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

Apple Watch Ultra vs. Ultra 2 Buyer's Guide: 12 Differences Compared

64GB storage should allow you to store all the offline maps you need. Why Apple is choosing not to support that?

Garmin have had in-watch offline maps with in-watch navigation for many years. Apple has superior hardware that could give superior UX if Apple so chooses, but for now Garmin remains superior for actually having a working offline map. Apple, get your priorities together by choosing to compete with Garmin (that remains superior for hiking and sports).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: A.R.E.A.M.
alexandr said:
With these incremental updates, how am I ever supposed to upgrade from my S6?..
Click to expand...
I've also got an S6, an thinking maybe it's about time, and maybe even an ultra. I still think that island off to the side is ugly...
 
bradincroton said:
on the watch itself or in the garmin app? Seems like your problem is maybe with the apple fitness app not the watch. There's lots of apps the aw can connect to to do all this.
Click to expand...
All of this is available on the watch with no phone/internet connection. It's collecting data, crunching numbers, and giving you insights.
 
thefredelement said:
These are all available on the watch itself w/out even opening the app.. it seems like your problem is judging a wearable market product w/out even really knowing what's available, you're like Apple's favorite kind of consumer.
Click to expand...
That's nice to know, but it still doesn't justify the need for another device for me and my fitness/wellness, and I think it is fair to say - most other people. Happy to connect to and look at other apps for this information on my phone or elsewhere with a larger screen (or beyond my own metrics entirely), and just have one device that does all the other stuff the apple watch does connected to the rest of my life beyond fitness. I can't for example, leave my phone at home and go for a run (or just detach from it) keeping in touch with my kids if needed, respond to work issues, etc. All of that overvalues having the extra battery life or on phone metrics with a Garmin. To me, it doesn't make sense to have two watches, or one that isn't the apple watch as my sole one. Again, I can recognize the use for a certain small percentage of people who for whatever physical or limitation/lifestyle need or other, feel that Garmin or whatever is right for them. If I just didn't want to wear a watch all the time (outside of running/exrcising) that's probably what I'd get, but it's much more than that for most people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz
So is the thought that the Ultra will rev every year? I am already holding off on replacing my 12PM to next year and if there will just be a new Ultra next year I might as well upgrade them together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjgrif
I would have upgraded from the 1st Ultra if there was some new health sensor or upgraded heart rate monitor but I guess I will just wait until the Ultra Watch 3.
 
darthbane2k said:
Speaks volumes about the 'new' Apple
Click to expand...
Apple has been comparing transistor counts to older models since iPhone 6s. And they've been listing transistor counts long before that in their computers.
techjourneyman.com

iPhone 13 vs Older iPhones

The iPhone 13 Pro and the iPhone 13 Pro Max is the most technologically advanced smartphone that Apple ever make to date. The technologies that is packed in the Pro lines are class leading and in some cases, ahead of the competition. That being said, let’s not discount the “base” iPhone models...
techjourneyman.com techjourneyman.com
 
I will replace my S6 with an Ultra when there is a more substantial update. I use a hard case on my current watch which has saved me from potential damage. Is the Ultra face harder to damage than the S series?
 
I am struggling with this exclusive AW2 feature….

Flashlight boost via Digital Crown

Surely this is an error? What does this even mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LlamaLarry
thefredelement said:
Apple are nuts not improving battery life, this doesn't compete with more advanced fitness watches, like Garmin epix or fenix. Apple Watch Ultra doesn't last long enough to track an ultra marathon and seems like an ultra waste of money.
Click to expand...
Apple’s not targeting that ultra specific niche of customers with the Ultra watch so why compromise other functionality for the very few people who will buy it for those extreme fitness features?

The Garmin watches may excel in the fitness components but don’t compare is all other elements regular people use their watch for. I’d wager Apple outsells those Garmin equivalents by a factor of 10 because of it.
 
thefredelement said:
not if you want real stats around your performance and recovery. Good luck sleep tracking to check HRV on a watch that will die in the middle of the night...
Click to expand...
Agreed, folks who want extensive real stats around your performance and recovery should use specialty devices to capture them.
 
Is the new face with Night Mode going to be exclusive to Ultra 2, or available in watchOS 10 for existing Ultras?
 
Last edited:
tbayrgs said:
Apple’s not targeting that ultra specific niche of customers with the Ultra watch so why compromise other functionality for the very few people who will buy it for those extreme fitness features?

The Garmin watches may excel in the fitness components but don’t compare is all other elements regular people use their watch for. I’d wager Apple outsells those Garmin equivalents by a factor of 10 because of it.
Click to expand...
Apple watch is a contradiction as a health tracker b/c it can't track someone 24/7, it can't respond dynamically to sleep quality and training load, it can't coach you to a higher VO2 max, it can't last long enough to track an ultra marathon. It doesn't last long enough to profile sleep and then for the data is does gather, you need to go find several third party app developers, which may or may not exist in the future, to get insightful data out of it.

At that point the Ultra version is a waste compared to the regular version - its supposed to give you more than the regular watch, of which I've owned several, including series 0, something before the 4 or 5, I have a 7 or 8 on my desk and have had dedicated polar running watches the Garmin fenix 5x and now the Garmin epix pro but doesn't measure up to others, especially at its price point.

The apple watch is great if you're a screen person but if you're serious about your personal health or fitness there are much better options available to consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
jole said:
64GB storage should allow you to store all the offline maps you need. Why Apple is choosing not to support that?

Garmin have had in-watch offline maps with in-watch navigation for many years. Apple has superior hardware that could give superior UX if Apple so chooses, but for now Garmin remains superior for actually having a working offline map. Apple, get your priorities together by choosing to compete with Garmin (that remains superior for hiking and sports).
Click to expand...
?? Apple sells way more than Garmin. Why should "Apple, get your priorities together by choosing to compete with Garmin" ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jz0309
thefredelement said:
Apple watch is a contradiction as a health tracker b/c it can't track someone 24/7, it can't respond dynamically to sleep quality and training load, it can't coach you to a higher VO2 max, it can't last long enough to track an ultra marathon. It doesn't last long enough to profile sleep and then for the data is does gather, you need to go find several third party app developers, which may or may not exist in the future, to get insightful data out of it.

At that point the Ultra version is a waste compared to the regular version - its supposed to give you more than the regular watch, of which I've owned several, including series 0, something before the 4 or 5, I have a 7 or 8 on my desk and have had dedicated polar running watches the Garmin fenix 5x and now the Garmin epix pro but doesn't measure up to others, especially at its price point.

The apple watch is great if you're a screen person but if you're serious about your personal health or fitness there are much better options available to consumers.
Click to expand...
You are saying the ultra can’t go 24-32 hours for an ultra marathon? I find that hard to believe.
 
Allen_Wentz said:
Seriously? It means 60% more transistors than whatever was being compared to. What is so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
You went right beside the point...

Apple's marketing = Almost always focused on the experience of the customer.
Other companies' marketing = Almost always focused on specs.

It sounded fishy to see Apple announce not only a spec, but a spec that no one really knows what differences it makes.
One could argue it's just bad marketing, I would argue it's marketing meant to trick people into thinking it's 60% faster.

Allen_Wentz said:
The operational impact of so many more transistors and tens of thousands of engineering hours will likely be substantive. But it will take weeks of usage to get a feel for the changes.
Click to expand...
It's would be surprising to take "weeks of usage" to notice a substantial upgrade.
If it's truly substantial, you should most certainly notice right away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
thefredelement said:
...the Ultra version is a waste compared to the regular version
Click to expand...
We disagree. I owned two AWs prior to the Ultra, and (for me) the value add of the different form factor of the Ultra is huge, well worth the extra cost. Not for extra tracking detail, but for form factor. Obviously YMMV and obviously not everyone will prefer the AWU form factor.
 
Last edited:
Allen_Wentz said:
FWIW: I just enabled ✈ mode on my AWU1 and was able to use Siri no problem. what's this about it not being on-device except on the new ones?? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I think airplane mode does not turn off connection between Watch and phone, as I recall. Maybe that's why it's still able to process Siri commands?
 
I was very sad to see my Ultra was going to be out of date after a year. But now I am okay with it.
 
PsykX said:
It's would be surprising to take "weeks of usage" to notice a substantial upgrade.
If it's truly substantial, you should most certainly notice right away.
Click to expand...
What I said was, it will take weeks of usage to get a feel for the changes. Perhaps you are just more perceptive than I am, but in my experience although some substantial things may immediately present, it takes me weeks of usage before I start to get the nuances of a new device. Many times I may remain unaware of some useful new feature for months.

The point remains however that I expect the new device to be substantively improved - - even if it takes me weeks to appreciate the improvements ;~)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PsykX
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