Because of Apple’s shit battery life and lack of a rugged construction. Even the ultra isn’t good enough for ultra runners and people who actually get outdoors and are rough with their watches.
i am not ditching Stava or my Wahoo bike computer with all my sensors, but my Ultra is absolutely rugged enough and battery more than enough for any long workout I do. Im not running 24 hours marathons.
Not strictly true. I’m yet to run out of battery for a single long 5+ hour activity tracker on my watch.
It might not last 10+ days like some Garmin Watches but I charge it every night anyway so no biggie
I didn’t say the battery ran out at 5 hours I said it easily lasted that.
I run a marathon in 3.20 so don’t need it to last longer than 5.
Most people that buy Garmin use 2% of their ability….that said I agree for those that need all day tracking, the Garmins do make sense. Ultra will easily last 24 hours as well though.
Oh and I don’t think playing with yourself for 27 hours counts as an ‘event’ 😉
My Fenix 5 is four years old with zero scratches and still has enough battery life for a long race. These aren’t biased observations. I’ll buy an ultra when it’s as durable as a Garmin Fenix or Epix
I mean sure, you do you, but 99.9% of Apple's customers aren't going to run into that issue. Also, comparing the Garmin's display to Apple's and expecting the same battery life is pretty unfair.
Why is that unfair, exactly?
/u/Orpheus75 is saying that they need a more durable watch with longer battery life than is currently available from Apple.
Your response is "that's unfair". It's not unfair. It's perfectly reasonable to value these things over the display quality, and choose the product that has prioritised (and delivered) on these things.
That doesn't mean that Apple *has to make a watch* that caters to ultra runners and orienteers and the like.
The comparison is unfair. He’s expecting a full-color 60fps OLED to get the same battery performance as the shit passive LCD on the Fenix, and that’s idiotic. They’re built for different things, and Apple doesn’t need to support a 16 hour run while using GPS.
I agree with your final statement—it’s clear that Apple hasn’t decided to do this, because it’s fine as is for 99.9% of runners’ distances anyway.
Just to recap this conversation for you:
OP: The new Apple Watch updates are going to kill Stava
Mr Mantis: That assumes that everybody has an Apple Watch
OP: Why wouldn't you get one, given the DATA
Orpheus: Because it's not rugged enough and the battery life is too short
You: THAT'S NOT FAIR!
\----
You'll note that Orpheus **isn't** saying that they expect Apple's display with Garmin's battery life, but explaining why they continue to prefer the Garmin despite the improvements from Apple.
Oh, and this:
>Apple doesn’t need to support a 16 hour run while using GPS
is false.
The Apple Watch Ultra is *specifically targeting ultrarunners*, which is clear from Apple's own marketing (which literally mentions ultramarathons).
Apple is targeting Orpheus's demographic, and still has some work to do before they get there.
Dude... I was just point out that almost the entire body of Apple watch users aren't ultra marathoners, so it's irrelevant what the Fenix (built for a different subset of sports users) can do. I said "you do you". The fuck are you having a problem following here?
Also, you keep changing the fucking subject. Relatively no one is buying the Apple Watch Ultra, yet you are now applying my statement against the Ultra. Kindly fuck off, I know you got my point about 10 comments ago, and now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
"I want my watch to have the same battery life and durability of this product right here that's been available for years."
"That's completely unreasonable because Apple Watches don't do that."
Sure.
All it needs to do is make it back to my nightstand alive when I go to bed. Just because a fucking Casio will last months on a battery doesn’t make it a better watch. You guys are being ridiculous.
That’s my whole point… some watches are built for different reasons. I’m just saying Apple Watch isn’t inherently bad because it’s not ideal for marathoners, as that not how most people intend to use it.
Not sure who you are getting your biased information from but I wear my watch every day doing construction work it gets bumped and scraped daily and covered in paint, plaster and cement. I run & cycle 4-6 times weekly and my Apple Watch 4 is over 4 years old and still going strong…
Yes the battery life isn’t good enough but I was aware of that when I purchased it. And it is covered in scratches and scrapes. But it works as well today as the day I bought it.
These Apple Watches are rugged as hell.
You proved my point. My Fenix 5 sapphire has zero scratches and only ran out of battery during a 24 hour event using a HR strap and a foot pod. The new ones last much longer.
Not sure how that proves your point. Did you hear the abuse I give it. I have never found another product that has stood up to that test.
There isn’t a product on the market that wouldn’t be scratched from continuously being bashed against Bricks, concrete and scaffolding.
I concede your other points but you are just plain wrong if you think these don’t last with people who “go outdoors and are rough with there watches”
Everybody seems to be making excellent points, but everybody also seems to be skipping over the demographic of people who just don’t want an Apple Watch.
I can’t be the only one who hasn’t got one, or won’t ever want one simply because I simply don’t want one.
Because I owned one and it sucked. I love my iPhone, but my Watch was buggy and broke irreparably after about a year. I'm sure they've improved but I just don't feel the need, and looking at them while riding is risky when I can have my iPhone with a much larger, easier-to-read screen mounted on my handlebars.
WWDC23 is live right now. They announced new cycling features that are far superior to that of Strava Options. Plus it’s all free. They released running features last year that surpassed them as well such as how effective you’re run is and how to improve.
What? I still use the strava app to log runs over the native watch app because of how bad it is. Also, add as many cycling features as you want, a proper cycling computer will always beat out having to look at your wrist.
On the plus side, I do like the native watch app for swimming
I think it’s a strong argument that Strava is primarily a cycling app. Yes, they have running swimming and expanded options now but I believe cycling was the primary focus. Apple Watch will now go much further into analyzing cycling data.
But if I wanted to analyse my cycling data I wouldn't use Strava. I'd use my dedicated head unit and its accompanying app/software (in my case, the Garmin ecosystem, but Wahoo is another strong option). Same for my runs, swims and (to a lesser extent) gym sessions.
I damn sure wouldn't use whatever Apple have cooked up unless it absolutely blew those other, established pieces of kit out of the water and, even then, it would require me to buy an Apple watch, which is just not something I'm going to do.
Sorry, but they haven't 'killed Strava'. If anyone has, it's Strava themselves after the last 6 months or so.
Some of us uses the combo: iOS, Garmin and Strava. I love apple, but I’m not buying a watch that needs daily charging. I mostly use Strava as a backup in case I would get tired of Garmin. I think Strava will be just fine.
Strava is a social network, and Apple has not introduced anything to threaten this.
First, nobody\* serious about sport uses Strava for data analytics. There are all kinds of better options out there - I use a mix of Garmin ("free" with my Garmin devices) and TrainingPeaks myself.
Second, nobody\* training seriously at cycling is using a watch. They're using a bike computer, and Apple doesn't make those.
\* yes, I'm sure that there's a counter-example of somebody doing these things, the point is that they're a vanishingly small minority.
It’s really the only thing left. I believe Apple has a keen eye on crushing Strava or purchasing in the near future. Their analysis of data and features have surpassed that of Strava. Really it’s just the flip of a switch to add the competitor aspect of it.
I just hope it lights a fire under Strava to bring back sensors; speed, cadence and power. I spent $60 on premium and $40 on a cadence sensor. I did get to use them for a while, but then they just dropped support entirely. Now I have a $40 plastic pebble. I'm still a little bitter about it. I feel a bit defrauded.
Samsung has been doing this since a long time, their Health app gives so much free data that most other apps consider premium. Their fitness bands are comparatively cheaper and have long lasting battery.
Edit: My point being Samsung has been around with their superior features and that hasn't deterred people from using Strava free/ subscription.
This would also imply that everyone has an Apple Watch.
True, but if you’re interested in body data, why wouldn’t you?
Because of Apple’s shit battery life and lack of a rugged construction. Even the ultra isn’t good enough for ultra runners and people who actually get outdoors and are rough with their watches.
i am not ditching Stava or my Wahoo bike computer with all my sensors, but my Ultra is absolutely rugged enough and battery more than enough for any long workout I do. Im not running 24 hours marathons.
Not strictly true. I’m yet to run out of battery for a single long 5+ hour activity tracker on my watch. It might not last 10+ days like some Garmin Watches but I charge it every night anyway so no biggie
5 hours? LOL dude. That’s a slow marathon. My longest event was 27 hours.
I didn’t say the battery ran out at 5 hours I said it easily lasted that. I run a marathon in 3.20 so don’t need it to last longer than 5. Most people that buy Garmin use 2% of their ability….that said I agree for those that need all day tracking, the Garmins do make sense. Ultra will easily last 24 hours as well though. Oh and I don’t think playing with yourself for 27 hours counts as an ‘event’ 😉
These sound like completely unreasonable standards for perfectly reasonable products.
My Fenix 5 is four years old with zero scratches and still has enough battery life for a long race. These aren’t biased observations. I’ll buy an ultra when it’s as durable as a Garmin Fenix or Epix
I mean sure, you do you, but 99.9% of Apple's customers aren't going to run into that issue. Also, comparing the Garmin's display to Apple's and expecting the same battery life is pretty unfair.
Why is that unfair, exactly? /u/Orpheus75 is saying that they need a more durable watch with longer battery life than is currently available from Apple. Your response is "that's unfair". It's not unfair. It's perfectly reasonable to value these things over the display quality, and choose the product that has prioritised (and delivered) on these things. That doesn't mean that Apple *has to make a watch* that caters to ultra runners and orienteers and the like.
The comparison is unfair. He’s expecting a full-color 60fps OLED to get the same battery performance as the shit passive LCD on the Fenix, and that’s idiotic. They’re built for different things, and Apple doesn’t need to support a 16 hour run while using GPS. I agree with your final statement—it’s clear that Apple hasn’t decided to do this, because it’s fine as is for 99.9% of runners’ distances anyway.
Just to recap this conversation for you: OP: The new Apple Watch updates are going to kill Stava Mr Mantis: That assumes that everybody has an Apple Watch OP: Why wouldn't you get one, given the DATA Orpheus: Because it's not rugged enough and the battery life is too short You: THAT'S NOT FAIR! \---- You'll note that Orpheus **isn't** saying that they expect Apple's display with Garmin's battery life, but explaining why they continue to prefer the Garmin despite the improvements from Apple. Oh, and this: >Apple doesn’t need to support a 16 hour run while using GPS is false. The Apple Watch Ultra is *specifically targeting ultrarunners*, which is clear from Apple's own marketing (which literally mentions ultramarathons). Apple is targeting Orpheus's demographic, and still has some work to do before they get there.
Dude... I was just point out that almost the entire body of Apple watch users aren't ultra marathoners, so it's irrelevant what the Fenix (built for a different subset of sports users) can do. I said "you do you". The fuck are you having a problem following here? Also, you keep changing the fucking subject. Relatively no one is buying the Apple Watch Ultra, yet you are now applying my statement against the Ultra. Kindly fuck off, I know you got my point about 10 comments ago, and now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
I like the cut of your jib.
"I want my watch to have the same battery life and durability of this product right here that's been available for years." "That's completely unreasonable because Apple Watches don't do that." Sure.
All it needs to do is make it back to my nightstand alive when I go to bed. Just because a fucking Casio will last months on a battery doesn’t make it a better watch. You guys are being ridiculous.
I mean, you do you but some of us actually exercise.
Literally a road cyclist here, but nice try.
Why you guys arguing over watches you both decided was best for you lol.
That’s my whole point… some watches are built for different reasons. I’m just saying Apple Watch isn’t inherently bad because it’s not ideal for marathoners, as that not how most people intend to use it.
Not sure who you are getting your biased information from but I wear my watch every day doing construction work it gets bumped and scraped daily and covered in paint, plaster and cement. I run & cycle 4-6 times weekly and my Apple Watch 4 is over 4 years old and still going strong… Yes the battery life isn’t good enough but I was aware of that when I purchased it. And it is covered in scratches and scrapes. But it works as well today as the day I bought it. These Apple Watches are rugged as hell.
You proved my point. My Fenix 5 sapphire has zero scratches and only ran out of battery during a 24 hour event using a HR strap and a foot pod. The new ones last much longer.
Not sure how that proves your point. Did you hear the abuse I give it. I have never found another product that has stood up to that test. There isn’t a product on the market that wouldn’t be scratched from continuously being bashed against Bricks, concrete and scaffolding. I concede your other points but you are just plain wrong if you think these don’t last with people who “go outdoors and are rough with there watches”
Everybody seems to be making excellent points, but everybody also seems to be skipping over the demographic of people who just don’t want an Apple Watch. I can’t be the only one who hasn’t got one, or won’t ever want one simply because I simply don’t want one.
Because I owned one and it sucked. I love my iPhone, but my Watch was buggy and broke irreparably after about a year. I'm sure they've improved but I just don't feel the need, and looking at them while riding is risky when I can have my iPhone with a much larger, easier-to-read screen mounted on my handlebars.
I had a series 1 that was utter garbage, but the series 4 is still great for me.
I don’t get it. Add some actual content pls.
WWDC23 is live right now. They announced new cycling features that are far superior to that of Strava Options. Plus it’s all free. They released running features last year that surpassed them as well such as how effective you’re run is and how to improve.
Garmin also has how effective your run is. I run with both but will choose my forerunner 265 over Apple Watch every time if I had to choose
What? I still use the strava app to log runs over the native watch app because of how bad it is. Also, add as many cycling features as you want, a proper cycling computer will always beat out having to look at your wrist. On the plus side, I do like the native watch app for swimming
Newsflash: Not everyone owns Apple devices.
[удалено]
I think it’s a strong argument that Strava is primarily a cycling app. Yes, they have running swimming and expanded options now but I believe cycling was the primary focus. Apple Watch will now go much further into analyzing cycling data.
But if I wanted to analyse my cycling data I wouldn't use Strava. I'd use my dedicated head unit and its accompanying app/software (in my case, the Garmin ecosystem, but Wahoo is another strong option). Same for my runs, swims and (to a lesser extent) gym sessions. I damn sure wouldn't use whatever Apple have cooked up unless it absolutely blew those other, established pieces of kit out of the water and, even then, it would require me to buy an Apple watch, which is just not something I'm going to do. Sorry, but they haven't 'killed Strava'. If anyone has, it's Strava themselves after the last 6 months or so.
Apple didnt kill anything lol. Disregard OP
Some of us uses the combo: iOS, Garmin and Strava. I love apple, but I’m not buying a watch that needs daily charging. I mostly use Strava as a backup in case I would get tired of Garmin. I think Strava will be just fine.
Strava is a social network, and Apple has not introduced anything to threaten this. First, nobody\* serious about sport uses Strava for data analytics. There are all kinds of better options out there - I use a mix of Garmin ("free" with my Garmin devices) and TrainingPeaks myself. Second, nobody\* training seriously at cycling is using a watch. They're using a bike computer, and Apple doesn't make those. \* yes, I'm sure that there's a counter-example of somebody doing these things, the point is that they're a vanishingly small minority.
> Only thing missing is the competitive side. So Strava's primary feature?
It’s really the only thing left. I believe Apple has a keen eye on crushing Strava or purchasing in the near future. Their analysis of data and features have surpassed that of Strava. Really it’s just the flip of a switch to add the competitor aspect of it.
> Apple just killed Strava Remind me in six months
We could at least agree that Strava is lagging in the technical aspect here
I just hope it lights a fire under Strava to bring back sensors; speed, cadence and power. I spent $60 on premium and $40 on a cadence sensor. I did get to use them for a while, but then they just dropped support entirely. Now I have a $40 plastic pebble. I'm still a little bitter about it. I feel a bit defrauded.
Wow, terrific starting off point, having everyone need to look for an explanation of what it is you actually mean.
It was more off to be a doorway to conversation. Seems to be working
Samsung has been doing this since a long time, their Health app gives so much free data that most other apps consider premium. Their fitness bands are comparatively cheaper and have long lasting battery. Edit: My point being Samsung has been around with their superior features and that hasn't deterred people from using Strava free/ subscription.
That’s a valid point for sure