←back to thread

Apple Watch Ultra 3

(www.apple.com)
76 points surprisetalk | 3 comments | 09 Sep 25 17:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hu3 ◴[09 Sep 25 17:55 UTC] No.45185712[source]▶
Why can't Apple, of all manufacturers, produce a watch that can last longer on a charge than one or two days?

Garmins easily last a week.

replies(16): >>45185730 #>>45185745 #>>45185751 #>>45185779 #>>45185842 #>>45185916 #>>45185925 #>>45185948 #>>45185975 #>>45186006 #>>45186069 #>>45186088 #>>45187025 #>>45188003 #>>45190868 #>>45193079 #
1. burnerthrow008 ◴[09 Sep 25 18:02 UTC] No.45185842[source]▶
> Garmins easily last a week.

Oh, really?

https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/GUID-EECCAC99-90D6-4...

Looks like they last dramatically less than that if you buy an Garmin with comparable display and actually use the advertised features.

replies(2): >>45186296 #>>45187686 #
2. nulld3v ◴[09 Sep 25 18:26 UTC] No.45186296[source]▶
But that huge reduction in battery life is when you use GPS activity tracking. GPS usage on any watch will impact battery life, including the Apple Watch Ultra.

Comparing both watches in activity tracking mode + AOD off, the Garmin (44h) still has 2x the battery life compared to the Apple Watch Ultra (20h).

3. dontlaugh ◴[09 Sep 25 19:44 UTC] No.45187686[source]▶
If Apple made a watch with a smaller display and fewer features but 10-30 days of battery, I’d buy it.

I always have lots of Apple devices, but won’t deal with multiple that need daily charging.