Apple’s Apple Watch Ultra 4 technical specifications list precision dual-frequency GPS with GPS, Galileo, QZSS, and BeiDou, but GLONASS is missing. The older Apple Watch Ultra specification page lists GLONASS alongside those systems.
That makes the omission a real change in Apple’s published wording, although Apple does not explain whether it reflects hardware, software, regional support, or a documentation decision. Buyers should treat the listed systems as the current official specification.
What Apple lists
- Precision dual-frequency GPS.
- GPS, Galileo, QZSS, and BeiDou.
- S11 chip, 64GB capacity, and up to 50 hours of normal use.
- iPhone 11 or later compatibility with iOS 27 or later.
| Watch | Satellite systems named by Apple |
|---|---|
| Ultra 4 | GPS, Galileo, QZSS, BeiDou |
| Original Ultra | GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, QZSS, BeiDou |
For most runners and hikers, the practical impact cannot be measured from a specification page alone. Signal conditions, terrain, software, and antenna behavior also matter. MacObserver’s Ultra 4 swimming comparison covers other published hardware details, while Apple’s full technical page remains the primary reference.
Don’t miss the best of The Mac Observer
Set us as a preferred source and our Apple reporting ranks higher in your Google Search results and Discover feed — one tap, no account changes.
What remains unconfirmed
Apple has not said why GLONASS is absent, whether Ultra 4 can still use it in practice, or whether an update could change the list. Independent testing is needed before anyone claims a measurable navigation disadvantage. Do you rely on GLONASS outdoors?
The missing constellation is worth watching because Ultra buyers often choose the model for long outdoor sessions where route tracking matters. Apple still lists a dual-frequency receiver and several global systems, so the published page does not indicate that location services have been removed. It only shows that GLONASS is no longer named. Until Apple provides a statement or testers compare identical routes, readers should avoid turning a documentation difference into a performance verdict.
Discussion