Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Ultra Reviews: Bigger and Better, But Not a Garmin Killer Yet
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's exactly what Apple is trying to do.
Ultra, despite what is claimed, opinioned, proposed, is not a Garmin.
Last edited:
I have this problem now doing stuff like HIIT. Had it with my fenix 6s pro (not to mention the fact the HR sensor on that isnt great anyway) and my s7. I got a polar verity sense. Also means in the winter out walking or running I can put my watch over my jumper or jacket and still get HR data.
My biggest concern isn’t looks but comfort. I had a fenix 1 for a long time and that hurt my wrist bone after wearing it for most of the day, but the standard watch battery never seems to be enough for me…
How on Earth can you call a Garmin watch a "single-task" device? My Fenix, while vastly outstripping my Apple Watch S7's fitness capabilities, is also capable of streaming music via headphones, controlling my Sonos speakers, tracking my sleep, checking my calendar, receiving notifications, replying to messages (on Android)...you know, all those things an AW can do. It also does this with over 2 weeks between charges.
It has a few shortcomings, like no voice assistant or taking calls on the watch. But then the AW can't connect to any industry-standard ANT+ fitness equipment, can't broadcast my heart rate, has no native offline maps, has atrocious battery life...they both have their strengths and weaknesses.
To somehow call a Garmin "single-use" while an AW is a "wrist computer" is deluded. They're not that different, and don't forget a Garmin isn't just iOS and Android compatible, it can actually function completely independently. An AW is seriously neutered without being tethered to an iPhone - it can't even be set up without one!
They are significantly different and that's not a knock against Garmin in the slightest.
Technically my toes can control the radio on my car, but it doesn't mean they're any good at it.
The most damning thing I read was in Patel's review, I think, anyway, someone wrote that just doing a two hour GPS hike or walk consumed 50 percent of the battery, or that was the main activity and by the night there was 50 percent left, if true, Apple has a long way to go in getting to a 7 day Watch battery life for a decent amount of use cases.
Update: And sleep tracking was included, I would like to see how the battery holds up with one hour of music streaming, one hour of driving directions, ten text messages, 15 minutes of phone calls, always on screen with a few live complications, maybe a news headline and one stock constantly updated, and weather (the always on home screen with complications for 12 hours without a phone present), OK, I'm just thinking of what I might use this for, all of this on cellular without an Iphone present.
If it could do those things and last for 5 to 7 days without a recharge, OK, then we are getting somewhere, how about Apple allows me to set this up with just a Macbook Pro, phone carriers allow a cellular plan for $10 to $15 a month without an Iphone plan, someone creative invents a Nano like case so that I can carry it in my pocket without wearing it on my wrist, just allow me to ditch my Iphone for days at a time, allow technology to begin to disappear when I want it to disappear while still giving me some connection to news and the world and radio, do that and I will buy it.
But of course my demographic is probably non existent, so this won't happen soon, maybe ever.
Last edited:
Back when I had an AW S5 Cellular, I foolishly though I could leave my iPhone at home to play a round of golf. After 10 holes (around 2 hours), the battery was dead. Not only could I no longer use it for the rest of the round, I had no way to make calls or send/receive messages. That was the last cellular model I bought.
I’m guessing the Ultra battery is way better - double? - but why AW’s battery life is still so dismal after 8 iterations is beyond me.
Have you owned both garmin and apple watches? do you do activities that these watches are marketed for? If you haven't owned one of each you do not truly know their values and what they both bring to the table. I believe that if you haven't owned both you are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter.
Fully agree. While it's a freaking great watch, it's by no means a sports watch that is of the same level as Garmin, Suunto, Polar et cetera. In addition to your list: ANT+ well, the lack thereof. Without that athletes (most, not all) won't be getting this AWU from Apple because of that.From a quick read of the article, it looks like most of the issues that does not make the Ultra a Garmin "killer" is software based issues and I think I'd agree. I had mentioned on other threads that we are in iteration 9 of WatchOS and it is still rather crazy that the following very basic software-based features are not available on a rather expensive device (and my criticism has to do with Apple software; some of my issues can be resolved through 3rd party apps):
These are basic basic issues; not anything fancy. I'm keeping my Series 4. I don't expect it will happen though I hope it will, but may next year the Action button will also be available on the Series 9?
- No offline maps
- After a workout, there's no way to view the GPS tracks. There's also no way to review a recorded workout and have it "play" through showing how the heart rate, pace, cadence, elevation changes in sync.
- marking segments using touchscreen is inaccurate because it's not always clear when a touch has been registered during those time-critical moments (the addition of a 3rd button looks to be a solution and unfortunately not available in any edition of the Watch other than Ultra)
(C'mon Apple! Do better!)
Well, at least you're being quoted often¡
328 feet / 100 meters. https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/701618#specs
I don't see that happening myself either. And I did ask around at my athletes club, 1800 members, so I asked the trainers: they hadn't heard of anyone switching from Suunto, Garmin, Polar to the AWU, even though many use an iPhone / Apple products.
They have many sizes. For running / triathlons it's 45 / 47/ 51mm, diving is 43 and 52, square /rectangular is 40 / 43 / 45mm. Suuto is similar.
Yeah, the AWU may very well be marketed as 'designed for athletes', it really isn't. Apple is a tech company, and their products are designed by technical people. Not athletes. Heck, they have't spoken to, or listened to sport athletes if the omit ANT+. When they omit a lap button. When they only have a single programmable button.
It's a great watch, but not for athletes.
Technically not possible for the AWU to read data from a heart rate band because it doesn't have ANT+. So there's no connection to power meters on bikes, no HR data after swimming, no HR broadcast from watch to bike computer, no Running Dynamics Garmin offers, no external temperature, no cadence meter (bike or run), no speed sensor (when riding through tunnels), no...well, you get the picture.
Battery tech is allegedly at its limit: the chemical composition can't 'be pushed further'. So battery life can only increase due to better software. Until the entire composition of batteries change that is.
I think it is targeted for different demographics. I happen to have and use both, Fenix 6S and AW S6. I run long distances, hike and bike as well. I do a lot of HIIT (no CrossFit) workouts so I use them both. Never have I ever ran longer than 10K with the AW or the AirPods, they died on my sooooo many times. I run with my Fenix and my AeroPex. However, I am getting the Ultra because it is annoying to keep changing watches based on need and I think the Ultra will be a good companion for my runs, SPECIALLY because as a woman (and it may sound silly) I will feel safer running outside with the AW. And yes, I know Garmin has a feature too but not a screaming alarm like the AW. I will NOT get rid of my Garmin, because I am aiming for even longer distances and maybe even an Ironman, but I don't think saying this is going to the "5K to Couch" people, it is actually mildly offensive. If you are hardcore athlete, good for you and stick to what you have. Me? I am working my way up to become an athlete, because while I run long distances, hike (heights), bike and know my way around a gym, I am humble enough to know that I have a long way to go. I also think that the Ultra will fit a lot of us, athlete aficionados who appreciate having a multi-function device at our disposal that in conjunction with an iPhone, can be pretty useful
Well said.I think it is targeted for different demographics. I happen to have and use both, Fenix 6S and AW S6. I run long distances, hike and bike as well. I do a lot of HIIT (no CrossFit) workouts so I use them both. Never have I ever ran longer than 10K with the AW or the AirPods, they died on my sooooo many times. I run with my Fenix and my AeroPex. However, I am getting the Ultra because it is annoying to keep changing watches based on need and I think the Ultra will be a good companion for my runs, SPECIALLY because as a woman (and it may sound silly) I will feel safer running outside with the AW. And yes, I know Garmin has a feature too but not a screaming alarm like the AW. I will NOT get rid of my Garmin, because I am aiming for even longer distances and maybe even an Ironman, but I don't think saying this is going to the "5K to Couch" people, it is actually mildly offensive. If you are hardcore athlete, good for you and stick to what you have. Me? I am working my way up to become an athlete, because while I run long distances, hike (heights), bike and know my way around a gym, I am humble enough to know that I have a long way to go. I also think that the Ultra will fit a lot of us, athlete aficionados who appreciate having a multi-function device at our disposal that in conjunction with an iPhone, can be pretty useful
I think the apple marketing overhype isn’t helping here. Pushing it right into epix and fenix territory and theyre not the same, if you’re pushing those watches to their full featured limit, an Apple Watch isn’t going to cut it.
Im in a similar vein to yourself, have a 6s pro that still will be needed for the long walks and events, but I still use my Apple Watch for the daily stuff. I’m a casual user with some occaisional ultra events.
Since all of a dozen people have an Apple Watch Ultra, I will similarly dismiss any opinions you have.
It’s cute how you keep posting the same things.
As I and others have mentioned - there is a physical size difference in the screens of all of the Apple Watch range. The ultra is the biggest.
It’s quite a simple concept to grasp for most people.
Eyeballing pictures on websites, sharing questionable picture comparisons, pointing out that they ‘all look the same in apples website’, all of that, doesn’t detract from the actual fact that the screen is larger. There are physical measurements which you can either do yourself, or look up. It’s not an opinion.
I mean, cool - it’s not big enough for you, or your favourite YouTuber doesn’t consider it bigger. Great.
But it is bigger - and no matter what you say can’t change that fact. So leave it out.
I think it is targeted for different demographics. I happen to have and use both, Fenix 6S and AW S6. I run long distances, hike and bike as well. I do a lot of HIIT (no CrossFit) workouts so I use them both. Never have I ever ran longer than 10K with the AW or the AirPods, they died on my sooooo many times. I run with my Fenix and my AeroPex. However, I am getting the Ultra because it is annoying to keep changing watches based on need and I think the Ultra will be a good companion for my runs, SPECIALLY because as a woman (and it may sound silly) I will feel safer running outside with the AW. And yes, I know Garmin has a feature too but not a screaming alarm like the AW. I will NOT get rid of my Garmin, because I am aiming for even longer distances and maybe even an Ironman, but I don't think saying this is going to the "5K to Couch" people, it is actually mildly offensive. If you are hardcore athlete, good for you and stick to what you have. Me? I am working my way up to become an athlete, because while I run long distances, hike (heights), bike and know my way around a gym, I am humble enough to know that I have a long way to go. I also think that the Ultra will fit a lot of us, athlete aficionados who appreciate having a multi-function device at our disposal that in conjunction with an iPhone, can be pretty useful
Have a Fenix 6 - love to hike. If the AWU had a week long battery I would give it a look. It doesn't. If it did I might.
You should get the gear that works for you, not what the advertisers claim.
that is fine see you monday. (BTW The AW7 AW8 are essentially the ultra without the bigger casing and alarm) I should have a AWU to compare my gamins to tomorrow
I’ve owned both…Garmin is far superior for running vs the Apple Watch. I have a forerunner 955 and charge it only once every 2 weeks and do 3 10 mile runs a week with full multiband gps running as well as wear it to bed to track sleeping. I don’t think I’d ever go back to Apple Watch. Garmin is just way better and brain dead easy to operate. At least with the ultra Apple finally realized that a physical button works better to start/stop a run vs sweaty fingers on a touch screen 😂
You were responding to a number of people so I’ll only respond to the tidbit above.
It’s not true that the AW can’t use a heart rate band (or heart rate monitor [hrm]). It can and I use to all the time for running. Polar and others make Bluetooth HRM and some even make ones that are both Ant+ and Bluetooth.
I use a Polar H10 which is both Bluetooth and Ant+. For the Bluetooth side, it can connect 2 devices. I connect this hrm to my AW for each and every run.
I know cyclists are much more gadgety than runners; at least they were when I was competitive in the late 90s to the 2000s, so I don’t know if there are Bluetooth power meters and what not.
UPDATE:
Here's the Polar H10: https://www.polar.com/us-en/sensors...qTMwZLpTbWmfNRzojmTBvf6yhp4dC1d4aAnDUEALw_wcB
Also, it looks like there are Bluetooth power meters: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-tests/best-power-meters-everything-you-need-to-know-35563
This reminds me that several years ago when I was researching this issue of Ant+ vs. Bluetooth (this was in the period when I was using a Garmin and considering whether I could transition to the AW since no longer being a competitive runner), I seem to recall that what I found is that Ant+ is slowly dying off as Bluetooth technology is catching up with regards to being able to pair to multiple devices at once and also offer a lower power solution.
Last edited:
Man I am genuinely excited for the ultra. I’m super happy I didn’t upgrade my s5 when the s7 came out. I’ll definitely feel a big jump in battery life without my iPhone. I’m also hoping apps can use the microphone eventually. I’d love to run without headphones.
DCrainmaker's in-depth review is up now on his site. As usual with him, "in-depth" seems like a bit of an understatement!
It’s one of the better reviews out there in regards to what market segment Apple is marketing the Ultra to.
I have a F7X and love it! The ultra has to be extremely amazing to over take it. Especially since the led flashlight is a game changer for me for my daily use.
Indeed, bluetooth is getting better at low power mode, hence the availability of HR bands etc that use both BT and ANT+. Still, the network topology of ANT is just far better than BT:
https://www.thisisant.com/assets/images/technical_diagrams/ecosystem_body_img_2.png
BT can't do this:
Advanced Features - THIS IS ANT
ANT is a Wireless Personal Network protocol, by Garmin Canada, with small size, reasonable cost and very low power requirements.
Supported product list:
Directory - THIS IS ANT
ANT is a Wireless Personal Network protocol, by Garmin Canada, with small size, reasonable cost and very low power requirements.
It's the 'many to one' concept that makes ANT+ a winner.
The fact is that people will get by with Bluetooth and third party apps if they want all the additional features of the Apple Watch. Yes, it will cause some inconvenience in some areas for some people… dropping it on a charger every day or so. However, some of the everyday conveniences will make it worth it for a lot of people.Indeed, bluetooth is getting better at low power mode, hence the availability of HR bands etc that use both BT and ANT+. Still, the network topology of ANT is just far better than BT:
https://www.thisisant.com/assets/images/technical_diagrams/ecosystem_body_img_2.png
BT can't do this:
Advanced Features - THIS IS ANT
ANT is a Wireless Personal Network protocol, by Garmin Canada, with small size, reasonable cost and very low power requirements.www.thisisant.com
Supported product list:
Directory - THIS IS ANT
ANT is a Wireless Personal Network protocol, by Garmin Canada, with small size, reasonable cost and very low power requirements.
It's the 'many to one' concept that makes ANT+ a winner.
I don’t think that peeling off a part of Garmin’s users or possible users is their main objective, though. It is to get new AW users into the fold by offering a better product while also getting current AW users to upgrade. Much bigger audience than Garmin, though, I think they will peel off a lot of Garmin users that aren’t using all of the features, are on lower end Garmin’s with similar workout features, or can get by with some third party apps.