Oceanic+ app on Apple Watch Ultra below 40 meters?

[kimh]

…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.

Agreed, in many (most?), but not all cases. Garmin is dive computer first, and AWU is smart watch first. Depending on how you balance your needs, you can arrive at different decisions. I can see AWU being used as backup for a primary dive computer, though.

Personally, I use tons of smart watch features, all the time, and AWU is unmatched for someone in Apple's ecosystem. It's great to have some dive functionality along with it.

 

[Belzelbub]

Agreed, in many (most?), but not all cases. Garmin is dive computer first, and AWU is smart watch first. Depending on how you balance your needs, you can arrive at different decisions. I can see AWU being used as backup for a primary dive computer, though.

On the Garmin, the dive features are apps, just like it is on the AWU. Lots of other features. They are based on the non-diving watches and include a bunch of activity and smart watch features as well. I wouldn't see a non-diver buying a Descent, as the extra cost between the Fenix or Instinct and the comparable Descent wouldn't really make sense if you wouldn't use it. The Descents are pretty much just as capable out of the water as their non-diving counterparts.

I did a side by side comparison between the Fenix 7S and Descent MK2S. Based on that, there are a handful of features on the Fenix that may not be present on the MK2S. I say may as there were several items that weren't checked under MK2S that I know are there. I think Garmin just needs to update their chart after some recent updates.

Personally, I use tons of smart watch features, all the time, and AWU is unmatched for someone in Apple's ecosystem. It's great to have some dive functionality along with it.

Yeah, I agree with that, for the most part. I'm pretty squarely in the Apple ecosystem. In my family, there are 4 MacBooks, 4 iPads, 5 iPhones, 2 AppleTVs, 4 AirPods, etc. In fact, I think the only different OSs I have are those that are in our TVs and a treadmill. I should be a perfect candidate for an AWU, but for my needs, I'm happier with the Garmin.

Don't get me wrong. I do see a market that the AWU is going after. For many divers it will be perfect. For the occasional diver, they can save the rental cost of a computer with a short term subscription. Without a doubt that is better than diving with an unfamiliar device each time. I'm not a fan of the abrupt cutoff and in-water lockout if the max depth is exceeded, but I do realize that the majority of AWU users will never encounter that.

 

[Tournesol2000]

AWU has a microphone and speaker. Would that not be a reason to limit depth of the watch? It’s not a sealed eco system like a dedicated dive computer. I think 40m is impressive given there these elements in its design. So in my opinion, the depth limit built into the software has nothing to do with depth sensors or sloppy programming. But that’s my 2 cents.
Enjoy diving with whatever dc you choose. Life is too short to worry about these things.

 

[undrwater]

Assuming it's a software lockout:

Is there any evidence that locking a diver in water past 140' is safer than continuing to provide info?

A lockout seems very counterintuitive to me, but I'd be curious if there is evidence available.

 

[BlueTrin]

Assuming it's a software lockout:

Is there any evidence that locking a diver in water past 140' is safer than continuing to provide info?

A lockout seems very counterintuitive to me, but I'd be curious if there is evidence available.

If you don’t have the depth, what are you gonna display?

The computer is just saying you were out of bounds so it cannot know what you should do.

 

[kimh]

AWU has a microphone and speaker. Would that not be a reason to limit depth of the watch?

No. The AWU is rated to 100m overall, and that’s a different issue from dive tracking.

So in my opinion, the depth limit built into the software has nothing to do with depth sensors or sloppy programming.

There aren’t questions about “sloppy” programming - only about design decisions.

 

[kimh]

Is there any evidence that locking a diver in water past 140' is safer than continuing to provide info?

Safety ”evidence” is not relevant. If watch functionality continues below the defined rec diving limit, the limit is not effective, and won’t be adhered to.

 

[undrwater]

Safety ”evidence” is not relevant. If watch functionality continues below the defined rec diving limit, the limit is not effective, and won’t be adhered to.

Are you suggesting the software is intended to police diver behavior? If that's not correct, I must admit I don't know how to interpret your post.

 

[Belzelbub]

AWU has a microphone and speaker. Would that not be a reason to limit depth of the watch? It’s not a sealed eco system like a dedicated dive computer. I think 40m is impressive given there these elements in its design. So in my opinion, the depth limit built into the software has nothing to do with depth sensors or sloppy programming. But that’s my 2 cents.

The depth rating of the AWU is actually 100M, so it seems the mic and speaker are fine deeper than the lockout depth.

If you don’t have the depth, what are you gonna display?

The computer is just saying you were out of bounds so it cannot know what you should do.

Yeah, from an Oceanic standpoint, they really only have access to the data that Apple provides. Apple seems to only provide depths up to 144’. So, Oceanic really had no choice. They wouldn’t know if the max depth was 145’ or 200’, so a cromulent decision would be to not provide guidance any more that is most likely based on faulty inputs.

The question is why Apple chose to do this. Just about every other dive computer manufacturer doesn’t lock out in water. Plenty do after, but they try to guide the diver to make a safe ascent. Maybe Apple (being a considerably larger target than most) opted for this approach from a fear of liability, but I could see the opposite argument being made, especially when there are plenty of other examples of a more reasonable approach. I’m sure somewhere in the EULA is a prohibition of taking the watch past 130’.

 

[kimh]

Are you suggesting the software is intended to police diver behavior?

Not at all. It’s intended to control what the product can be used for.