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.
Report: Apple Watch Ultra More Popular Than Apple Watch SE
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IMHO you have no idea what a sweet spot would be other than you want cheap. Apple doesn’t do cheap. Never has and hopefully never will. Why sully the brand with cheap junk and fewer features just to satisfy a market where margins and profit are almost nonexistent? Let the gutter dwellers like Samsung and Huawei do that.
Apple needs to get the SE to $199 at retail. And I suspect they will next month.
As for my Ultra, I love it, but it really would benefit from a weight loss and I'd be open to a non-Ultra Apple Watch if Apple ever brings the sapphire display to the 'regular' Apple Watch (which they should have already done by now).
As for my Ultra, I love it, but it really would benefit from a weight loss and I'd be open to a non-Ultra Apple Watch if Apple ever brings the sapphire display to the 'regular' Apple Watch (which they should have already done by now).
Come on man, no need for childish name calling..Apple isn't premium because it costs more. It's premium because the software and support.
...and I still think the Garmin has them beat.
I’ve enjoyed mine, I just feel like they don’t make them with vision anymore. They’re just good for one or two major updates, then bleh…
That's no good news...
I need nothing more than the se, and I wouldn't want this to go away like the iPhone mini.
I need nothing more than the se, and I wouldn't want this to go away like the iPhone mini.
Im running a series 6 still and after an hour long workout I'll maybe lose 10%. Not sure how yours is so bad. If i forget to put it on the charger ill wake up between 30-40% battery life. I also do not use LTE, wifi only. Maybe your poor service signal is draining your watch as well
Same here; I do an hour or longer GPS-tracked trail runs regularly, without my phone, plus an hour of climbing or yoga daily, and I still go to bed with 20-30% battery. I charge at night.
I don't have the cell version as I like being disconnected when I leave my phone behind, so maybe that's it. There is no cell service where I regularly run anyway.
Just an FYI, my Garmin Venu 1 has NFC payments (“Garmin Pay”), and can display notifications, including text from messages. However, I cannot reply on the watch or take calls there (the current one does, functioning somewhat like a Bluetooth speaker). I know you’re not interested in those features, but I wanted to clarify for others.
I'd much rather see Apple compete with Garmin so both product lines can improve.
I use both Garmin and Apple. Garmin for exercise and Apple for a smartwatch. There's surprisingly little overlap and if you're a user who wants both feature sets then either choice alone is going to leave you disappointed.
I'm not recommending using both -- it's dorky and a total hassle. But it's the only way to get the best of both worlds currently.
Apple sets a higher starting price knowing 3rd party retailers will offer lower sales prices at some point. You can find various SE models for under $200 right now on Amazon
Unsurprising, I have heard that many rich people just buy the most expensive variant.
Since that is their targeted customer base, it makes even more sense.
Since that is their targeted customer base, it makes even more sense.
Thanks for that info. I was intimidated by the complexity of the line-up when I looked last year to see what the fuss was about, but didn't see the point in studying since I'm very content with an Apple Watch. It's nice that-- aside from having cellular or not--it's actually easy to shop for Apple Watch knowing that-- like iPhone and iPad--all the models essentially do the same things.
Doesn’t matter. I think Apple will aim for the $199 price point at their own retail pricing next month with the SE update.
Makes sense.... AWU's features aren't things most people need where with Pro iPhones everyone wants a better camera if they can afford it. Then the SE watches lack critical features that mostly everyone does want particularly heart related... SE literally is a pulse device and nothing more... and when you consider that third party retailers often have the Series 9 on sale for $30-$40 more than the SE, why would you buy it?
That's exactly it and is also the case for the last two iPhones SE:
Getting this year's or last year's "World's most efficient" SiP or SoC in an Apple device that costs half or a third of the mid-tier and high-end counterparts isn't really a good deal when every other spec or feature is outdated or of a drastically lower quality.
My first Watch was an SE and I was fine with it for a few days. But without fast-charging and Apple Watch's almost-but-not-quite-all-day battery life, I eventually cave in, returned the SE and got an S8.
And although S8 isn't much of an upgrade over S6 and S7, there's a night and day difference on every parameter between it and Watch SE (2nd Gen.).
Some $300-$500 isn't a large amount of money. But when considering value/$ $249 for Watch SE is very expensive by comparison to the $399 S9 or $799 Ultra 2.
Maybe this means a lot of people bought the Ultra 1 when it came out, and not as many have upgraded to the Ultra 2.
We just ordered one for our 11 year old. (got lost at an event for over an hour and we all freaked out)
