Offline map test on Apple Watch Ultra for hiking
jooonas.medium.comComments in this thread are fairly dismissive of the Ultra as a serious competitor for Garmin's high end sport watches, and this article seems like an example of it not stacking up.
But if I was Garmin I'd be terrified of Apple coming into the space. I was at Fitbit when the first Apple watch came out, and we laughed at how inferior it was to many of our products for the first several releases. Then around series 3 we started saying things like "actually it would be really nice if we had this too", and now (series 8) they're clearly the smartwatch leader in most dimensions.
I hope Garmin can remain competitive in this space, but Apple's massive resources and the long term strategy that enables is very hard to compete with.
Meh.... 18 hours vs 18 days of battery life and an ridiculous price gap. I think that's all that needs to be said.
I hope Garmin don't think that way, or they're toast. Fortunately it looks like they have an advantage in enough areas they should be ok for now.
Apple will definitely take the more casual part of the market, the folks going on day hikes. But Garmin will I think stay king among the more serious hikers. The battery life is the Achilles heel of the Apple Watch, it really needs to be at least ~3 days long before anyone serious is even going to consider it.
How many people buying the Garmin are only using it for day hikes, or a few day trips where they're taking along a mobile battery anyway to charge their phone to take photos. I'd guess the % of people who need 18 days of battery life is very small.
> I'd guess the % of people who need 18 days of battery life is very small.
It's not that you will need 18 days of battery life, it's simply knowing that you have it there. If you're going off for 3-4 days on a hike, there's a possibility your trip is getting extended by bad weather, wild animals, and whatnot. Knowing that's a possibility you always pack extra gear, and the idea of your main map on the trail dying is not an option.
I would hope they have a paper map and compass as well (and probably a phone). The actual map on any smartwatch isn't super useful.
The vast majority of people who walk are those doing long walks or day hikes rather than multi-day hikes. That's the audience Apple is targeting here.
That fits my use. I go on 1- to 4-hour walks pretty regularly and the existing Apple Watch is already helpful for rough distance/time/calorie tracking. If the Apple Watch didn't exist, I'd probably have a Garmin, but I'm pretty happy with the "good enough" tracking features on it. I like that the Ultra shows that they care about this market.
People need to understand the advertising is mostly aspirational. Just like most GoPro buyers film their trip down the intermediate downhill ski slope, not over a waterfall in a kayak or base jumping.
The extra battery life of the Ultra will be nice as will the new apps. Garmin still makes more serious "adventure" watches but for really hard-core mountaineering, I'm not sure to what degree people actually depend on watches that still need periodic charging.
I bet apple has a solar charger of some sort sitting in a table in their R&D department now: maybe it’s a strap, maybe it’s under the screen? I’m thinking it’ll just be for the watch and not the phones (they get too hot sitting in the sun) I think we’ll see it when satellite SOS comes to the watch.
Getting these vibes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
Yes in the future maybe Apple will eat Garmin's cake and lunch. But for now its just a shiny not-so-useful gimmick compared to Garmin's. I bought my wife same Garmin as author compares to, I have few friends who are deep into drinking Apple's cool-aid... and its uncomparable device for outdoors.
One is jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, the other possibly the best civilian gadget for map-on-wrist hiking (apart from 7 series which are way too expensive but stack up on that shininess better).
Plus lets not forget a very important point skimmed in article, where Apple fails even if rest would be comparable - miserable battery life. The topic is about going to wilderness, and gadget desperately needing recharging much more often is simply vastly inferior to one needing less. Also they seem much less rugged, which is pretty bad for outdoors where you bang watches against trees and rock frequently.
So situation for outdoors is unlike in phones segment, where on most fronts (but far from all) when you pay Apple money you get a very decent and capable phone. In watches you get just OK watches within their segment (compared to products from Xiaomi, Samsung etc.)
Do you think apple held off for 20 years because some of Garmin’s patents are expiring? Interested to know the behind the scenes of the inevitable patent issues.
Fenix 5 owner here who recently upgraded to the Ultra. For daily stuff and "normal" workouts, it's way more useful. I get alerts from my cameras with useable images when they detect faces around our house, for example. I can do useful things like watch my grill temp + probe temp from the watch. The face customization experience is a LOT better than the Fenix. It feels like an entirely different class of device with the responsive touchscreen and bright screen that refreshes quickly. The Fenix feels like a souped-up version of the Timex Ironman Triathlon watch I had in the 90s (with Timex Datalink to sync data with a PC via CRT flashes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Datalink ).
As far as which I'd take backpacking: neither. The Fenix isn't a better UX than our iPhones, and we already take battery backups for the phones + put them on airplane mode with low brightness and get ~2-4 days of battery life out of them that way (usually shutting them down completely at night). The watches aren't worth the grams yet -- it's weight I'd rather spend on a nice phone pocket for my backpack (I like the Prometheus Design Werx SPX Pouch). I'm hopeful that another year of software updates for the Ultra might fix that -- if it did have useable topo maps + dynamic offline route planning, it might be worth it.
The other big benefit I see is cellular. Now, when I go for a run / bike ride / etc I don't actually need my phone, and if I'm confident that I might stop somewhere with Apple Pay, I might not need my wallet either. Back when I was riding pretty seriously, it was common for folks to just bring their ID and some cash. I'm also excited about the prospect of using the watch as a fully-featured bike computer, given it's about the exact same size as the old Polar bike computers I used to love.
Not using your Garmin for hiking is very surprising.
Primary reason is that tracking position for the duration drains battery where Garmin can do 50hrs of it. This gives me a .gpx file of the route for future reference and passing to friends.
Second is that while tracking it's 10x easier to check current distance and elevation on a watch vs phone. I head out with a list of mileage for every notable waypoint (water, turns, elevation of passes, etc). I'm constantly checking this and only if I'm questioning my route do I pull out my phone.
Weight: Fenix is heavy- 945 is better, Coros Pace 2 even better.
Maybe I got a lemon but after taking way too long to conclude this was the case, the Fenix 5 just never gave me correct distances and I gave up on using it. Tried all the usual setting changes.
For a day hike, my Apple Watch 3 is adequate but battery life is a bit marginal. I assume the Ultra will be sufficiently better that day hikes (which is mostly what I do) will be fine.
Location on Fenix 5 is quite inaccurate compared to Fenix 7 or Ultra - especially with tree cover.
I mean my Apple Watch 3 is spot-on compared to the Fenix 5 which could be off by double-digit percentages. I found the Fenix 5 was pretty accurate on straight paths. But, yeah, tree cover, switchbacking up hills, etc. really threw it off.
I totally get all the arguments in favor of the Fenix 7 or related. It's really a question IMO of whether you want a mostly dedicated watch for relatively hardcore outdoor activities or if you want an Apple Watch and its ecosystem to do routine day-to-day smartwatch things while also doing a lot of outdoor activities better than prior Apple Watches though probably not overall as well as a dedicated device.
I was sort of on the fence prior to the latest announcement but, for me, the Ultra seems the pretty clear choice.
> Garmin can do 50hrs of it.
Isn't that in UltraTrac mode though which is essentially useless (based on my experience using it with my Fenix 5, anyway)?
The newer Fenixs can do 50 hours of regular GPS mode. Not even including solar.
Your Garmin had an option to load a credit card and tap-pay, no Ultra needed.
In my country, New Zealand, Garmin pay only supports cards from one bank and about five random credit cards issued by stores and consumer credit firms. It is exceptionally disappointing.
In the UK the situation is similar, but that didn’t seem like a major blocker to me. I just opened an account with the supported bank.
On the plus side, it does seem to be widely supported at payment terminals (I’ve yet to find anywhere that accepts card payment that doesn’t accept garmin pay)
The 5 Plus does, the regular 5 does not. So it depends what they have. Garmin Pay is pretty poorly supported in some countries too.
> The other big benefit I see is cellular.
This. I seldom if ever leave the house with a phone during a normal day or on my bike rides. I use my Apple Watch SE on moderate rides (50 to 100 miles), use NFC during rest stops, and pull up the occasional map when I forget a turn. Cellular is a big plus. And if one day in the future, I can get a cellular enabled Apple Watch that is standalone and not dependent on having an iPhone, I'm first in line. I have no reason to carry an iPhone with me.
> if one day in the future, I can get a cellular enabled Apple Watch that is standalone and not dependent on having an iPhone
Not sure what you mean here, but right now Apple Watch cellular models can be set up to be independent of the iPhone that set them up (meaning a different number & alerts), although you are still reliant on having that phone to configure them.
You, as a consumer that does not have an iPhone, cannot walk into a store and buy an Apple Watch that is cellular enabled/activated. You have to have an iPhone to have it provisioned and configured.
In my perfect world, I purchase a cellular enabled Apple Watch, login to some eSIM provider portal or Apple, provide them my MEID and then the watch provisions. Then I can configure notifications, apps, etc... via iCloud.com or from my MacBook.
I honestly do not need a mobile phone at this point in my life and my Apple Watch is just absolutely perfect for my day to day needs outside the home.
Sounds like you're getting all the benefits of a regular apple watch with cellular, no need for the Ultra
Ultra has almost the double physical battery and may have some exclusive optimization to GPS and HR that may not come to other watches when released later this year.
One difference is that the Ultra supports dual-frequency GPS, which I believe is a competitive advantage of the Fenix 5 as compared to the Series 8.
The Fenix 7 supports dual frequency GPS. That and the battery life improvements seem to be the significant differentiators between the Fenix 6 and 7. I’ve gotten very used to the Fenix UI when backpacking and have it basically committed to muscle memory at this point. For that reason I’d much prefer to upgrade my Fenix every other generation than move to the Apple Watch. Also, if you’re hiking with some sunlight, the solar charging feature of the solar editions of Garmin watches are quite nice. I’ve squeezed a few extra days of the watch before thanks to solar, and that’s been invaluable.
Just buy a Garmin if you want to do anything -useful- with your watch for sports or outdoors. Apple is 5-10 years behind their reliability or battery life. And if you’re going somewhere without a cell signal… or god forbid, you don’t have (shudder) wifi, it’ll tick right along.
Not to mention they don’t sunset their products after 12 months… your watch will get updates for a long time. They’re also -very- repairable to boot.
Sure they’re 5-10 years behind, but I wouldn’t underestimate Apple’s ability to create a thriving ecosystem.
Any Garmin app developers worth their salt should be scrambling to port their existing apps to the Apple Watch platform. It’s currently an under-supplied market, and failing to tap into that opportunity is a bad business strategy.
Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they extend the user repair program to this sector.
Also, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that they sunset their products after 12 months. They might refresh them, but that doesn’t change the software support cycle.
Not at all, Garmin is not fashionware like Apple. You buy Garmin because you are an athlete that needs an actual complete product that is tested and bullet proof; where you own the hardware, and you’re not ‘renting’ it from Apple. If you want to flash how fancy you are to your coworkers and have a second iPhone, you buy the iwatch.
Apple does not hold a candle to Garmin’s software for sports and training… they have everything from an actual desktop app that works (gasp) without an internet connection, an online portal where you can freely download all of YOUR data (gasp) if you choose the connected option, and the sports and training analytics is light years ahead of Apple.
And besides, Apple can’t receive ANT+ signals from connected sensors, and BLE battery life is abysmal in comparison.
The only thing Apple has on Garmin is the have app stores full on apps, but that’s it. Nobody is using their Garmin to play Candy Crush but that misses the point.
Eh... I think there is an enormous gap between “pro athlete” and “normal smartwatch user” that does not diminish to just “fashionware”. The battery life sucks tho, thats what keeps me from using one. I think the health and exercise features are more than fine enough for “non-pro athletes”. No idea what “renting from apple” means but it does not seem to be the watch for you.
Garmin sensors are more precise, and the off the shelf analytics are better. Everything else in that parent comment is nonsense.
Apple Health data is very easy to download and share with 3rd parties (say a 3rd party that has better analytics than Apple Health offers, for instance…). I don’t get the battery complaints either. I only ever charge mine while I’m in the shower, and I don’t really have any problems. The only instance I found it an issue was in 24+ hour ultras, but I don’t think that’s what most people are complaining about…
Imo, the advantage that Apple has over the more well equipped Garmin models is that it’s comfortable to wear all day and sleep with. I never liked wearing the chunkier Garmins outside of training.
Any proof for Garmin sensors being more precise?
TheQuantifiedScientist on his YouTube channel has great tests for many wearable devices and their sensors. His assessment has been very favorable for AW Ultra on HR, location and sleep when compared to Garmin devices: for sleep tracking Garmin is very inaccurate, for HR and location Fenix 7 and Ultra are identical. Fenix 6 and older are poor.
Blood oxygen and temperature seems to be quite inaccurate on both.
Just my own anecdata I guess. I’ve always found heartbeat and location tracking to be a lot better with the Garmins. I haven’t trained with the new Apple Watches yet though, so maybe I’m completely wrong…
The thing about Apple products is that no serious professional would use a Macbook, no one with a job requiring critical connectivity will use an iPhone, no serious photographer will use an iPhone. Until they do.
They ate the business Thinkpad. They ate the Blackberry. They ate some portion of the SLRs.
And each time they weren't serious.
> Totally agree re: the current state of repairability and support
Is the target market really concerned about this? I’ll chew through a $200-300 pair of shoes in 4-6 weeks, and I’m more-or-less a casual runner. The cost of attending events is much more than that. I probably would buy a Garmin if I was really taking things seriously, but the Apple Watch does what I need, and even if I brought a brand new one every year it wouldn’t have much impact on the costs of this hobby.
Top result on Google for how many km should running shoes last
Experts recommend you replace your running shoes every 500 to 750 kilometers. That's roughly every 300 to 500 miles, which equates to approximately four to six months for someone who runs 20 miles a week.
What are you doing replacing your shoes every 4 weeks?
I typically get around 400-600 kms out of a fresh pair of running shoes before the tread is completely gone and the energy return structure stops returning energy. I typically run about 100km/week. A bit less if I’m tapering, or injured (not very often), or on holiday. I also walk a lot, which I have different shoes for, but that adds an extra few pairs to the annual shoes bill as well.
Edit: I probably go through shoes slightly faster than most runners, because I weigh a bit more than most runners. But I don’t think that’s a huge factor.
> I’m more-or-less a casual runner
> I typically run about 100km/week
This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".
I cannot consistently qualify for majors, I have never been paid to run, and I’ve never entered a race that I had the intention of winning, and I have a normal job and social life. Perhaps you could qualify it by saying I’m a casual _endurance_ runner. But I am very much a casual. My lifestyle might be vastly different from a sedentary lifestyle, but it’s not so different from that of all the other casual marathon runners out there.
You’re definitely no beer league athlete. I think “amateur athlete” used to be the right term here, before it gained the negative connotation.
As for the target market, I’m torn whether Apple is seriously going after athletes or whether it’s actually mostly marketing, as with their “pro” laptops.
Yeah, I get that. I think just a terminology thing. It seems like you're using "casual" to describe your mindset whereas I'm understanding "casual" to be offhand, or without significant investment. Forgetting about the absolutely massive time investment, spending > 2000$/year on running shoes alone is a distinctly not-casual thing to do.
> it’s not so different from that of all the other casual marathon runners out there
Maybe this is the disconnect? People who have ever run a marathon at all are < 1%, and people who continually run marathons casually are a niche within that niche. If the audience is "people who run more than 50km per week" then I think "casual" probably gets the right idea across, that's just a teeny tiny audience.
You're an amateur runner but you're not a casual runner. I run about 35KM a week and I am in the 99% percentile of Garmin users (with a connected watch I guess) for running distance. Most are doing sub-10.
What's your weekly mileage? Are you doing something extreme to your shoes? Most runners don't spend, nor could they afford to spend $250 per pair of shoes that wear out in 6 weeks. Try $100 every 6 months instead. Events do add up but for most runners it comes out to roughly the same as the shoes or less. Running is popular because it's affordable. You might be projecting your rarefied well funded lifestyle onto the rest of the market
About 60 miles (and I weigh about 180lb). I probably do 4 or 5 marathons a year, and a couple of ultras. My mileage isn’t excessive for people who complete marathons around the same pace as I do, or better (of which there are many, many people), and every time I look around the field at an event, it’s full of $200-$300 energy return running shoes.
Perhaps most of them don’t train in their race shoes, but that’s honestly a bad practice.
Endurance sports is a pretty boujee hobby. Running is the cheapest one, but it’s not that cheap if you really get into it.
If you had to guess, what percentile of the general population are you in when it comes to fitness?
I’d probably rank quite well amongst the general population. But I’m talking about fitness enthusiasts here, specifically the subgroup of long distance runners. Within that group I’d probably be “not bad”…
You run 4-5 marathons a year. That is more than many professional runners, who usually limit themselves to 4 a year max, because of the sheer amount of stress a marathon puts your body through. Add in the ultras, and you are running more than pretty much anyone being paid to do so.
You do not rank "quite well". You rank in the 0.1%, and even amongst fitness enthusiasts, you also rank easily amongst the top 10%. Not necessarily in terms of speed, but in raw distance done.
That’s not a very good way of looking at things. Professional marathon runners have a completely different set of priorities to me, and perform at a massively different level. Eliud Kipchoge has only run 2 marathons so far this year, I have run 3. That doesn’t make me 1.5x fitter than Kipchoge, or say anything at all really about the relative level of fitness between him and I.
I run a lot because I love to run. But I don’t set a competitive pace in any of the events I attend. I would claim to have rather strong knees, but that doesn’t translate into pace or fitness, just into mileage and a certain level of resistance to knee injuries.
> Not to mention they don’t sunset their products after 12 months
Apple still provides security updates for the iPhone 5s from 2013.
Doesn’t matter. Your applications could choose not to include certain iOS versions anymore. And then you’re SOL, even if you’ve paid for the app but now the online component doesn’t work because they changed their APIs.
That risk exists for all electronics. The point remains: 12 months is not an accurate assessment of how long you can expect software upgrades.
Depending on the app, do you really expect companies to devote X resources (maybe even a full, separate iOS team) specifically to maintain a version of an app for older devices?
Maybe that's feasible for the larger tech companies but not the smaller ones.
What's your suggested alternative for a 2013 device?
I just find it weird that in their reveal event they portrayed all these people doing extreme sports in the middle of nowhere, climbing some huge mountain with the watch, and then you find out it has a battery life of 36 hours at most. You're supposed to carry a power bank to your climbing expedition and charge your watch constantly? How impractical is that.
You mean you don’t snap on the magnetic puck while the watch is still on your arm, cable dangling, while you hold a power bank in your hand?
Does the Apple Watch actually support charging in the middle of a workout?
The first generations of the Garmin Fenix actually supported charging in use with a very overcomplicated charging cable: https://youtu.be/S9haDnwIuSQ
It does not. As soon as you take the puck out, you have to input your pin again.
Well, if you're climbing some huge mountain in the middle of nowhere you probably need to charge your Garmin as well.
Garmin absolutely has better battery life. But if you can see your way to charging the Apple Watch more frequently it seems more interesting for a combination of regular smartwatch use and day activities. And, if you are climbing huge mountains in the middle of nowhere, I assume purchasing a specialized watch if you want one is the least of your expenses. (Or something like an InReach.)
You may need to charge… but the Garmin uses something like ~10mAh/day? You could top off the watch for months with a single pair of AAA batteries.
Just make sure you keep them warm.
It's been a while since I've done any high-altitude mountaineering. I honest don't know what people actually use these days. Certainly GPS watches didn't exist when I was climbing. Not sure if people use power-hungry watches that need to be charged these days or not.
I feel like if you are going on a week long hike, carrying a power bank is not that noticeable compared to everything else you need. A power bank that fits in your pocket would power the watch for a month.
Agree on every point except sunsetting in 12 months. What are you referencing there? They just this year sunset new OS versions for the Apple Watch 3, which was released in 2017 (the 4 came out in 2018).
Not OP, but Apple has been selling Apple Watch series 3 as a new device in 2022, so people who bought it got less than a year of software updates.
This was such a confusing decision. The s3 has been pretty much unusable with how low power it is for a while now. How they kept selling it beyond its useful life is a mystery.
It will still get security updates, but the hardware is a the point of no new support. If you don’t need those features in newer watches it makes a perfect device keep track of kids/elderly who don’t need all the bells and whistles
Oh man that is shitty!
Why are they sunsetting devices that still boot and literally just work fine? So wasteful.
The devices continue to work the exact same way… apple just does not choose to spend the money adding new features to it (or in more likelihood, testing that new features that require newer hardware do not screw the old device up). The watches still appear in the Watch app etc. If there is a bug to fix (like security), the device/versions will often end up getting out of band updates for even longer.
I have an Apple Watch 3. I will probably buy an Ultra. And I plan to continue using the Apple Watch 3 for a lot of routine wear indefinitely. Probably won't use a lot of apps beyond a watchface and random local walks though.
Do you remember when Garmin made phones? Maybe not, because it was only for a year. They released their flagship Nuvifone with much fanfare (to T-Mobile customers, anyway) in June of 2010. They announced that they were withdrawing from the phone market that October. To be fair, they did release one update after that.
apple products are not sunset for _years_. the iPhone 8 i think is being sunset NOW. 6 phones later and it still got sw updates
Why are they sunsetting hardware that is in perfect working order?
They are sunsetting future OS feature updates for it, not the hardware itself. Plus they release security patches for some older devices as well. Eg iPhone 8 supports latest OS, but they just released a patch for OS that supports iPhone 5s, which came out 9 years ago.
You make a phone. After one year, you release a newer, faster phone, and then repeat every year following. At which point do you stop producing the first phone you made?
Perhaps you say "when it stops working". Well if that were the bar then we would still be producing computers from the 90s. Ok so maybe you say "no, when it stops running the apps I want to run". Sounds reasonable enough. So when should the app makers stop supporting the older hardware? Presumably at the point when maintaining the old hardware starts costs more than they make from the support.
This point will be reached sooner or later, and you might disagree with it because you still see the product as fully capable, but ultimately the phone will stop making economic sense at some point and production will stop.
Also the minimum repair cost ($499). The Apple repair pricing may work for laptops and even phones, but for a not for a watch designed to be taken diving, skiing, mountaineering and trail running.
Garmins repair costs are much more reasonable and for things like broken screens there are third party options.
with AppleCare+ :
""" AppleCare+ for Apple Watch, Apple Watch Nike, and Apple Watch Ultra extends your coverage3 and includes unlimited incidents of accidental damage protection. Each incident is subject to a $69 service fee plus applicable tax for Apple Watch and Apple Watch Nike, and $79 service fee plus applicable tax for Apple Watch Ultra.2 In addition, you’ll get 24/7 priority access to Apple experts by chat or phone. """
It's aspirational. Apple Watch Ultra is great for wanna be athletes, not actual ones.
Lack of offline maps are a showstopper for using the new Apple Watch Ultra for multi-day hiking. This post tests the only workaround against Garmin Fenix.
Here's a counterpoint. If I actually want to look at a map, I look at my phone or a paper map. I find squinting at a map on a watch way too small to be useful. The apps I've used on both Garmins and the Apple Watch have a map screen that I basically never use.
It's only a showstopper for using it for multi-day hiking with no other map system.
The watch still has many helpful features outside of being your exclusive postage-stamp-sized map system.
I’ve been hanging on to my Series 3 for years now waiting on a watch refresh that brings another useful sensor or expands the screen large enough to make the watch usable for at least viewing Twitter-size content.
Along comes the Ultra with a massive footprint and a temperature sensor (albeit one only useful for monitoring averages). My time has finally arrived.
And then it turns out that the usable screen size is essentially a rounding error compared to the Series 7 and the temp sensor is limited to reproductive tracking (guessing this is a regulatory thing).
Ah well, maybe next year.
Gruber assesses the size difference more positively.
Huh, I didn’t know about the sleep tracking being able to record wrist temp. That’s something at least.
I suppose I’ll have to see it in person, but the pixel jump between the Ultra and the 7 is sub-2% while the jump between 6-7 was 16-17% iirc.
I also read a worrying mini-review comment on 9to5Mac from an Ultra owner that some of the watch faces are somehow displaying SMALLER than on the poster’s 7. Can’t direct link the comment so I quoted the relevant snippet below. Obv I’m taking it with a grain of salt until I see confirmation but it would be an odd thing to lie about so specifically.
“Face on Metropolitan is indeed smaller on the Ultra. 28mm diameter on Ultra, 29mm on 45mm Series 7!”
Offline map situation on Ultra is complicated. WorkOutDoors + Garmin Explore combination is a decent workaround, but nowhere as robust as Garmin Fenix. Various details may make the workaround no-go for you: do you have access to the Garmin Explore app, is having only a small map acceptable for you, is the battery life sufficient for you, is routing on watch a must have for you, …
European smartphones (Nokia) in 2010: "here are offline maps of the entire developed world free of charge". Americans in 2022: "offline maps - yay or nay?".
Hopefully other apps like AllTrails will support offline maps eventually. It honestly surprised me that they didn’t
I think that the iOS built-in map component does not support offline vector maps. Most apps (with exception of WorkOutDoors) use that and cannot support improper offline without Apple updating the component.
really wish Hiking Project did, as that's what we usually use for finding trails, with CalTopo for backcountry / backpacking stuff.
thought Alltrails does ! its not automatic, but one can download for select routes .. oh must be a paid feature ..
I like Alltrails but their Watch app certainly seems dependent on their phone app. If you open it without your phone nearby, it will just say "Waiting for the AllTrails App" or something similar.
I love my Garmin Fenix 7 watch. Built in surf session tracking is superb. Lots of other cool features, solar charging and over a week of battery for my use. I ditched my Apple watch for it.
Having said that, one dangerous area where Garmin is missing a boat is their Garmin IQ store - that ecosystem is basically dead with very few useful apps.
One one hand i absolutely agree. But on the other, has anybody, Apple included, figured out any terribly useful apps for a watch that doesn’t already come built in or partner with a phone?
Well, at least pre-Ultra, Apple was rather deficient in outdoor activity apps including hiking. But that may now be moot with the Ultra. (And the Ultra probably explains Apple's benign neglect of this area prior.)
Yeah, this is my only complaint about my Fenix 6. Total lack of any kind of app ecosystem. I don't even know how they'd manage to create one without some sort of open standard for delivering richer notifications to watches or something. It's a bummer.
Doesn't help that you have to write apps in their proprietary language.
I'm clearly an outlier... But a Casio for a watch, and then an old Garmin bike computer with OSM maps has proven the best for hiking.
Large screen, incredible battery life, and OSM maps when off road just beat everything except Ordnance Survey in the UK.
I do have a Fenix 5, but it's not very good TBH. I did try an older Apple watch and similarly not very good. I thought about Suunto but they seemed more watersports oriented.
The best of the outdoor devices I have has no hiking features. That's my Hammerhead bike computer. The software is great, the maps are OSM, the hardware is great. If that came with a neck collar loop and a hiking profile it would be my single device for outdoor things.
I get what they’re going for but apple made it clear with two things he’s not the target audience (yet):
- cellular only (first in this space that no one speaks of with this battery capacity)
- them catering to planners/trainers in their adversing.
Sure Apple is pricey and they don’t make for everyone, but no one markets with bullseyes like Apple in tech. I hope Garmin truly welcomes the competition. It’s getting sad and I would love pressure on Apple to really continue attempting to push the space of wearables and not get idle from being on a market island
Work Outdoors is an amazing app for logging hikes and showing allowing me to glance down and see a OSM map of where I had walked, lovely little Apple Watch app.
Even though I've only had it since Friday morning, I love the Ultra so far and see a lot of potential for it.
I think that there's a big enough market where the Garmin devices and the Apple Watch Ultra will both coexist and fill their own niches. I'm looking forward to what we see on the Ultra here in the future. this was a fun article and I love seeing users already working on this.
The elevation profile of a planned hike really is the one thing I miss from WorkOutDoors. Too often do I look at my iPhone to see where exactly I’m at in the climb.
Hopefully it works better than podcasts on iOS when you go out of your way to download your content in advance for offline consumption.