Apple Watch Ultra 2

[stuartv]

View attachment 810798

Typical forum logic:
“It's not for ME, so it sucks, and it's not for ANYONE!"

Typical fanboi logic:

"They gave a legitimate, logical explanation for why my favorite is actually rubbish, but I'm going to insist that the only problem is just that it wasn't designed for them."

You didn't answer my question.

What other dive computer stops working [edit: DURING a dive] (i.e. stops reporting NDL/deco info) - by DESIGN - when the user makes a relatively common mistake (or even does it in purpose)? For example, intending to be at 130 or less but accidentally dipping to 145.

What other dive computer stops working during a dive, by design, for ANY reason?

 

[jborg]

Whole bunch of Suuntos and whatnot, isn't that why we're supposed to hate them? Ascend too fast, slightly miss a stop it just invented, and it locks into violation gauge mode?

Arguably, they are not "real dive computers" (in the no true Scotsman sense), nonetheless, a lot of people do dive them (and survive).

 

[stuartv]

Whole bunch of Suuntos and whatnot, isn't that why we're supposed to hate them? Ascend too fast, slightly miss a stop it just invented, and it locks into violation gauge mode?

Arguably, they are not "real dive computers" (in the no true Scotsman sense), nonetheless, a lot of people do dive them (and survive).

Do they do that during the dive? Or after you get out?

 

[jborg]

During. Yes, really. At least in some cases.

 

[stuartv]

During. Yes, really. At least in some cases.

I'll take your word for it. Never owned a Suunto.

Also, I'll add those to the Tentative Pretend Computer list, pending knowing what specific models do that.

 

[jborg]

Honestly, I think the AWU thing is more forgivable. They installed an el-cheapo depth sensor that doesn't go below 44m because the feature is irrelevant for almost all AWU owners, and it was deemed good enough for the few target users, so they have to have the limitation. It's a sound business decision to save money on a very niche hardware detail.

Suunto's algorithm lock is just a decision without basis in any real physical limitation, based on how they think things should work and people should dive.

 

[stuartv]

Honestly, I think the AWU thing is more forgivable. They installed an el-cheapo depth sensor that doesn't go below 44m because the feature is irrelevant for almost all AWU owners, and it was deemed good enough for the few target users, so they have to have the limitation. It's a sound business decision to save money on a very niche hardware detail.

We can agree to disagree on that.

Apple says this (from: Sorry - Business - Apple):

Apple Watch Ultra 2 has a water resistance rating of 100 meters under ISO standard 22810. It may be used for recreational scuba diving (with compatible third-party app from the App Store) to 40 meters and high-speed water sports. Apple Watch Ultra 2 should not be used for diving below 40 meters. Water resistance is not a permanent condition and can diminish over time.

What a joke. It is "water resistant" to 100 meters, but you can only dive it to 40 meters? Apple thinks people SWIM to 100m, but only dive to 40m?

And "water resistance" is not permanent? LOLOL!!

"We're sorry, but your 3 year old Apple Watch flooded when you took it to 30 meters and is completely dead. That is a result of normal wear and not covered by your warranty."

LOLOL!!!

So, how much do you reckon it would have added to the cost of the hardware to use a 100m sensor, instead of a 40m sensor?

Suunto's algorithm lock is just a decision without basis in any real physical limitation, based on how they think things should work and people should dive.

Agreed. That is pretty egregious.

 

[jborg]

So, how much do you reckon it would have added to the cost of the hardware to use a 100m sensor, instead of a 40m sensor?

Cents, maybe? Times gazillions of units, multiplied by some bean counters bonus check...

I'm all with you on the AWU's usefulness as a general-purpose dive computer, or lack thereof. It's just that I can see and understand the process that led to this situation. It doesn't require Apple to be clueless or evil, it just requires them to be greedy.

Now, arbitrarily locking up an otherwise fully functional dive computer, that comes from cluelessness or evil.

 

[stuartv]

Cents, maybe? Times gazillions of units, multiplied by some bean counters bonus check...

I'm all with you on the AWU's usefulness as a general-purpose dive computer, or lack thereof. It's just that I can see and understand the process that led to this situation. It doesn't require Apple to be clueless or evil, it just requires them to be greedy.

Now, arbitrarily locking up an otherwise fully functional dive computer, that comes from cluelessness or evil.

I suspect the impact to the Apple Watch business unit's bottom line would be negligible (if they used a better sensor). And that is even assuming they did not sell more of them, offsetting the change in net profit per unit.

It seems to me that both really boil down to a willful decision to sell a hamstrung product.

it's easy to see how Apple saved a few cents per unit because of their decision.

Suunto might have saved just as much, purely based on the reduced QC load by not having to test a wide range of conditions that they otherwise would have had to test.

 

[jborg]

I suspect the impact to the Apple Watch business unit's bottom line would be negligible (if they used a better sensor). And that is even assuming they did not sell more of them, offsetting the change in net profit per unit.

It seems to me that both really boil down to a willful decision to sell a hamstrung product.

That's the "clueless or evil" theory -- I prefer to assume they're a rational actor, business-wise. The end result is the same, though.