First look: Heart rate tracking $199 Microsoft Band connects to Apple's iOS & OS X, will integrate w

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 100
    spoopspoop Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DewMe View Post



    Like any Microsoft product it'll start being compelling around the third release if it lasts that long. 

    The Microsoft Band is now sold out in all three sizes on Microsoft's online store

  • Reply 42 of 100
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    I think really Apple screwed up not having the apple watch out for Christmas . Waiting too long to make a product perfect does have its downsides and this coup by Microsoft is one of them. It will be interesting to see just how many of microsofts bands are in Christmas stockings. That will tell us for sure if people are really willing to wait for the apple phone. If it gains momentum before the apple watch goes on sale watch out. I always suspected Microsoft is and always will be apple's biggest threat.
  • Reply 43 of 100
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    genovelle wrote: »
    This made me go and look at the Apple watch again. The missing point here is that with the exception of the UV meter, everything it offers is either already done by the Apple watch or could be done via 3rd party apps. Something also missing from MS' offering. While I expected Apple might do a band too, they clearly went up market to provide their solution. It leaves space for the ecosystem to grow and not compete with them directly. The person who would buy an Apple watch would not consider this instead of it. They may see it as an accessory. I'm not sure if I could make it a day with a display at 90°. It's like having your phone locked to portrait while reading in landscape. I may be fine for everyone else, but it bothers me just looking at it. For the record, I think this coexist with the apple watch just fine. I could even see it in the Apple Stores.


    Wrong the band has gps the apple phone doesn't. That is a huge huge difference and apple has made a fatal mistake imho
  • Reply 44 of 100

    Everyone copying Apple's Healthkit... MS launched cloud based HealthVault platform, back in 2007.. get your facts right...

  • Reply 45 of 100
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post





    Wrong the band has gps the apple phone doesn't. That is a huge huge difference and apple has made a fatal mistake imho

     

    Pretty much everybody with $200 to spare for a fitness tracker would have a smartphone with GPS already... How long will this device last once you turn GPS on (somewhere it was said that it merely has 2x 100 mAh batteries, which, even with modern GPS chipsets, would give it something less than 3 hours)? This is OK if you only wear it for a run, but if you want something to wear all day, this is not it.

  • Reply 46 of 100
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    genovelle wrote: »
    This made me go and look at the Apple watch again. The missing point here is that with the exception of the UV meter, everything it offers is either already done by the Apple watch or could be done via 3rd party apps. Something also missing from MS' offering. While I expected Apple might do a band too, they clearly went up market to provide their solution. It leaves space for the ecosystem to grow and not compete with them directly. The person who would buy an Apple watch would not consider this instead of it. They may see it as an accessory. I'm not sure if I could make it a day with a display at 90°. It's like having your phone locked to portrait while reading in landscape. I may be fine for everyone else, but it bothers me just looking at it. For the record, I think this coexist with the apple watch just fine. I could even see it in the Apple Stores.

    According to the article the Band has GPS and the Apple Watch doesn't. That's a big differentiator in my mind. If I spend the day hiking, the Band can log my route. The watch cannot. That said, neither product really interests me but if were to buy one, it would be the Band. It seems far more useful for what would interest me (sports related features) and the price point is good. As soon as I heard the Apple Watch price, I said no way.
  • Reply 47 of 100
    flabberflabber Posts: 100member

    The display is definitely a little strange, but only when you have it on the top-side of your wrist. On the bottom side it's actually a lot more natural to look at it without putting your arm in an awkward position. But I was véry surprised about Microsoft releasing something like this, and especially for a relatively low price like this. 

     

    I mean, I really like the way Apple Watch looks and works and what it offers. But I find it much too expensive for what it does. For me, the price that Apple asks for it is outside of my comfort zone for a watch… depending on the type you get you'll pay almost as much as a previous model iPhone, and that's just too much in my mind.

     

    I like to work out about 2-3 times a week whenever I can find the time, and having a device that doesn't instantly lock me into an ecosystem is actually véry tempting. Even more so because the Band seems to do more things and do them better compared to Samsung's similar band. I'll have to see what the price does in Europe with our Euro, but I'm very tempted to buy one and track my workouts and sleep a little better/easier.

  • Reply 48 of 100
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member

    yes true one can hulk an iPhone but apple is forcing us to go running with the iPhone in our pocket and it must be an iPhone not an Android.  imho that is too restrictive, so much easier to simply wear the band , I would not have to concern myself with having to remember or have a iPhone in my pocket. I still say this is a fatal mistake. why has apple developed a watch that does not have gps and limited it's market share to only 17% of the smartphone market. At least this band can be synced with most phones and a computer.

  • Reply 49 of 100
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

     

     

    Pretty much everybody with $200 to spare for a fitness tracker would have a smartphone with GPS already... How long will this device last once you turn GPS on (somewhere it was said that it merely has 2x 100 mAh batteries, which, even with modern GPS chipsets, would give it something less than 3 hours)? This is OK if you only wear it for a run, but if you want something to wear all day, this is not it.




    the apple watch will only sync with an iPhone and nothing else. SJ would be screaming at his design team. yes even if you are correct and it last 3 hours on gps thats better than no capability at all which is the apple watch

  • Reply 50 of 100

    I think i saw on cnet they quote 5 hours for GPS use. I guess it's for specific activities when you won't have or don't want to have your phone, e.g. running, rather than all day use. After looking at this, I'm not sure how Apple has the balls to call one of its Watch models "Sport" when you have to cart your phone around to use it. More like a casual tracker of how many minutes you are walking around a shopping mall than for anyone that actually does anything you might refer to as sport.

  • Reply 51 of 100
    leighrleighr Posts: 184member
    Certainly if Apple had come out with this it would have undoubtedly been labeled "underwhelming", however, the standard and expectation for Microsoft products is significantly lower. I agree that the landscape display doesn't work well for reading, unless it was word on the underside of the wrist, which would then make it readable. The main issue here is that its demographic is the health conscious fitness addict. Which is a sinificantly smaller market. It doesn't off many features beyond that, and I think his is why Nike's fuel band didn't do well. People want a watch, not just a fitness band. This means that aesthetics, style, personalisation choice, finishes etc are important, and obviously this is what Apple is aiming at. It's not that this is necessarily a bad product in itself, it's just not a product that many people really want, beyond a niche market.
  • Reply 52 of 100
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post

     

    And could well have hit  home run with this if it reliable and good enuf quality. Apple is late to the game way too late




    Yes, as always.

    That's why the company is performing so poorly.

    They are as doomed as ever.

  • Reply 53 of 100
    cfugle wrote: »
    Is it me or is the new Microsoft getting smarter? It appears to be a well laid out device for sports-speific training and logging. Certainly more advanced than Nike or FitBit offerings (for the moment). Cross Platform, IOS friendly.... the winds are a changing.

    Those idiots at Microsoft made the exact same fundamental error Samsung made with their first version of their watch. The screen is in the wrong orientation! Unless the real purpose of this thing is for it to be used by an accompanying nurse for an elderly patient, that screen facing in that direction is off by ninety degrees.
  • Reply 54 of 100
    Apple Watch and this are designed for different functions and uses. This will appeal much more to the active users who want this kind of tracking and use. Apple's watch will appeal to a more refined user. The only area of direct competition is for the wrist area which will house one of these or perhaps for most none.
  • Reply 55 of 100
    Those idiots at Microsoft made the exact same fundamental error Samsung made with their first version of their watch. The screen is in the wrong orientation! Unless the real purpose of this thing is for it to be used by an accompanying nurse for an elderly patient, that screen facing in that direction is off by ninety degrees.

    Our if it's meant to be worn on the bottom of the wrist. Given the desire for a wider screen (band vs watch) there really is no other option. Even if you wear it on top for most of the functions you don't really need to constantly look at it. At the end of the day or the activity you'll look at it once. Not the big deal many are making this our top be.
  • Reply 56 of 100
    This looks like a pretty good effort on M's part. I will order one and test it out. M's latest efforts are improving. The Surface 3 is a really nice piece of hardware. My only issue with it is the OS. I fully welcome a relevant M moving forward.
  • Reply 57 of 100
    captain j wrote: »
    Our if it's meant to be worn on the bottom of the wrist. Given the desire for a wider screen (band vs watch) there really is no other option. Even if you wear it on top for most of the functions you don't really need to constantly look at it. At the end of the day or the activity you'll look at it once. Not the big deal many are making this our top be.

    It's demonstrative of form over function and proof that the user experience was not at the top of the list for Mucrosoft.
  • Reply 58 of 100
    It's demonstrative of form over function and proof that the user experience was not at the top of the list for Mucrosoft.

    Or it's the best option to give the required screen size in a band. How would you give adequate screen size in a band? I don't see any other way.
  • Reply 59 of 100
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    paul94544 wrote: »

    the apple watch will only sync with an iPhone and nothing else. SJ would be screaming at his design team. yes even if you are correct and it last 3 hours on gps thats better than no capability at all which is the apple watch

    Riiiiight. Jobs but 3rd party integration at the very top of his list of priority. If he were still with us he would have a field day explaining how MS still has no style and why a device is more than the sum of its features.

    This looks like a good device for fitness nerds, but it's about as elegant as a ... Something inelegant that does a lot of stuff (I'm metaphor challenged today apparently).
  • Reply 60 of 100
    captain j wrote: »


    Or it's the best option to give the required screen size in a band. How would you give adequate screen size in a band? I don't see any other way.

    That wide format display is s design choice. The wrong choice...but it was a choice.
Sign In or Register to comment.