The Apple Watch Ultra 2 ‘update’ makes me question Apple’s commitment to fitness

I’ve been covering the Apple beat for a long time, and you can usually judge Apple’s commitment to a product by how often it updates it. It would’ve been unthinkable to skip releasing the iPhone 16 this fall, for example, but we’ll be waiting until next year to get an iPhone SE 4. Apple is content to go two to four years between SE refreshes, and likewise, we’ve been waiting three years for a new iPad mini and four years for a second HomePod mini.

That’s why I’m concerned that there was no new Apple Watch Ultra revealed this week, despite the launch of the Apple Watch Series 10. All we got was a new satin black color, which suggests that Apple doesn’t take the Ultra as seriously as its mainline Watches, and that’s a bad sign for the product’s nominal target audience.

Keeping up with the Garmins

Complacency is dangerous

I say nominal because if Apple is genuinely interested in selling to athletes and adventurers, it doesn’t seem to be addressing the complaints those groups have about the Ultra, or the rival devices they can choose from. Let’s start with the second issue — if you’re a hardcore runner, hiker, cyclist, or diver, you’re inevitably going to consider Garmin watches, and that company doesn’t take any years off. Sure, some product lines might, but there will always be an updated Garmin watch capable of meeting your demands. If Apple wants to establish credibility in the athletic world, it needs to match that pace — especially in a year when Garmin’s flagship fēnix line has new models.

Is the Ultra 2 still a very capable fitness watch? Certainly, which may be why Apple felt it could ease off the throttle. But it’s not a good look when it won’t even carry over the modest updates of the Series 10, such as a new processor and “wide-angle” OLED.

Which brings us to the long-time complaints about the Ultra lineup, beginning with battery life. While the Ultra 2 can potentially last three or four days on a charge, it’s still low next to the week or so more of other high-end fitness watches. Indeed, the fēnix 8 can last up to 16 days with full smartwatch functionality — and while that device is more expensive, it still might make you question what Apple is doing with all that processor power. I could take an AMOLED fēnix 8 on a week-long camping expedition and never once worry about charging — whereas with the Ultra 2, I’d have to charge at least once or twice.

Apple is also still playing catch-up with offline navigation options, including map coverage, not to mention the running and training readiness metrics athletes have come to expect. The company should be rapidly iterating the Ultra, not taking a break, regardless of whether it has anything major planned for 2025.

Who is the Ultra for, really?

Time to put substance over style

Apple

All this makes me wonder if it isn’t a silent admission that the Ultra isn’t as fitness-targeted as Apple claims it is. It could be mostly about image. Don’t get me wrong — it’s genuinely one of the better options in that arena, alternatives like Garmin and Polar notwithstanding. But I’ve seen plenty of Ultras on the wrists of people who aren’t athletic, and owners on sites like Reddit are often the first to say they just wanted an Apple Watch with multi-day battery life. It makes more sense that Apple would take a year off if it couldn’t figure out a way to meaningfully satisfy a demographic that doesn’t care about athletic performance or long wilderness treks.

Here’s the thing, Apple — whether or not it’s true, you have to pretend to care. The Ultra is supposed to be the best Apple Watch you can get, no matter what your interests are, so you can’t let the Series get ahead in any area, even if it is the better-selling mainstream product. If you’re willing to let the Ultra slide, some of those athletes and adventurers may steal a glance at newer competing devices, and you may not get them back for years. You can’t rely on the Apple Watch’s special iPhone integration to keep everyone locked in.