Comment by seanp2k2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanp2k2 | Hacker News Reader

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

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com