Maybe because that is what is reported on the Apple website:
"Wi-Fi and GPS. Apple Watch uses the GPS and Wi?Fi in your iPhone to help measure the distance you travel during the day or during workouts that can’t be measured in steps, such as cycling."
Apple Watch's connectivity appears to only be via BT4.0 (and the magsafe charger into a USB device.). This is sort of interesting given that Apple also reported that it's timekeeping is accurate to the "universal standard" within 50ms. I think the implication is "...when coupled to an iPhone or when updated via the charger."
"Apple Watch also features Wi-Fi 802.11b/g and Bluetooth 4.0 to pair seamlessly with your iPhone."
What is being missed that it's now been over 3 months since the press release and a tech forum that has mentioned the WiFi excessively still has regular posters claiming that it doesn't? I don't get it.
What is being missed that it's now been over 3 months since the press release and a tech forum that has mentioned the WiFi excessively still has regular posters claiming that it doesn't? I don't get it.
OK. I stand corrected. It apparently has at least a wifi chip in it. But it also seems to indicate that it can only communicate via wifi to iPhone. Meaning it can't figure out where it is via wifi; and I would assume no calls over wifi via Skype.
Wi?Fi and GPS. Along with its accelerometer, Apple Watch uses the Wi?Fi on your iPhone to give you an even more accurate count of the calories you burn throughout the day. And it uses GPS to more accurately measure distance and speed during workouts you do outside, such as walking, running and cycling.
Do you need a fitness tracker with GPS? Or is this just concern and handwringing over the length of Apple's spec sheet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I never said it would be DOA. My point is I think lack of GPS and wifi is currently a compromise in order to get acceptable battery life. In the Watch intro video Jony Ive references using GPS and wifi from the iPhone to get a complete picture of your daily activities. So I think Apple is well aware that a fitness device needs GPS to be truly useful and IMO GPS is high up on the priority list for future versions.
I have this feeling that people that detract from GPS in a device that is considered a health and fitness device aren't really familiar with any kind of serious fitness tracking. Outside of biometric markers of activity, distance and elevation from GPS provide good metrics. Not including GPS in the Apple Watch is most definitely a compromise that Apple is willing to accept in version 1.0.
I have this feeling that people that detract from GPS in a device that is considered a health and fitness device aren't really familiar with any kind of serious fitness tracking.
???
So you're implying that I'm not into serious fitness tracking because I run on a treadmill?
I accept this answer, thank you. I have a fitbit one which only counts steps. Distance is an estimate based on average stride. GPS allows for some clever tricks like detecting when your motion is due to being in a car or bike, and not counting them as "steps." Not sure if any of the GPS equipped fitness trackers do that, but it could be done. And of course, if you run out in traffic, it'll give a more accurate estimate of distance and speed. (Since I exercise on a treadmill, it tracks distance and speed and inclination). I use the fitbit to track total activity during the day. I don't see myself needing to know the total distance I walk each day; the total number of steps (and time spent walking) is more important to understand my total daily level of physical activity.
I have this feeling that people that detract from GPS in a device that is considered a health and fitness device aren't really familiar with any kind of serious fitness tracking.
???
So you're implying that I'm not into serious fitness tracking because I run on a treadmill?
Some honest questions:
What is the requirement/advantage of GPS on a fitness device?
If its location tracking, is the use of GPS alone, accurate enough -- or is Wi-Fi assist also required?
What current devices provide accurate GPS tracking capability and acceptable mobility and battery performance?
Isn't it possible to provide an acceptable alternative to GPS tracking -- given a known GPS starting point, then using a compass, altimeter and accelerometers to determine the deviation [location] from the known point?
If the latter is true, I suspect that you could plot the known starting point in advance using an iPhone, then determine your exact location on the fly by using only the Apple watch.
If you look at WatchKit, is not "the first generation hardware" that will need an iPhone.
The Apple Watch is designed to be an extension of an iOS device, full stop.
thats just, like, your opinion, man.
i think its universally accepted that the apps will be running natively in the future. and much like the mac, iphone, and ipad, will continue to grow in capabilities over time. no reason to believe otherwise. except having an ability to reject history, i suppose.
Apple is going to need GPS sooner rather than later, especially if they're going to push it as a comprehensive fitness device.
not really. im a fitness guy, and i dont need GPS -- my runs are in the same place, every time. keeping track that it happened and for how long is whats necessary. im confident the pedometer sensors will be as accurate as i need....dunno about you but im not a pro athlete so im not sweating the difference.
do the FitBit bands have GPS? Jawbone bands? nope; only the announced high-end FB model will, most of their line doesnt. so if not, then why must the fitness aspect of AW? oh yeah, because people who probably dont ever use it say so. because, GPS.
So I think Apple is well aware that a fitness device needs GPS to be truly useful and IMO GPS is high up on the priority list for future versions.
man, what has FitBit been doing all these years! no GPS until their forthcoming latest, high-end model! and yet....people could track their walking & running activity! sacre bleu!
OK. I stand corrected. It apparently has at least a wifi chip in it. But it also seems to indicate that it can only communicate via wifi to iPhone. Meaning it can't figure out where it is via wifi; and I would assume no calls over wifi via Skype.
good god -- talk about moving the goalposts! "WHAT! NO WIFI SKYPE CALLING? DOA!!!!"
The back of the watch doesn't have any manufacturing info. Can Apple sell an Edition watch for thousands of dollars if it says assembled in China on the back?
Yeah, Apple must be really stupid to be not asking -- or have an answer to -- such questions. It's a good thing we have you to alert Apple.
Agreed.
Having Made in China on the back is the sign of a naff product. Made in Switzerland is rather better, to put it mildly.
Apple is going to need GPS sooner rather than later, especially if they're going to push it as a comprehensive fitness device.
not really. im a fitness guy, and i dont need GPS -- my runs are in the same place, every time. keeping track that it happened and for how long is whats necessary. im confident the pedometer sensors will be as accurate as i need....dunno about you but im not a pro athlete so im not sweating the difference.
do the FitBit bands have GPS? Jawbone bands? nope; only the announced high-end FB model will, most of their line doesnt. so if not, then why must the fitness aspect of AW? oh yeah, because people who probably dont ever use it say so. because, GPS.
You're the outlier.
For most runners and cyclists, GPS is essential, which makes the Apple Watch a no go.
man, what has FitBit been doing all these years! no GPS until their forthcoming latest, high-end model! and yet....people could track their walking & running activity! sacre bleu!
My bad. I don't use a FitBit but fitness buffs I talk to were bummed ?Watch didn't have GPS. I believe Microsoft's Band does.
Comments
"Apple Watch also features Wi-Fi 802.11b/g and Bluetooth 4.0 to pair seamlessly with your iPhone."
What is being missed that it's now been over 3 months since the press release and a tech forum that has mentioned the WiFi excessively still has regular posters claiming that it doesn't? I don't get it.
"Apple Watch also features Wi-Fi 802.11b/g and Bluetooth 4.0 to pair seamlessly with your iPhone."
What is being missed that it's now been over 3 months since the press release and a tech forum that has mentioned the WiFi excessively still has regular posters claiming that it doesn't? I don't get it.
OK. I stand corrected. It apparently has at least a wifi chip in it. But it also seems to indicate that it can only communicate via wifi to iPhone. Meaning it can't figure out where it is via wifi; and I would assume no calls over wifi via Skype.
Most runners I know need GPS. I use the Nike app on my iPhone and it uses GPS. And from Apple's website:
http://www.apple.com/watch/health-and-fitness/
Do you need a fitness tracker with GPS? Or is this just concern and handwringing over the length of Apple's spec sheet?
I never said it would be DOA. My point is I think lack of GPS and wifi is currently a compromise in order to get acceptable battery life. In the Watch intro video Jony Ive references using GPS and wifi from the iPhone to get a complete picture of your daily activities. So I think Apple is well aware that a fitness device needs GPS to be truly useful and IMO GPS is high up on the priority list for future versions.
I have this feeling that people that detract from GPS in a device that is considered a health and fitness device aren't really familiar with any kind of serious fitness tracking. Outside of biometric markers of activity, distance and elevation from GPS provide good metrics. Not including GPS in the Apple Watch is most definitely a compromise that Apple is willing to accept in version 1.0.
???
So you're implying that I'm not into serious fitness tracking because I run on a treadmill?
I accept this answer, thank you. I have a fitbit one which only counts steps. Distance is an estimate based on average stride. GPS allows for some clever tricks like detecting when your motion is due to being in a car or bike, and not counting them as "steps." Not sure if any of the GPS equipped fitness trackers do that, but it could be done. And of course, if you run out in traffic, it'll give a more accurate estimate of distance and speed. (Since I exercise on a treadmill, it tracks distance and speed and inclination). I use the fitbit to track total activity during the day. I don't see myself needing to know the total distance I walk each day; the total number of steps (and time spent walking) is more important to understand my total daily level of physical activity.
Or you know the path you run without having to be told where to turn.
What makes all this really stupid are these "serious" people can can carry their iPhone on therm to get AGPS data if they want.
Some honest questions:
What is the requirement/advantage of GPS on a fitness device?
If its location tracking, is the use of GPS alone, accurate enough -- or is Wi-Fi assist also required?
What current devices provide accurate GPS tracking capability and acceptable mobility and battery performance?
Isn't it possible to provide an acceptable alternative to GPS tracking -- given a known GPS starting point, then using a compass, altimeter and accelerometers to determine the deviation [location] from the known point?
If the latter is true, I suspect that you could plot the known starting point in advance using an iPhone, then determine your exact location on the fly by using only the Apple watch.
If you look at WatchKit, is not "the first generation hardware" that will need an iPhone.
The Apple Watch is designed to be an extension of an iOS device, full stop.
thats just, like, your opinion, man.
i think its universally accepted that the apps will be running natively in the future. and much like the mac, iphone, and ipad, will continue to grow in capabilities over time. no reason to believe otherwise. except having an ability to reject history, i suppose.
Apple is going to need GPS sooner rather than later, especially if they're going to push it as a comprehensive fitness device.
not really. im a fitness guy, and i dont need GPS -- my runs are in the same place, every time. keeping track that it happened and for how long is whats necessary. im confident the pedometer sensors will be as accurate as i need....dunno about you but im not a pro athlete so im not sweating the difference.
do the FitBit bands have GPS? Jawbone bands? nope; only the announced high-end FB model will, most of their line doesnt. so if not, then why must the fitness aspect of AW? oh yeah, because people who probably dont ever use it say so. because, GPS.
Yep.
They're going to need those impulse buyers.
it wont be impulse. people like me are evaluating the feature set and determining the device likely offers values, and making a cognitive decision.
i know this hurts you. it will pass.
So I think Apple is well aware that a fitness device needs GPS to be truly useful and IMO GPS is high up on the priority list for future versions.
man, what has FitBit been doing all these years! no GPS until their forthcoming latest, high-end model! and yet....people could track their walking & running activity! sacre bleu!
OK. I stand corrected. It apparently has at least a wifi chip in it. But it also seems to indicate that it can only communicate via wifi to iPhone. Meaning it can't figure out where it is via wifi; and I would assume no calls over wifi via Skype.
good god -- talk about moving the goalposts! "WHAT! NO WIFI SKYPE CALLING? DOA!!!!"
I'm surprised they didn't argue that without a GPS, the runner will get lost and then eaten by wolves.
We definitely can't rule it out after seeing The Grey.
Yeah, Apple must be really stupid to be not asking -- or have an answer to -- such questions. It's a good thing we have you to alert Apple.
Agreed.
Having Made in China on the back is the sign of a naff product. Made in Switzerland is rather better, to put it mildly.
Apple is going to need GPS sooner rather than later, especially if they're going to push it as a comprehensive fitness device.
not really. im a fitness guy, and i dont need GPS -- my runs are in the same place, every time. keeping track that it happened and for how long is whats necessary. im confident the pedometer sensors will be as accurate as i need....dunno about you but im not a pro athlete so im not sweating the difference.
do the FitBit bands have GPS? Jawbone bands? nope; only the announced high-end FB model will, most of their line doesnt. so if not, then why must the fitness aspect of AW? oh yeah, because people who probably dont ever use it say so. because, GPS.
You're the outlier.
For most runners and cyclists, GPS is essential, which makes the Apple Watch a no go.
My bad. I don't use a FitBit but fitness buffs I talk to were bummed ?Watch didn't have GPS. I believe Microsoft's Band does.