Their competitors: Garmin, coros all offer weeks of battery life with tradeoffs people in this segment happily make.
I get 20 days of battery life on my coros pace 2. Charging a apple watch every night or two would not be acceptable.
The thing is though, I've only found it really useful if I'm doing stiff ascents and am not comfortable with my training. Mostly just to keep an eye on my heartrate, if my training/preparations are adequate for my trip, I don't use it at all.
If you are really UL, you can ditch the phone and just use the Ultra. Apple Watch + small battery is lighter than a Fenix + iPhone + battery.
Personally that device never interested me because:
1) if I can rely on cell phone signal, I’m likely doing a quick and simple hike where I don’t have to worry about draining my cell phone battery in the first place, or
2) if I can’t rely on cell phone signal (much more likely), which is especially likely in the US wilderness, then if I’m doing something precarious in a remote setting I’ll have to bring a beacon and satellite communicator anyway. Like an InReach Mini.
The fact that Garmin is releasing even higher end watches without cell phone connectivity likely indicates there’s not a lot of people buying nearly $1k fitness watches finding that functionality compelling.
Obviously people doing this are likely too narrow a segment for Apple. Like, why would Apple care that I’m not buying their watch? I was just engaged by their headline marketing for this watch until I saw the specs.
Does it make phone calls?
I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.
> I really have a hard time seeing who this watch is for.
I would say basically anyone who likes their Apple Watch (and there are a lot of us out there), is comfortable with the size and aesthetic, and has $800 to blow on a smart watch.
Currently The Apple Watch is a nice casual fitness tracker and the Watch Ultra doesn't change any of that.
It is definitely not for me this year, it does not have the battery life I need during an excursion and there is no possibility of charge on the go (like good old Garmin watches that you can charge while using during an activity).
But in few years it will advance the same way apple watch has advanced :-).
This seems like an overly cynical take to me.
I agree that the marketing was a bit over the top, and most people who buy one will not be doing things like running ultra marathons in the Sahara. And for people who do those things, there are probably better watches out there from Garmin, etc.
But you don't need to be an explorer (or roleplay as one) to benefit from the longer battery life, larger and brighter display, improved GPS accuracy, improved audio and microphone quality, etc.
I think this is just how Apple markets themselves. They know that most of the people who buy the Apple watch are not going to use it for 100 milers, and don't need the extra battery life.
I love how they call it a "revolutionary new design", yet most people on the street likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the Ultra and non-ultra.
The only long-lasting battery is the iPhone's, but it gained that capability years after it became common in comparable Android phones.