Garmin Reacts to Apple Watch Ultra: 'We Measure Battery Life in Months. Not Hours.'

[I7guy]

But the battery life of the device is so terrible that one must be extremely disciplined and have a very unvarying schedule to use it, which hardly applies to anyone.

Seems like hundreds of millions have figured out to use their Apple Watch.

Best scientifically proven means nothing when it's in the charger. Sleep tracking on an Apple Watch is a talking point, not a real feature. It's like launch control on a Tesla. Do it all day long like Porsche and then I know it won't break the car.

Sure, some may not care about sleep tracking. Those that do wear it at night.

Until Apple gives their users real autonomy on these devices, they're toys. I've had many such toys, they don't impress me.

The apple watch doesn’t have to impress you. You are not their target market.

It should be a wearable device, not a small computer with an '80s look.

In your opinion, of course.

I strongly believe that Apple has chosen this shape out of sheer cynicism, for cost saving reasons and nothing else.

Ok, your opinion again.

It's much nicer looking and more ergonomic to have a round device on your wrist (largest display area for a given perimeter), especially with buttons (easier to feel without looking). And no corners to hit anything. And prettier, more recognizable and readable watch faces.

If Apple would announce tomorrow a round watch all their hardcore fans would go crazy - best thing since sliced bread etc. That's why they can afford maximum cynicism, their fans will buy anything and praise it.

apple doesn’t design for everybody. Hard core fans are, imo, a fraction of the user base.

The cultish attitude is something to behold.

You don’t believe any company would want cultish fans to help them pull in revenue to the tune of $50b a quarter. If you don’t believe that you are sadly mistaken.

Garmin's product range is fine. They don't do everything well. Their charging cable is infuriating. But if you want a good sports watch they're the brand of choice right now. It's not that controversial unless you somehow internalise Apple's failures, which strangely some do.

Garmin caters to a more narrow niche than apple. If one is not objective one can’t see garmins weaknesses.

 

[chucker23n1]

It's much nicer looking and more ergonomic to have a round device on your wrist (largest display area for a given perimeter),

It's only "nicer-looking" in that brands have shown us, for decades, nice-looking round watches. There's nothing inherent to it.

As for "more ergonomic", a round display is hardly ergonomic. It's an idiotic choice for text or lists. It's fine for a few edge cases such as an analog clock or compass, but most information is not circular.

You wouldn't write a letter on a circular piece of paper unless you were trying to be funny.

The cultish attitude is something to behold.

I always find it funny that some people value their time so little that they go on a website called "MacRumors" to tell other people that those who care about MacRumors must be "cultish".

 

[solq]

Seems like hundreds of millions have figured out to use their Apple Watch.

Sure, it’s not complicated. Just like the phone - you put it down and charge it at night, you take it with you in the morning. I’ve had this kind of watch before. Just don’t go on about the precise, scientifically demonstrated, sleep tracking. It’s a limited use device, given the battery life.

In your opinion, of course.

Of course it’s my opinion. I don’t need to prefix almost everything I write with ”in my opinion”. I trust in the reading comprehension of my reader, even if sometimes this trust is clearly misplaced.

Garmin caters to a more narrow niche than apple. If one is not objective one can’t see garmins weaknesses.

They seem to do a good job for that niche. Apple isn’t and this Ultra changes nothing.

 

[chucker23n1]

If the purpose of the wearable device would be to display text, I’d agree with you.

Arguing that a watch should have a circular display because displaying a clock is part of its purpose is like arguing an iPhone should be the shape of a rotary phone.

 

[solq]

You wouldn't write a letter on a circular piece of paper unless you were trying to be funny.

You’d have to have serious problems to write a letter on a smartwatch, round or square.

 

[Uofmtiger]

If the purpose of the wearable device would be to display text, I’d agree with you. But it’s not. And having started with a square smartwatch and having had a variety of round smartwatches, I can confidently tell you that the round shape is just fine for the amount of text needed on your wrist, mostly for notifications. This is called a post-hoc justification, what you’re doing.

For apps or maps, or a particular watch face tweaked for a workout, or just a regular generic watch face, the round shape is the best, you can get beautiful analog and digital faces that don’t look awkward - you just get the largest possible area in the smallest possible object. It’s mathematics.

On top of that, if you have several buttons on the thing, you‘ll quickly discover they’re far more accessible on a round shape. Apple hides this with the sole scrolling button, which is inconvenient in itself. Now they brag they added a second button on the Ultra and the cult followers swoon, best thing since sliced bread. Imagine having 5, like Garmin! As soon as Apple has that, it will be the best thing ever, first to market, they invented it etc.

We will just have to disagree. The Apple Watch is a companion to the info you get on your phone. It works better in a squarish format because that is how it is done on the phone. It was meant to be seamless when checking messages, lines of notifications, reading text from twitter apps, seeing lists of days in weather apps, etc. It is not and has never been meant to be an analog watch. It was a sidekick to the phone and no phone on earth is round. To fit the same info on a round watch, it would need a bigger footprint on the wrist.

Also, you say you mainly check messages on the wrist. That is because it is mainly all you can do. That isn't the case with the Apple Watch. I check my email on it. Would look like crap on a rounded display, read twitter updates...same, use carrot weather that is lines for each day. Even core apps like music can show album art, which has never been circular. Having this stuff crammed into a round display means it would not be the same experience. Sorry, physics can't fix the issue of not having those corners. It simply has to fit a smaller box into the round display or you lose info.

The button and the round face are different issues. Apple is going for more of the fitness market where the more buttons the better, but that wasn't their initial concept.

 

[solq]

Arguing that a watch should have a circular display because displaying a clock is part of its purpose is like arguing an iPhone should be the shape of a rotary phone.

Not at all, this is the stupidest thing I read today. The rotary phone wasn‘t a style choice, each digit was sent as a sequence of electrical pulses and the rotating dial used a spring that turned back to its rest position and produced these pulses.

 

[solq]

We will just have to disagree. The Apple Watch is a companion to the info you get on your phone. It works better in a squarish format because that is how it is done on the phone.

No, it really doesn’t work better. It’s just a choice that Apple made for cheaper hardware and software (i.e. more profit) and you post hoc rationalize it as “better”. It’s not better for you, it’s just better for Apple.

 

[chucker23n1]

Not all. The Omega Speedmaster is a classic and was used to keep accurate time. Jim Lovell in Apollo 13 used it for his calculations to get back to earth after a near disaster. If I had $6,500 USD as just disposable fun income, I would probably get one.

Speedmaster Moonwatch Professional Watches | OMEGA US®

Technical excellence and elegance beyond compare: Discover the watches of the Speedmaster Moonwatch Professional Collection on the Official OMEGA® Website! Take advantage of the full OMEGA® experience, browse the entire collection and purchase your favorite Moonwatch Professional watch online!

www.omegawatches.com

Even a computer from the 1980s runs circles around the "accuracy" of a mechanical watch.

 

[I7guy]

Sure, it’s not complicated. Just like the phone - you put it down and charge it at night, you take it with you in the morning. I’ve had this kind of watch before. Just don’t go on about the precise, scientifically demonstrated, sleep tracking. It’s a limited use device, given the battery life.

Sure if doing some of the hundreds of things you would have to take your phone out to do is limited, then I agree. If anything garmin is limited, one trick pony. But that’s what garmin customers buy that watch for.

Of course it’s my opinion. I don’t need to prefix almost everything I write with ”in my opinion”. I trust in the reading comprehension of my reader, even if sometimes this trust is clearly misplaced.


They seem to do a good job for that niche. Apple isn’t and this Ultra changes nothing.

Okay I guess…in your opinion.

 

[solq]

Even a computer from the 1980s runs circles around the "accuracy" of a mechanical watch.

… says the man who knows everything and understands nothing.

 

[chucker23n1]

Not at all, this is the stupidest thing I read today.

You should read some of your own posts.

The rotary phone wasn‘t a style choice,

Exactly, and making a watch circular in 2022 is a style choice. It's not rational or, as you claim, "ergonomic".

each digit was sent as a sequence of electrical pulses and the rotating dial used a spring that turned back to its rest position and produced these pulses.

Yes, thank you Mr. White.

No, it really doesn’t work better. It’s just a choice that Apple made for cheaper hardware and software (i.e. more profit) and you post hoc rationalize it as “better”. It’s not better for you, it’s just better for Apple.

They… made the choice because they think it's better.

 

[solq]

Sure if doing some of the hundreds of things you would have to take your phone out to do is limited, then I agree. If anything garmin is limited, one trick pony. But that’s what garmin customers buy that watch for.

Technically it’s a several-tricks pony but it does the tricks really, really well.

 

[solq]

They… made the choice because they think it's better.

No, they made the choice to extract the maximum amount of cash from people like you. It worked, hats off.

 

[Uofmtiger]

No, it really doesn’t work better. It’s just a choice that Apple made for cheaper hardware and software (i.e. more profit) and you post hoc rationalize it as “better”. It’s not better for you, it’s just better for Apple.

No it is better for me. I have round watches already that do the thing a round watch does best...show a clock. Outside of that, a watch that gives me the same info as my phone in a familiar, easy to read format is best for a smartwatch...IMO.

 

[chucker23n1]

Forgive me for butting in...

I believe the answer is also cost savings, as they sell a round Venu for between $100 and $200 more depending on what you're comparing to.

Why would a circular display be between $100 and $200 more expensive?

Either a rectangular or round display of ~1.3 inches can be had for below $20 bucks. The notion that Apple made this choice for cost savings is absurd, given that they had to invest millions and millions into designing a user interface around that choice.

 

[Uofmtiger]

No, they made the choice to extract the maximum amount of cash from people like you. It worked, hats off.

They could make the same amount on a round watch....maybe more. Apple sets their own pricing and decides their own margins regardless of what the watch costs to produce.

Just for the sake of argument, let's take your rationale and say it costs them $50 more to make a round watch. You think they would eat that cost or just make the watch more expensive? The answer here is obvious.

 

[solq]

They could make the same amount on a round watch....maybe more. Apple sets their own pricing and decides their own margins regardless of what the watch costs to produce.

Just for the sake of argument, let's take your rationale and say it costs them $50 more to make a round watch. You think they would eat that cost or just make the watch more expensive? The answer here is obvious.

I think the rationale is the other way around. Since they don’t offer more than one shape (like Garmin), and the pricing is probably carefully researched for maximum sales (i.e. whatever the market will bear, peak curve), the square shape is most certainly cheaper to produce and develop software for. And you as their customer have no choice, if you want in the club, you have to put up with it.

To specifically answer your question, if it were $50 per watch more to be round (although it’s probably closer to $100 including R&D), but their overall profit was $500 million less because of reduced sales on the margin, voila you got a square one and it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[chucker23n1]

Since they don’t offer more than one shape

Yeah man. Why can't I have a star-shaped iPhone?

the square shape is most certainly cheaper to produce

Repeating this claim over and over doesn't make it true.

(Also, if there's one thing Apple is known for, it's picking the cheapest possible way to produce something, right?)

To specifically answer your question, if it were $50 per watch more to be round (although it’s probably closer to $100 including R&D)

It really isn't.

 

[I7guy]

Technically it’s a several-tricks pony but it does the tricks really, really well.

In the areas that they overlap the garmin may do some things better, the AW may do some things better…but there is an entire universe of things the garmin can’t do at all.

 

[agmr]

You’d have to have serious problems to write a letter on a smartwatch, round or square.

Siri works just fine
And even the scribble feature works really well, i wouldn’t write long letters, but it works great.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I think the rationale is the other way around. Since they don’t offer more than one shape (like Garmin), and the pricing is probably carefully researched for maximum sales (i.e. whatever the market will bear, peak curve), the square shape is most certainly cheaper to produce and develop software for. And you as their customer have no choice, if you want in the club, you have to put up with it.

To specifically answer your question, if it were $50 per watch more to be round (although it’s probably closer to $100 including R&D), but their overall profit was $500 million less because of reduced sales on the margin, voila you got a square one and it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

You are gonna have to show some data proving it would be that expensive and would cost that much now. There are $40 round smartwatches on the market today. They wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here.

 

[solq]

In the areas that they overlap the garmin may do some things better, the AW may do some things better…but there is an entire universe of things the garmin can’t do at all.

Sure but let’s see the universe of things your Apple Watch can do 2 days after being plugged in. Or is that a NullPointerException?

 

[solq]

You are gonna have to show some data proving it would be that expensive and would cost that much now. There are $40 round smartwatches on the market today. They wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here.

Which $40 round smartwatches?

 

[Uofmtiger]

Which $40 round smartwatches?

Where is your data behind saying it would cost Apple more to make the watch shape round?

This round smart watch is 38.99:

Haylou LS05 Smart Watch with 30 Day Battery Life, Biometric Sensors for Heart Rate Monitor, Sleep & Fitness Tracking, IPX68 Water Resistant, Metal Body w/ Touch Display, Bluetooth 5.0​

There are tons of round smartwatches for under $50 all over Amazon.