Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

This Year's New Apple Watch Ultra Will Be Lighter, Claims Rumor

davidg4781 said:
Are they really going to make a new model every year? I don’t get why this is necessary, other than those with extra income to help Apple bring in extra cash.

And I don’t mind them making a buck. But I kind of wish they had a 2 year cycle.
Click to expand...
So many people like me upgrade yearly regift their family members a refresh :)
 
davidg4781 said:
Are they really going to make a new model every year? I don’t get why this is necessary, other than those with extra income to help Apple bring in extra cash.

And I don’t mind them making a buck. But I kind of wish they had a 2 year cycle.
Click to expand...
I do agree, the Ultra does not need an annual refresh. I find size and weight to be very acceptable and the price is fine related to a stainless 8. Cheap as chips in the watch world anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StyxMaker
jimmy_uk said:
Not a fair comparison against the smaller Aluminium version considering the size and material difference.

Apple Watch Series 8 aluminium
Weight: 32.0g (41mm), 38.8g (45mm)

Apple Watch Series 8 stainless steel
Weight: 42.3g (41mm), 52.5g (45mm)
Click to expand...
Well spotted
I didn't think it was too heavy compared to my 45mm SS, however it is way too thick and too big for me 😏
 
Last edited:
So how much lighter? Could be a gram and nobody would notice. I’m looking forward to upgrading my Series 4 to this thing either way.

dantracht said:
Can they reduce the price while they’re at it?
Click to expand...
Honestly, the price is great compared to the titanium Apple Watch it replaced. Much more feature rich and durable for the money and should last me even longer than my Series 4 which is just stainless steel and 44mm and cost me $749 five years ago. $799 isn’t bad and I was shocked it wasn’t $899 for a titanium case, more durable cover glass, action button, better GPS and battery life and speaker and more with a larger 49mm display. I would be shocked if they don’t raise the price this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Spinn_, Momof2.1107 and SFjohn
macduke said:
So how much lighter? Could be a gram and nobody would notice. I’m looking forward to upgrading my Series 4 to this thing either way.


Honestly, the price is great compared to the titanium Apple Watch it replaced. Much more feature rich and durable for the money and should last me even longer than my Series 4 which is just stainless steel and 44mm and cost me $749 five years ago. $799 isn’t bad and I was shocked it wasn’t $899 for a titanium case, more durable cover glass, action button, better GPS and battery life and speaker and more with a larger 49mm display. I would be shocked if they don’t raise the price this year.
Click to expand...
Shhhhhh... Don't give them ideas.
 
Sorinut said:
The bezels protect the screen, though. Reduce them much and it'll reduce it.

I've absolutely trashed (scratched) the screen on my 6 from rock climbing and bouldering. The ultra should take care of that, when I finally buy one.
Click to expand...
Could be total coincidence but I’ve bought a new Apple Watch every year (since the first) and my 6 was the only one to get scratches. 🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Firstly if we must keep the iPad shape, can we not do the orange please? Secondly, can we a round face. Man an Apple Watch with round face would be incredible. It’s the only thing that will get me to update my AW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romain_H
jbachandouris said:
Funny I’m actually looking to down grade to a SS AW 9.

Too big for my wrists and I don’t do any adventures.
Click to expand...
I’ve got an 8 SS. It’s been really nice, but I’m going back to the Ultra this year (I had one but returned it for the 8 SS). The finish has been pretty durable and only picked up a few very small, light scratches…which I’ll have a jeweller polish out before I sell it. They look great. Enjoy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
Denzo said:
Firstly if we must keep the iPad shape, can we not do the orange please? Secondly, can we a round face. Man an Apple Watch with round face would be incredible. It’s the only thing that will get me to update my AW.
Click to expand...
Never going to happen. The entire interface is built around rectangles.
 
tooloud10 said:
If you already know you're going to buy a new one every two years, why does it matter how often they refresh it?
Click to expand...
Good point. I guess as I get older, I see how wasteful we can be with resources.

I'm sure Apple is controlling their resources but how many have extra watches or phones sitting in a closet?
 
Akrapovic said:
When screen technology progresses massively. The reason AW doesn't get a week and others do is a high quality screen. Garmins and the like sacrifice hz, resolution and brightness to achieve it.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely not true. Garmin Epix Pro 51 has resolution of 545x545 and very bright screen that can be easily seen in Florida direct sunlight. The real reason is that the processor speed and operating memory (not storage as they are both 32GB) is much larger (significantly) on AW and probably not needed as Garmin is not slow. Another reason is that AW is made by shrinking iPhone and Garmin is built from ground up on very limited processor and memory resources. Garmin Epix Pro 51mm has battery life of 11 days with AOD and around 7-8 hours of GPS usage with multi frequency enabled or 31 days with a lot more GPS usage. And this is real usage not specs.
 
akidokraja said:
That is absolutely not true. Garmin Epix Pro 51 has resolution of 545x545 and very bright screen that can be easily seen in Florida direct sunlight. The real reason is that the processor speed and operating memory (not storage as they are both 32GB) is much larger (significantly) on AW and probably not needed as Garmin is not slow. Another reason is that AW is made by shrinking iPhone and Garmin is built from ground up on very limited processor and memory resources. Garmin Epix Pro 51mm has battery life of 11 days with AOD and around 7-8 hours of GPS usage with multi frequency enabled or 31 days with a lot more GPS usage. And this is real usage not specs.
Click to expand...
A few things here.

The Epic Prox 51 has a screen resolution of 454x454 (not 545x545 as claimed) and has a diameter of of 35.56mm. This gives it a screen area of 1018mm2.

The Apple Watch Ultra has a screen resolution of 502x410, and has a diagonal size of 49mm. This gives it a screen area of approximately 2400mm2, over double. The area is larger because square vs circle.

The Epic Pro 51 has an AMOLED screen with 1000 nit peak brightness.

The Apple Watch Ultra has a LTPO OLED with 2000 nit peak brightness.

Garmin do not publish the refresh rate of the Epix 2 screen, but it's quite clearly below the 60hz that the AW Ultra is running at too - which is why it's not as smooth looking.

The Apple Watch has a much larger screen, a higher resolution screen, and a higher brightness. Additionally, if you check your battery usage stats on an iPhone or watch (or better still - use Xcode when building an app), you'll find the screen is a large portion of the battery usage figures.

I love Garmins. They're amazing devices. But if you value screens, then it falls short of the AW Ultra.
 
  • Love
Reactions: SFjohn
Akrapovic said:
A few things here.

The Epic Prox 51 has a screen resolution of 454x454 (not 545x545 as claimed) and has a diameter of of 35.56mm. This gives it a screen area of 1018mm2.

The Apple Watch Ultra has a screen resolution of 502x410, and has a diagonal size of 49mm. This gives it a screen area of approximately 2400mm2, over double. The area is larger because square vs circle.

The Epic Pro 51 has an AMOLED screen with 1000 nit peak brightness.

The Apple Watch Ultra has a LTPO OLED with 2000 nit peak brightness.

Garmin do not publish the refresh rate of the Epix 2 screen, but it's quite clearly below the 60hz that the AW Ultra is running at too - which is why it's not as smooth looking.

The Apple Watch has a much larger screen, a higher resolution screen, and a higher brightness. Additionally, if you check your battery usage stats on an iPhone or watch (or better still - use Xcode when building an app), you'll find the screen is a large portion of the battery usage figures.

I love Garmins. They're amazing devices. But if you value screens, then it falls short of the AW Ultra.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about their screen refresh rate when they’re 50km deep into a run. It’s just not important.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SFjohn
jon08 said:
Who cares? Doesn't help at all as long as the battery life remains crap.
Click to expand...
The Ultra doesn’t need to last more than an Ironman…and it already will, even for people who only just make the cutoff. That means it’ll last for a 100km in most races, which is already a massively smaller market. Beyond that, the market shrinks further still. It’s enough.
 
constantsnags! said:
The Ultra doesn’t need to last more than an Ironman…and it already will, even for people who only just make the cutoff. That means it’ll last for a 100km in most races, which is already a massively smaller market. Beyond that, the market shrinks further still. It’s enough.
Click to expand...

The Game 161 said:
do you have the ultra? as it's certainly not crap battery life
Click to expand...

I don't have the ultra but I can see from other reviews and feedback it will barely last a full day 12-hr hiking activity for example. Yes, it may be just OK, but it still means charging it pretty much every other day, which seems to deteriorate the battery quite a bit through constant discharging and charging. So after a year or so the battery health would likely drop more than I wanted it to. I'm currently on AW 7 by the way, and after a bit more than 1 year the battery health dropped to 89%. Really disappointing and quite apparent in daily use. The battery is pretty much dead after a 6-hr hiking workout in WorkOutDoors for example.

So currently I'm on the fence whether to go with AWU or a Garmin instead.
 
jon08 said:
I don't have the ultra but I can see from other reviews and feedback it will barely last a full day 12-hr hiking activity for example. Yes, it may be just OK, but it still means charging it pretty much every other day, which seems to deteriorate the battery quite a bit through constant discharging and charging. So after a year or so the battery health would likely drop more than I wanted it to. I'm currently on AW 7 by the way, and after a bit more than 1 year the battery health dropped to 89%. Really disappointing and quite apparent in daily use. The battery is pretty much dead after a 6-hr hiking workout in WorkOutDoors for example.

So currently I'm on the fence whether to go with AWU or a Garmin instead.
Click to expand...
Erm, it'll do a lot longer than a 12 hr hike. I've done 12 hour hikes and used 40% battery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: constantsnags!, surfzen21 and SFjohn
jon08 said:
I don't have the ultra but I can see from other reviews and feedback it will barely last a full day 12-hr hiking activity for example. Yes, it may be just OK, but it still means charging it pretty much every other day, which seems to deteriorate the battery quite a bit through constant discharging and charging. So after a year or so the battery health would likely drop more than I wanted it to. I'm currently on AW 7 by the way, and after a bit more than 1 year the battery health dropped to 89%. Really disappointing and quite apparent in daily use. The battery is pretty much dead after a 6-hr hiking workout in WorkOutDoors for example.

So currently I'm on the fence whether to go with AWU or a Garmin instead.
Click to expand...
Purchase an AWU and give it a try for 2 weeks, if you like (and you will) keep it. If not return it for free and get your Garmi… 👍🏻
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back