I appreciate you agreeing with my assertion that an Apple Watch user needs to be tethered to the power socket multiple times a day, even if it’s for 10-15 minutes at a time.
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.
Garmin Reacts to Apple Watch Ultra: 'We Measure Battery Life in Months. Not Hours.'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, being tethered to a power socket multiple times a day even for 15-20 minutes at a time means one must be close to a city at all times. That hardly yells outdoors to me.
There’s a difference for sure, to the company, but to the end user it’s simply irrelevant. You made no case for it to be relevant and I don’t follow you at all. Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling having a product that a lot of other people have? I haven’t heard about that before, but if that’s the case, sure, I guess, more power to you?
I don’t have mainstream cars, or hifi gear, or many other things, and it doesn’t bother me, at all.
Of course I could be wrong, so what? I don’t have an oracle certification to lose.
No, it’s nothing like that. In this case it would be the reverse (if you want a C-class Mercedes you would prefer the AMG instead of the C300, funds permitting) but of course these products have completely different market dynamics since they’re far more replaceable by other brands.
I think the market pressure tends to improve products and make them cheaper, not the other way around.
We’re finally in agreement, yay. I’ll drink to that.
I don’t think 3 would end up the way you want. Apple is already kicking their butt in the regular fitness watch arena so losing more of that market wouldn’t be good (economies of scale). If they got forced into relying only on the “specialist” market, where there is little to no competition, prices would go up.
The fact that Apple doesn’t make a watch that works with Android is the saving grace for most of these companies, so currently number 4 isn't happening.
The main scenario for this watch is getting more Garmin users on iOS to move and getting more Apple Watch users to update their watches, and getting some people into the AW market that prefer this more rugged design. However, this Ultra watch isn't going to appeal to a lot of users because the size it too large for some with small wrists which locks it out of massive success. However, I am still sure they will sell a lot of them.
Last edited:
You made no case for garmins yoy to be relevant either. More relevant is garmin meeting its internal projections? Is apple meeting its projections? The popularity of a device has no bearing on the fit for use. However when consumers get wind of a sinking ship they might go in another direction.
It was pointing to the lack of critical thinking in that reply.
Of course, we all could be wrong but you fail to understand, imo, why the Apple Watch ultra could be attractive for consumers by assuming your use case is the only use case.
That’s the point they are not any more replaceable by other brands than any other Watch. saying Apple Watch ultra will eat into the sales of Apple Watch shows you don’t understand the marketing. Apple Watch ultra will provide a sale for Apple Watch where one didn’t exist before. (I’m sure apple is crying that a consumer bought an ultra and not the regular model)
Massive manufacturing volume “, long term relationships, futures contracts and age make products cheaper.
✅
Just to clarify, did you have Bluetooth connectivity problems with an Apple device connecting to these sensors, or with a Garmin (or some other one)? How long ago was this? Bluetooth has improved version by version (from complete garbage to only very messy), but has finally gotten useable. Thanks to the Apple Watch and iPhones, most of the trainers, power meters, speed and cadence sensors support Bluetooth, and from my experience with my devices, now do it pretty well.
Given its proprietary Garmin nature (it is freely licensed, but it is still owned by them) and Apple's general approach to only support one technology for a job, ANT+ seems unlikely. Their approach has been to work to improve Bluetooth Low Energy, including adding support for multi-device connection (I think that is in Bluetooth 5.3).
What functionality would you want to see/have? Are you and iOS/iPadOS/macOS/tvOS user?
Curious what your average day/week of use is. How many hours of GPS tracked activity do you do in an average day? What about workouts that are not GPS tracked? When you go windsurfing, kayaking, and Kite Surfing, do you have your phone with you? If not, do you have any emergency beacon? How long does it take you to finish a triathlon? A quadathalon? (Why does it take you so long? If you just improved your time by 90%, you would not need as good a battery... Just saying.
).How often do you charge your Fenix 6?
Yeah it was a tacky comment.. however as a Garmin user (that has tried almost every apple watch in the past) at this point this thing is a non threat to serious outdoor enthusiasts. There will be many who “try” to make it work but when the tried and true garmin users try it and see that while the battery life is indeed extended like 12 hours the 3rd party apps that you have to use to even get you close to the data that garmin offers is a joke. The returns will be massive for this thing not only because you’ll have the coros and garmin users trying it but the sheer size of it will shock most current Apple Watch owners. I own a fenix 7 x and it’s about 50mm and it’s huge. Fortunately my wrist is able to accommodate but it still looks big. This is where garmin will keep their users particularly females. My wife as a runner would not like to have that size of a watch on her runs she’d rather have a smaller One that garmin offers with all the metrics and yes she’s aware of the 40/41mm AW offerings but hates the 3rd party apps she’d need to get the same data. Some of them you even have to pay monthly/yearly for. That reality alone is something that is not advertised well within the Apple Watch community because the average AW user is content with the simple metrics that the AW gives.
Yes, the advantage of designing your own silicon and having a market large enough to support it, is the ability to build systems that exactly match your needs. I think that moving to TSMC's 3nm process (something Apple will be able to do before anyone else) will help, and if they are successful with their own radio design, that will also be good. Finally, if they decide that this matters, what I bet we will see is more silicon IP for specific functions that do not rely on the main CPU and so can be turned on and off individually for power savings.
They might have a dimmer mode, but not a different product.
LTE enables lots of things, and I also bet that at the higher end of their market a very large percentage opted for LTE version, so they just decided not to make two versions.
For the moment. :-D (Probably for the next few versions as well.)
That might be fun.
Take a look at Oceanic Worldwide's new case.
The new battery life extension features for the current generation of iPhones, does give hope that they will consider this.
It would be port-less, but so will all of their iPhones at some point soon.
I agree with your analysis. Apple doesn’t try to be all things to all people. They do their market research and figure out their products.
I don’t agree the returns will be massive. I believe there will be attrition from the competition as you can’t assume you know everyone’s motives for buying, not buying or returning.
My son as a marathon runner uses his Apple Watch for metrics. He doesn’t aspire, nor can he be in the top 10, but the AW gives him what he needs.
Garmin watches track more than AW ever will. There is no contest there. In return, Garmin falls shorter on the “smartness” elements but that’s not why people buy Garmins.
I love it when people have no idea what they’re talking about. Ignorance is such a bliss.
You think non-Apple Watches that last 5+ to 30+ days tell only time?
Why the f*** would one need to call someone via a watch whose battery lasts shorter than a smartphone anyway?
The thing about smaller batteries is not only that it leads to shorter battery life but also shorter battery lifespans. Fastcharge that AW and it will die out faster than regular charging.
Garmin have bigger barriers -> longer battery life -> less cycles of charging -> longer battery lifespan.
Thank you for that. What need is there for an activity tracker to be connected to a phone at any times to begin with? You make it sound it’s a drawback of Garmin’s when in fact it’s on Apple’s side.
Apple Watch doesn’t need a constant connection to an iPhone to use (after first setup)….
Sorry, I like doing two short times rather than one longer charge. I could get by on a single charge. Looking at Garmin's stats for the Forerunner 945 LTE I expect that I would have to charge it every other day (that is four - six hours of GPS, 2 hours of GPS + Music and two-three hours of workout tracking average over two days) for two hours, rather than 45 minutes a day.
I prefer a daily habit then having to constantly check what my charge level is.
Many possible reasons.
No phone with you.
Fell/crashes and phone is broken.
Phone lost.
Watch detects a fall/crash and automatically calls emergency contacts/emergency.
Bc they can.
Garmin users will definitely demand more connectivity in the future.
Those 36-60 hours are at the expense of shutting off two thirds of the “smart” functions of the AW. And THAT defeats the whole purpose of even wearing an AW.
You were just making the assertion that AW’a excuse of having a shorter battery life is because it’s constantly connected to the iPhone.
No, I haven’t commented on this thread today until what you just quoted….
Perhaps you’re confusing me with a different user?
Did you test that or do you have additional data? I see the up to 60 should be in low power mode, but the 36 are stated to be with full functionality. More than good enough for me. I charge the watch at night anyway and don’t have a problem with it.
Anything multi day i have a battery with me anyhow.
Apple's share of the growing market fell (from 32.9% to 30.1% not actually 3% despite the quote), but their unit sales increased YoY (just not as fast as the market increased). As is also common, they took a disproportionate share of revenue and profit (50% of the revenue on 30% of the sales). This is a pattern we have seen before. Apple takes the bulk of the profit in the smart phone market with well under 50% of the sales.
Garmin when from 4.3% of the market to 4.6% - mostly from an increase at the low end.
Since we are looking at stats, according to the same source, in q1 2022, Apple's market share increased to 36% and Garmin's fell to 4%.
This matters to us as customers for only one reason. In order for these companies to fund development they need to have sales and profit. Volume makes it possible to build one's own custom silicon, it makes it possible to sign carrier deals, satellite deals, etc.
If Garmin's market share shrinks too much they either have to raise prices and hope the market is OK with that, cut R&D or exit the market.
Nope. People routinely carry battery packs to increase use time. Same is true for phones and other devices.