Oceanic+ app on Apple Watch Ultra below 40 meters?

[kimh]

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.

If divers knew that they could ignore the depth limit, and still be in perfectly good shape using the watch for ascent, the depth limit would be ignored. Basically, if it’s intended to be serious, you can‘t leave the most important features on. That’s as much about human nature as it is about product design.

My guess is that if you look at the AWU as a dive computer, in unit sales, it’s already the most successful DC of all time. It’s no wonder Apple wants to begin with great caution.

 

[Belzelbub]

If divers knew that they could ignore the depth limit, and still be in perfectly good shape using the watch for ascent, the depth limit would be ignored. Basically, if it’s intended to be serious, you can‘t leave the most important features on. That’s as much about human nature as it is about product design.

I want to say that you aren’t giving divers enough credit, but based on things I’ve read here, I’m not sure that’s right.

I will say that if a diver needs a computer to lock out in water so that they don’t exceed a limit, they probably shouldn’t be diving.

And take the situation of down currents. Yes, they are rare, but do happen. A diver can suddenly find themselves much deeper than they intended, not due to their own fault. Now what? My computers will provide guidance on how best to get out of the water safely. The AWU will not.

My guess is that if you look at the AWU as a dive computer, in unit sales, it’s already the most successful DC of all time.

Possibly, but only if you count Oceanic+ subscribers. Just buying the AWU does not count as a dive computer.

Also they seem to be taking a completely different approach from pretty much the rest of the dive industry. That does not necessarily equal more caution from a liability perspective. In a way, though, they are being more cautious as they aren’t actually manufacturing a dive computer, they are just providing the platform for the developer.

 

[kimh]

I will say that if a diver needs a computer to lock out in water so that they don’t exceed a limit, they probably shouldn’t be diving.

The limit is not for protecting the diver. It’s for controlling how the dive functionality is used.

And take the situation of down currents. Yes, they are rare, but do happen. A diver can suddenly find themselves much deeper than they intended, not due to their own fault.

Let’s say they add a 25‘ margin in case of down currents. Now, in practical terms, the watch has a new depth limit of 155‘. For everyone. All the time.

Possibly, but only if you count Oceanic+ subscribers. Just buying the AWU does not count as a dive computer.

Every AWU out there can become a dive computer in 60 seconds. The point was to highlight the scale of what Apple created, to think about what issues that kind of scale might bring with it. If you include snorkeling and casual, shallow scuba functionality (doable with built-in features) AWU unit sales probably already make it the most successful electronic dive device in history.

 

[Wibble]

If divers knew that they could ignore the depth limit, and still be in perfectly good shape using the watch for ascent, the depth limit would be ignored.

Most of my dives are beyond recreational limits. The Apple Watch Ultra is a useless option for me when even the cheapest dive computer will work well beyond those recreational limits.

40m/130ft is not deep nor extreme.

Also, Apple have used a "waterproof to 50m/165ft" but not intended for diving. Or, in other words, a load of BS.

 

[BlueTrin]

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

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’.

I imagine that they have an API and behind the API there must be some software limitation to the depth sensor.

Because I imagine the API, was not written specifically for Oceanic and, I imagine, they would not want to vet every app one by one, they would have to make a call about how to handle people and legal issues.

The easiest, from their standpoint, is probably to just tell people that there is a hard limit at a bit less than 40, so they don’t have any issues with people kicking themselves going under that depth?

I guess if there was enough demand for it, they could think of relaxing the limit, but this is a fairly niche usage for them and I imagine they would not want to risk the Ultra market for such a small niche

 

[Belzelbub]

Let’s say they add a 25‘ margin in case of down currents. Now, in practical terms, the watch has a new depth limit of 155‘. For everyone. All the time.

Yes. I fail to see the problem with this. Just because a limit exists does not mean that you need to hit that limit. My Garmin has a depth rating of 100M, my Shearwater is even higher. I've never even come close to those limits. If a diver needs a computer to tell them how deep they should dive, then they really shouldn't be diving. The computers on our wrists and/or consoles should be a source of information that the diver can use to make decisions during the dive. They do not replace the one between our ears. A computer that bricks itself when a diver may need it most is useless in my opinion.

 

[L13]

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.

I have no idea which part they actually used, but here is a possibility:

https://www.te.com/commerce/Documen...S5803-05BA&DocType=Data+Sheet&DocLang=English

It is optimized for exactly the operating range of the Apple Ultra (5 bar abs -> ~40m), providing temperature, altitude, and depth across the range they provide in a package that could fit.

It's target applications are adventure or multi-mode watches and dive computers.

In other words, I think it is far more likely than you credit that it is an actual hardware limitation.

 

[kimh]

In other words, I think it is far more likely than you credit that it is an actual hardware limitation.

Do you actually believe that Apple would use a part whose optimal range terminates at a point where the software is still expected to provide accurate data, used for safety issues? No margin? When there are other economically viable parts with sizable safety margins?

Sorry- no.

 

[kimh]

If a diver needs a computer to tell them how deep they should dive, then they really shouldn't be diving.

Again- you don't understand the purpose. The 40m limit is not for protecting the diver. Its purpose is to set a boundary for how the product is used. That's it.

Of course, I always prefer more functionality rather than less. But for a huge consumer company like Apple, making its first tentative steps into a brand new product category, where human life is at stake – this kind of initial conservatism makes complete sense. And if I were the responsible person at Apple, I'd do the same thing.

 

[kimh]

Most of my dives are beyond recreational limits. The Apple Watch Ultra is a useless option for me when even the cheapest dive computer will work well beyond those recreational limits.

The Apple Watch Ultra is explicitly not intended for all divers. Why is this complicated?