They probably looked at that and hitting the price point they wanted wasn’t possible without making it an option. They currently like to keep options limited, so we will see if that gets offered down the road. I know Garmin charges more for that feature, so we will see if Apple eventually does too. This is their first watch of this type, so I am sure they will look at data to see how they are used and go from there.
i doubt anyone wants to use that mode in normal use, but you get ~60 on the ultra ( probably more if you use it less than Apple‘s test case) if the goal is to just go as many days possible without charging. Personally, I can’t sleep very well with a watch on my wrist ( do the sleep apps measure that? 😂), so docking it each night with the phone is the routine. However, I like the battery headroom on the ultra.
The biggest problem I have in comparing any of these units is that their top line battery numbers are useless.
), usually with my phone, one hour of indoor workouts every day (yoga and HIIT) one to two hours of jogging (on the track), usually without my phone and listening to music several times a week.While that top line number of 14 days is cool, what I want to understand is if I actually use the GPS every day, what it really does to battery life.
My regular activities are: two hours of GPS walking/jogging every day (at a minimum – each dog gets a minimum of two miles, plus some about of time running with other dogs in the field while I pace around
Apple should have an ulta-low powered mode available to boost their numbers.
I have no doubt their numbers are accurate, I just have no idea what they would mean for me.
I suspect that people that need sleep tracking will find other times to charge the watch. With more battery life, they can probably get by for several days (if not much longer) by dropping it on a charger as they get ready in the morning or if they have a desk job they can drop it at lunch. I have seen this process mentioned several times with the last few models of the watch.
They, and their users, have chosen a different set of tradeoffs. They provide a more powerful processor to be a computing platform. Others have opted for less powerful, but more battery efficient options.
The only "health" feature where battery could even be argued to be an issue is sleep tracking. Everything else is included in Apple's battery time estimates.
It take 45 minutes to charge from 0% to 80%. It takes even less time to go from 15% to 80%. This means for anyone concerned about sleep tracking, 15 - 20 minutes before bed and another 15-20 minutes while showering in the morning and one should be fine.
What tradeoff would you like them to make? A worse, less bright display? A less powerful processor? Less memory? A thicker heavier watch? Getting rid of LTE (on the Ultra)?
The corded phone literally was corded because it needed power. How about you think that statement again?
I tried this too but I found it too involving and fussy (same on Fitbit). I personally wouldn't bother. Measurements done automatically by the watch reasonably frequently and in the background are best in my opinion because they're sure to happen.
The point of a longer battery life is to be away from a power socket for as long as possible. Going on a multi-day hike with camping is among those uses (among many others). Users like me would gladly trade off a bit of the pixel density to quadruple the battery life.
Yep, HRV is on my Fenix 6 (Beta software maybe). I've got it on mine and quite like it so far.
That pretty cool. I wasn't aware of this product. How does it work, do you get data directly in Garmin Connect or does it have its own app? Does it need to always be in range of the watch or phone, or can it bulk upload later? Sorry for the many questions and thank you for any answers.
It has it's own app (and browser based dashboard too). It stores data on the device itself and then uploads it to the app after the fact - although you can use the app for live data visualisation as well.
Users like you are a minority and should stick to the Garmin if that offers a better solution. However, i do multi-day stuff like bikepacking, i bike 15 hours a week, i live IN the mountains and hike quite a bit, i do ski touring and i use the watch and the phone for all those activities. For bike packing i just take a power bank with me. I would have to do the same thing with the Garmin depending what i track. I see the Garmin daily with people and where i live i think the Garmin is the „active lifestyle“ device, i hardly see those people on any of the close summits at all 😂
I wasn’t questioning Apple Watch s success and popularity.
