Oceanic+ app on Apple Watch Ultra below 40 meters?

[Wibble]

Still learning this discussion software. Looks like you can't delete a comment-

@kimhill

• Can’t delete a comment.
• Can edit a comment up to 24h after it was posted. Edits can include changing/adding images.
• If an old comment "must" be removed, "Report" the comment and a moderator will do it.

 

[kimh]

…the smart thing to do is find the cheapest sensor that covers that range with whatever margin for safety is required. Then you code the cutoff to stay within the sensor recommended range. Done and done, decision locked in for this hardware iteration.

I think this is highly unlikely. Almost all dive computers, including wrist-sized/non-premium models, operate to at least 100m, and 120m+ isn’t unusual. It's not clear that Apple could easily source a lesser part - even if they wanted to.

Also- Apple manufacturing volumes are huge, compared to specialized products, so they can usually get better pricing than other vendors, for equivalent parts. There's simply no reason for Apple to cripple their dive computer. The odds are vastly higher that Apple's part already qualifies for at least 100m operation, and software is the limiting factor.

 

[jborg]

There's simply no reason for Apple to cripple their dive computer.

Well, that's your guess. My guess is that they don't see it as a dive computer at all, and that small price differences matter when volume is huge. See for example:

Search Results | TE Connectivity

www.te.com

You can have a 5 bar sensor for $40, or a 30 bar sensor for $70. Obviously those prices don't apply exactly etc so no need to nitpick, but I think assuming that Apple would put a higher spec sensor than necessary just for fun or future room to experiment is a stretch when it might amount to millions of dollars on the BoM. I would rather assume that to be a firing offense.

 

[kimh]

You can have a 5 bar sensor for $40, or a 30 bar sensor for $70.

Then I guess essentially all the current manufacturers buy 30 bar sensors…

…since essentially all of them do at least 100m. Last time I checked, Apple wasn't shortchanging industry standards for their solid titanium & sapphire crystal watch. Hmm…

 

[Belzelbub]

The whole Apple Watch Ultra thing seems like an uncharacteristically aggressive product choice for them. They're really going after Garmin and other smart watch/sports vendors.

I don't entirely disagree with this, but I don't see the AW Ultra as directly going against Garmin's dive computers. I really can't see a Garmin user going for the AW Ultra when it's time to upgrade. At least not in its current iteration. It seems more aimed at current AW users. Then, perhaps, the aim is to get them to go for the flagship AW with dive functionality.

I looked at the AW line, but opted for a Garmin for a couple reasons. First, I was looking as well for a backup DC, at the time the AW Ultra wasn't released. Second, I dislike rectangular watches/smart watches. Even if I could get over the shape, the AW Ultra would not make sense for me. Possibly for a new or vacation diver, but once I factor in the cost of an annual subscription, with the cost of the hardware the Garmin just made more sense.

I just don't see enough of an effort to really try to tackle the descent line. Perhaps just testing the waters to see if they want to really jump in.

There's a huge difference between an actual dive computer, where the depth sensor is the foremost primary concern, and the Apple watch where it's a minor technical afterthought and ideally should take up as few cubic micrometers as possible and cost as little as possible.

If it truly is a depth sensor limitation, then I still don't get it. Garmin managed to squeeze in a more proper depth sensor, and still have the same constraints. The Descents are based off of other watches in their line, so size would be a definite concern for them as well. Cost always is.

Search Results | TE Connectivity

www.te.com

You can have a 5 bar sensor for $40, or a 30 bar sensor for $70. Obviously those prices don't apply exactly etc so no need to nitpick, but I think assuming that Apple would put a higher spec sensor than necessary just for fun or future room to experiment is a stretch when it might amount to millions of dollars on the BoM. I would rather assume that to be a firing offense.

I can guarantee that Apple is not paying anywhere near the prices in the link. They have lots of influence in the electronics world. Pretty sure they'd be able to lock in whichever sensor they wanted to use at largely the prices they'd want. If supplier A doesn't want to sell at that price, I'm pretty sure another would jump on it.

 

[jborg]

Yeah, I tried to preempt that by saying "obviously those prices don't apply exactly etc so no need to nitpick", but let me be Ultra clear then.

People keep saying that the depth sensor will certainly be valid to 100m+ because lesser sensors "might not even be possible to source" or are somehow ultra unusual or that there's no reason at all to choose a lesser/simpler sensor. I'm showing that not only do they exist, but a whole spectrum of small mobile pressure sensors exist with price points that vary with their performance. This seems wholly unsurprising to me, but apparently not to others.

Now, if I'm a product manager for a product that will sell in the millions or tens of millions of units, and we've decided that we need a component with requirement X, I can of course choose to buy a different component that fulfils requirement X*2 for a higher cost, but who is going to thank me when it takes out probably millions of dollars from our bottom line? I would expect Tim Cook to fire me personally. It doesn't matter if the sensors are $40 vs $70 or $4 vs $5 or $0.40 vs $0.45 -- the same reasoning will apply.

Add to this the fact that probably less than a percent of the users will ever know or care that this component exists. That makes it an entirely different tradeoff than when producing a dive computer in maybe tens of thousands of units, where this is the number one core functionality that cannot be skimped on.

But sure, they may have splurged for an awesome pressure sensor in there and just decided to cripple it for the time being, planning to unlock it in the future when everyone who wants an Ultra has already bought one and it makes no difference. It's obviously possible.

 

[kimh]

But sure, [Apple] may have splurged for an awesome pressure sensor…

Except we’re not talking about "awesome."

100m is dead-average, even for budget product lines from Suunto, Aqualung or Cressi- with 1/1000 Apple's supply-chain clout.

Instead, Apple kneecaps its options for the flagship Apple Watch, while seeking credibility in a new niche? Sorry- doesn't make sense.

 

[kimh]

PRO TIP: check out the max depths…
Best Budget Dive Computers (2023 EDITION)

■"Cheapest dive computer of all time" Cressi Leonardo: 120m
■ Mares Puck Pro: 150m (USD $215 / Amazon)

 

[jborg]

Instead, Apple kneecaps its options for the flagship Apple Watch, while seeking credibility in a new niche? Sorry- doesn't make sense.

And yet, here we are, kneecapped, at 40m and no deeper.

 

[kimh]

And yet, here we are, kneecapped, at 40m and no deeper

Nope. We’re just waiting for new software.

…unless Apple thinks like you do. In that case, yes- we’re well & truly kneecapped.