Oceanic+ app on Apple Watch Ultra below 40 meters?

[Belzelbub]

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.

This seems to be in conflict with what you said below.

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.

This seems to be saying that if Apple didn't hard code that limit, then divers would be regularly exceeding 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.

Garmin is a large consumer products company as well. Not quite as large as Apple, and a different overall focus. But they looked at it and approached it differently.

Apple's approach is not one I can really understand. I don't think it protects them from liability, and certainly doesn't help with diver safety by bricking in water.

 

[L13]

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.

The chip I posted has an indicating range of 6 bar (~50m), 6m more than where they lock out (44m) and 10m more than the max depth you are supposed to dive it to, that is 25% more than their nominal depth limit giving it plenty of safety margin. It claims "The gel protection and antimagnetic stainless steel cap allows the use in 100m waterproof watches," a surprising (maybe coincidental) match for the Apple watch's depth rating.

My point is that this sensor, specifically design for applications like the Apple watch has limits that are a very close match to the apple watch's limits. Even though it may not be the sensor used by Apple, it indicates that at least the industry does not see that as an unreasonable design point. Apples designers may think more like the sensor manufactures than like you as to part selection.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I am just say you are overconfident in your answer.

 

[BlueTrin]

Who’s gonna open an Apple Watch ultra to check if the depth sensor has some kind of markings?

 

[L13]

Who’s gonna open an Apple Watch ultra to check if the depth sensor has some kind of markings?

I will happily do the work, if someone provides an AWU. I'm to poor to provide one myself.

 

[kimh]

This seems to be in conflict with what you said below

Nope. Again- this is not to protect or control the diver, it’s to set a boundary for how the product is used.

Garmin is a large consumer products company as well.

No- compared to Apple, Garmin is basically a rounding error. Apple = 140 Garmins.

certainly doesn't help with diver safety by bricking in water.

AWU is never "bricked." At 130', AWU gives the diver a prominent warning/choice. Only if the diver chooses to reject that, depth/deco info stops. When the diver ascends back to 130', depth & timer info resumes.

 

[L13]

AWU is never "bricked." At 130', AWU gives the diver a warning/choice. Only if the diver chooses to reject that, depth/deco info stops. When the diver ascends back to 130', depth and timer information resumes.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that it stopped reporting at 40m, but as long as 44m was not exceeded, it resumed NDL display above 40m. But if 44m is exceeded, it only displays depth and time on returning above 40m.

 

[kimh]

my understanding was that it stopped reporting at 40m, but as long as 44m was not exceeded, it resumed NDL display above 40m. But if 44m is exceeded, it only displays depth and time on returning above 40m.

My understanding (so far) has been that 40m is the cutoff, but depth info is logged in the "Health App" down to 44m (but not displayed on the watch). For the issues we're discussing, I see no significant difference between 40m/44m.

 

[kimh]

The chip I posted has an indicating range of 6 bar (~50m)

Earlier, you said, "It is optimized for exactly the operating range of the Apple Ultra (5 bar abs -> ~40m)."

Now I'm not sure which specs you mean. But it doesn't matter, because Apple has good sensor choices down to at least 100m. Shaving it close to the safety limit makes zero sense.

 

[L13]

Earlier, you said, "It is optimized for exactly the operating range of the Apple Ultra (5 bar abs -> ~40m)." Now I'm not sure which you mean.

But it doesn't matter, because Apple has good sensor choices down to at least 100m. Shaving it close to the limit makes zero sense.

It's nominal range is 5bar, it's indicating range is 6bar. Yes, they are sensors available with all sorts of depths, and Apple could have picked any of them them. The question is, which did they actually pick?

You are being excessively overconfident that they did in fact pick a sensor with a nominal range of 100m+. They could easily have picked a sensor (like the one I posted) that is completely consistent with their specs/limits (I have no evidence that they did other than the consistency of specs).

You believe that they would have made the hardware competitive with the Garmin Mk2 and the Shearwaters, and you are right that they could have, but have no actual evidence that the did.

 

[kimh]

You believe that they would have made the hardware competitive with the Garmin Mk2 and the Shearwaters, and you are right that they could have, but have no actual evidence that the did.

Apple is not going to have competitive hardware overall with stuff like air integration. But for them to "cheap out" on the depth sensor & cut their safety margins to the bone? (Mind you, we're not even sure they would save money – considering that the real market volume for DCs is obviously in sensors for 100m+.) When $200-ish dive watches go to 100m-150m? On top of that, completely tie their hands on future depth enhancements?

Zero chance. I'll put money on that one.