-on-wrist hiking (apart from 7 series which are way too expensive but stack up on that shininess better).
Plus lets not forget a very important point skimmed in article, where Apple fails even if rest would be comparable - miserable battery life. The topic is about going to wilderness, and gadget desperately needing recharging much more often is simply vastly inferior to one needing less. Also they seem much less rugged, which is pretty bad for outdoors where you bang watches against trees and rock frequently.
So situation for outdoors is unlike in phones segment, where on most fronts (but far from all) when you pay Apple money you get a very decent and capable phone. In watches you get just OK watches within their segment (compared to products from Xiaomi, Samsung etc.)
As far as which I'd take backpacking: neither. The Fenix isn't a better UX than our iPhones, and we already take battery backups for the phones + put them on airplane mode with low brightness and get ~2-4 days of battery life out of them that way (usually shutting them down completely at night). The watches aren't worth the grams yet -- it's weight I'd rather spend on a nice phone pocket for my backpack (I like the Prometheus Design Werx SPX Pouch). I'm hopeful that another year of software updates for the Ultra might fix that -- if it did have useable topo maps + dynamic offline route planning, it might be worth it.
The other big benefit I see is cellular. Now, when I go for a run / bike ride / etc I don't actually need my phone, and if I'm confident that I might stop somewhere with Apple Pay, I might not need my wallet either. Back when I was riding pretty seriously, it was common for folks to just bring their ID and some cash. I'm also excited about the prospect of using the watch as a fully-featured bike computer, given it's about the exact same size as the old Polar bike computers I used to love.
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, turns, elevation of passes, etc). I'm constantly checking this and only if I'm questioning my route do I pull out my phone.
Weight: Fenix is heavy- 945 is better, Coros Pace 2 even better.
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.
Isn't that in UltraTrac mode though which is essentially useless (based on my experience using it with my Fenix 5, anyway)?
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.
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.
Not to mention they don’t sunset their products after 12 months… your watch will get updates for a long time. They’re also -very- repairable to boot.
Any Garmin app developers worth their salt should be scrambling to port their existing apps to the Apple Watch platform. It’s currently an under-supplied market, and failing to tap into that opportunity is a bad business strategy.
Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they extend the user repair program to this sector.
Also, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that they sunset their products after 12 months. They might refresh them, but that doesn’t change the software support cycle.
Apple does not hold a candle to Garmin’s software for sports and training… they have everything from an actual desktop app that works (gasp) without an internet connection, an online portal where you can freely download all of YOUR data (gasp) if you choose the connected option, and the sports and training analytics is light years ahead of Apple.
And besides, Apple can’t receive ANT+ signals from connected sensors, and BLE battery life is abysmal in comparison.
The only thing Apple has on Garmin is the have app stores full on apps, but that’s it. Nobody is using their Garmin to play Candy Crush but that misses the point.
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 year it wouldn’t have much impact on the costs of this hobby.
Apple still provides security updates for the iPhone 5s from 2013.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT213428
Garmin absolutely has better battery life. But if you can see your way to charging the Apple Watch more frequently it seems more interesting for a combination of regular smartwatch use and day activities. And, if you are climbing huge mountains in the middle of nowhere, I assume purchasing a specialized watch if you want one is the least of your expenses. (Or something like an InReach.)
Garmins repair costs are much more reasonable and for things like broken screens there are third party options.
""" AppleCare+ for Apple Watch, Apple Watch Nike, and Apple Watch Ultra extends your coverage3 and includes unlimited incidents of accidental damage protection. Each incident is subject to a $69 service fee plus applicable tax for Apple Watch and Apple Watch Nike, and $79 service fee plus applicable tax for Apple Watch Ultra.2 In addition, you’ll get 24/7 priority access to Apple experts by chat or phone. """
https://www.apple.com/support/products/watch/
The watch still has many helpful features outside of being your exclusive postage-stamp-sized map system.
Along comes the Ultra with a massive footprint and a temperature sensor (albeit one only useful for monitoring averages). My time has finally arrived.
And then it turns out that the usable screen size is essentially a rounding error compared to the Series 7 and the temp sensor is limited to reproductive tracking (guessing this is a regulatory thing).
Ah well, maybe next year.
https://daringfireball.net/2022/09/apple_watch_ultra
I suppose I’ll have to see it in person, but the pixel jump between the Ultra and the 7 is sub-2% while the jump between 6-7 was 16-17% iirc.
I also read a worrying mini-review comment on 9to5Mac from an Ultra owner that some of the watch faces are somehow displaying SMALLER than on the poster’s 7. Can’t direct link the comment so I quoted the relevant snippet below. Obv I’m taking it with a grain of salt until I see confirmation but it would be an odd thing to lie about so specifically.
“Face on Metropolitan is indeed smaller on the Ultra. 28mm diameter on Ultra, 29mm on 45mm Series 7!”