Ultra broke after 1. fall

[alongdingdong]

I think they should have come up with a way more rugged sensor on the bottom.
Instead of ceremic they should used plastic.

The device needs to be rugged on the wrist but also off especially if you are in rough terrain you need a trustworthy device, you need to be able to man/woman the device.

I think it is a glaring design flaw from Apple, it is the achilles heel off the AW Ultra.

 

[laptech]

If you look on Apples website for the Ultra's specification it states that the watch has MIL-STD 810H certification and if you scroll down to the near bottom of the page it tells you what MIL-STD 810H tests were carried out and the important ones to note is Shock and Vibration. The web is full of sites that talk about MIL-STD 810H but out of the many in the list I have not foud one that goes into detail about the Shock and vibration test. Therefore does the shock test involve a drop test from height? or does the test involve hitting the watch to simulate various 'shocks'? such as simulating knocking the watching against a surface, bumping the watch against a surface or dropping the watch from x height onto different surfaces. Also we have no way of knowing unless Apple tells us, how the tests were carried out. Was both the front and back of the watch hit with the same force?

A product has to comply/match it's sales description so if it's described as 'rugged' then the whole thing should be rugged, not just part of it because if so then it becomes falsely described and would fall foul of regulators. If the height at which the watch dropped and the surface it landed on exceed MIL-STD 810H then Apple have nothing to worry about.

 

[alongdingdong]

You do realise the Garmin Fenix 5 and 6 series sensors would crack without being dropped right? This was a massive issue with a large number of users effected. A quick search of the Garmin forums will reveal all.

View attachment 2092314
View attachment 2092315

This is valid, but the weakpoint surface is alot smaller due the use of alloy instead of ceremic around the sensor.

Instead of having to replace the entire back portion in the case of the garmin only the glass bit needs replacement, a huge difference in costs and probability change of breaking the glass as most surface is alloy and more likely to have a impact there.

I would no be supprised this is a deliberate design by apple so the AW2/3 can have a more rugged bottom (rubber/plastic just like the garmin and a small center surface that is still ceremic/sapphire to cover the sensor.

I think someone with some Math brains can calculate the probability rate between the garmin/aw ultra risk rate difference on impact on the sensor side.

We are mere early adopters/investors of a new product line.

 

[MacSE1987]

There is detailed handling information in the Ultra’s online user guide. Here’s a part of it:

‘Apple Watch cases made of ceramic may chip or crack if dropped or subjected to forceful impact”.

 

[papbot]

‘Apple Watch cases made of ceramic may chip or crack if dropped or subjected to forceful impact”.

That’s pretty much true of any ceramic item. So no surprise that it would also apply to a ceramic Apple Watch

 

[ArchEtech]

I don’t believe you.

There are videos of the thing being hit with a hammer on a table. Just a fall? Doubtful. Possible if it hit just right, maybe but doubtful.

 

[soulreaver99]

But did you die?

 

[usagora]

Yes like „you‘re holding it wrong“ 🤦‍♂️

No, because a phone is designed to be held; a watch isn't designed to be dropped.

 

[usagora]

Good lord - why do so many people think the OP is blaming Apple? i didn't get that at all from his first post.

It's pretty obvious from the wording "Ultra broke after 1 fall" (implying it shouldn't have) and he says he's "disappointed" (clearly meaning at Apple, taken together with the thread title). He didn't say "I'm so mad at myself" or anything like that.

 

[usagora]

You know you have to take the watch off to charge it, don’t you? Taking the watch off is quite literally normal use.

I think it's pretty obvious what he meant was using the watch for actual activities, which is what Apple's durability claims apply to. As others have pointed out, the back of this AW was not designed nor advertised to be more rugged than the other models.

 

[usagora]

An alternative view is Apple could have made this part just as tough, which would have added nothing really significant to the manufacturing-price . . .

How do you know that? I'm also wondering if the reason they don't has something to do with the functioning of the sensors. But pretty much any company will cut costs where it's reasonable to, and I believe this would be reasonable (if that's indeed why they designed it that way). So it's not "so Apple" any more than it's "so Garmin" or "so [fill in the company]".

 

[Howard2k]

How do you know that? I'm also wondering if the reason they don't has something to do with the functioning of the sensors. But pretty much any company will cut costs where it's reasonable to, and I believe this would be reasonable (if that's indeed why they designed it that way). So it's not "so Apple" any more than it's "so Garmin" or "so [fill in the company]".

This is MacRumors. Everyone is well versed in the detailed specifics of Apple's financial metrics on a product by product basis.

 

[Malus120]

People ragging on OP kind of miss the point...
The Apple Watch Ultra is marketed as a device for use in extreme environments where hard impacts may not be uncommon. It's marketed as the "toughest" Apple Watch designed to be able to take a fall.
Now. Of course its bound by the laws of physics (and the materials its made out of) so of course, a fall, from the wrong height, at the wrong angle, onto the wrong type of surface is going to cause something to break but I can understand the disappointment as it really doesn't FEEL all that much more durable than a regular ol Apple Watch when it kicks the bucket after a fall many an Apple Watch has anecdotally survived....

I kind of feel like for this kind of device Apple should really be working on building something that can continue to function even if part of it breaks. If Apple wants to say this is a device for harsh environments... well **** happens in harsh environments, and in particular, if Apple wants say this is a tool that can help you survive an extreme situation I really feel like... they should build it to keep working as best it can even after what would generally be considered catastrophic damage to a regular Apple Watch (after all if I'm in an extreme situation, my focus should be on surviving, not babying my Apple Watch)

 

[Howard2k]

People ragging on OP kind of miss the point...
The Apple Watch Ultra is marketed as a device for use in extreme environments where hard impacts may not be uncommon. It's marketed as the "toughest" Apple Watch designed to be able to take a fall.
Now. Of course its bound by the laws of physics (and the materials its made out of) so of course, a fall, from the wrong height, at the wrong angle, onto the wrong type of surface is going to cause something to break but I can understand the disappointment as it really doesn't FEEL all that much more durable than a regular ol Apple Watch when it kicks the bucket after a fall many an Apple Watch has anecdotally survived....

I kind of feel like for this kind of device Apple should really be working on building something that can continue to function even if part of it breaks. If Apple wants to say this is a device for harsh environments... well **** happens in harsh environments, and in particular, if Apple wants say this is a tool that can help you survive an extreme situation I really feel like... they should build it to keep working as best it can even after what would generally be considered catastrophic damage to a regular Apple Watch (after all if I'm in an extreme situation, my focus should be on surviving, not babying my Apple Watch)

I think that's just a touch dramatic. It would be fool hardy to be relying solely on Apple Watch in a survival situation. It's tougher - it's not indestructible.

 

[Malus120]

I think that's just a touch dramatic. It would be fool hardy to be relying solely on Apple Watch in a survival situation. It's tougher - it's not indestructible.

So to be clear, I'm not saying you should necessarily wear your watch into a potential life or death scenario, nor that it should (or could) be indestructible) so much as it very much feels like that's how its being marketed...

The feature set (Backtrack, SOS, etc) and the marketing suggest its designed to get you out of (or help you avoid) risky situations in extreme conditions.

I'd say diving is just one of many of its purported use cases where... it's supposed to replace dive computers for divers..." but I'd imagine your dive computer failing could be pretty catastrophic (I would think they have back ups of course)

Apple leaned really hard on marketing this watch to a certain, very specific segment of the population, with the knock on effect being that I think everyone expects it to be a significant cut above the regular Apple Watch in regards to durability.

 

[Howard2k]

I don't dive any more but I would never have relied on a single dive computer. I know most people probably don't take a compass when they hike, but I wouldn't rely on a single compass either. I carry an old school one with me too. Even though I use the backtrack feature on my Watch. (Non-Ultra)

It IS a much tougher watch, that's indisputable. It's still going to break in some situations. I'd say Apple has delivered. (I don't own an Ultra and have no plans to get one).

 

[Asiatic Black Hebrew]

People ragging on OP kind of miss the point...
The Apple Watch Ultra is marketed as a device for use in extreme environments where hard impacts may not be uncommon. It's marketed as the "toughest" Apple Watch designed to be able to take a fall.
Now. Of course its bound by the laws of physics (and the materials its made out of) so of course, a fall, from the wrong height, at the wrong angle, onto the wrong type of surface is going to cause something to break but I can understand the disappointment as it really doesn't FEEL all that much more durable than a regular ol Apple Watch when it kicks the bucket after a fall many an Apple Watch has anecdotally survived....

I kind of feel like for this kind of device Apple should really be working on building something that can continue to function even if part of it breaks. If Apple wants to say this is a device for harsh environments... well **** happens in harsh environments, and in particular, if Apple wants say this is a tool that can help you survive an extreme situation I really feel like... they should build it to keep working as best it can even after what would generally be considered catastrophic damage to a regular Apple Watch (after all if I'm in an extreme situation, my focus should be on surviving, not babying my Apple Watch)

"Kicks the bucket" is a bit hyperbolic. A crack in the glass doesn't render the watch inoperable, so I'm not sure why everyone keeps equating scratched glass as evidence of low durability. The watch will still to continue to operate despite the damage.

 

[boss.king]

People ragging on OP kind of miss the point...
The Apple Watch Ultra is marketed as a device for use in extreme environments where hard impacts may not be uncommon. It's marketed as the "toughest" Apple Watch designed to be able to take a fall.
Now. Of course its bound by the laws of physics (and the materials its made out of) so of course, a fall, from the wrong height, at the wrong angle, onto the wrong type of surface is going to cause something to break but I can understand the disappointment as it really doesn't FEEL all that much more durable than a regular ol Apple Watch when it kicks the bucket after a fall many an Apple Watch has anecdotally survived....

I kind of feel like for this kind of device Apple should really be working on building something that can continue to function even if part of it breaks. If Apple wants to say this is a device for harsh environments... well **** happens in harsh environments, and in particular, if Apple wants say this is a tool that can help you survive an extreme situation I really feel like... they should build it to keep working as best it can even after what would generally be considered catastrophic damage to a regular Apple Watch (after all if I'm in an extreme situation, my focus should be on surviving, not babying my Apple Watch)

No, you miss the point. The front of the watch is more rugged. It's designed to be worn on the wrist, where the back its strapped securely against the wearer's arm and doesn't need further reinforcement. I'm not one to let companies off the hook for bad design or misleading claims but this is 100% the OP's fault and no amount of their smug "I guess I dropped it wrong" excuses will change that. Had the watch landed on its face, it almost certainly would have been fine.

 

[ksj1]

I don't dive any more but I would never have relied on a single dive computer. I know most people probably don't take a compass when they hike, but I wouldn't rely on a single compass either. I carry an old school one with me too. Even though I use the backtrack feature on my Watch. (Non-Ultra)

It IS a much tougher watch, that's indisputable. It's still going to break in some situations. I'd say Apple has delivered. (I don't own an Ultra and have no plans to get one).

Just a suggestion, but never take 2 compasses. Take 3. Otherwise if the two with you don't match you won't know which one is wrong.

 

[Night Spring]

Just a suggestion, but never take 2 compasses. Take 3. Otherwise if the two with you don't match you won't know which one is wrong.

But what if all three say different things? 🧐

 

[Howard2k]

Just a suggestion, but never take 2 compasses. Take 3. Otherwise if the two with you don't match you won't know which one is wrong.

Thanks. I actually do. One old school one, one on the phone, and on the watch. Plus if someone else is with me... But I didn’t want to sound too paranoid. It’s not like I’m really going anywhere backwoods.

 

[Isamilis]

Even a Rolex will break if you drop it on the wrong surface. And no, I didn’t have Apple care.

View attachment 2091722

Rolex never claimed as their most rugged watch, lol

 

[Howard2k]

Rolex never claimed as their most rugged watch, lol

 

[NT1440]

People ragging on OP kind of miss the point...
The Apple Watch Ultra is marketed as a device for use in extreme environments where hard impacts may not be uncommon. It's marketed as the "toughest" Apple Watch designed to be able to take a fall.
Now. Of course its bound by the laws of physics (and the materials its made out of) so of course, a fall, from the wrong height, at the wrong angle, onto the wrong type of surface is going to cause something to break but I can understand the disappointment as it really doesn't FEEL all that much more durable than a regular ol Apple Watch when it kicks the bucket after a fall many an Apple Watch has anecdotally survived....

I kind of feel like for this kind of device Apple should really be working on building something that can continue to function even if part of it breaks. If Apple wants to say this is a device for harsh environments... well **** happens in harsh environments, and in particular, if Apple wants say this is a tool that can help you survive an extreme situation I really feel like... they should build it to keep working as best it can even after what would generally be considered catastrophic damage to a regular Apple Watch (after all if I'm in an extreme situation, my focus should be on surviving, not babying my Apple Watch)

If the back of the watch broke during extreme use…it’d be the least of your worries because you’d be busy dealing with the extreme crush injury that just happened to your wrist/arm.

Cut the nonsense, the back of the watch’s protection is your arm itself.

 

[wgaller]

People ragging on OP kind of miss the point...
The Apple Watch Ultra is marketed as a device for use in extreme environments where hard impacts may not be uncommon. It's marketed as the "toughest" Apple Watch designed to be able to take a fall.
Now. Of course its bound by the laws of physics (and the materials its made out of) so of course, a fall, from the wrong height, at the wrong angle, onto the wrong type of surface is going to cause something to break but I can understand the disappointment as it really doesn't FEEL all that much more durable than a regular ol Apple Watch when it kicks the bucket after a fall many an Apple Watch has anecdotally survived....

I kind of feel like for this kind of device Apple should really be working on building something that can continue to function even if part of it breaks. If Apple wants to say this is a device for harsh environments... well **** happens in harsh environments, and in particular, if Apple wants say this is a tool that can help you survive an extreme situation I really feel like... they should build it to keep working as best it can even after what would generally be considered catastrophic damage to a regular Apple Watch (after all if I'm in an extreme situation, my focus should be on surviving, not babying my Apple Watch)

Then don’t buy one.