Apple Watch's Workout app learns users' strides over time, Turlington Burns diary reveals

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 88
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MagMan1979 View Post





    There is a place there called Mario's Express on Howe and Dunsmuir downtown, and they serve amazing Arabic and Italian roasts, but it's 40 mins away from my current office image

    If you want the best, order online at Sweet Maria

  • Reply 42 of 88
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 433member

    Touting another "complication"?

     

    ROFL

  • Reply 43 of 88
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    mstone wrote: »
    http://berkeleysciencereview.com/fit-fitbit/

    This is an article I found that tested Fitbit and explains the accuracy variables scientifically.

    Fitbit say there's just a small difference with actual steps and they want to count some hand activity:

    http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/How-accurate-is-my-Charge-HR

    "WHY IS MY CHARGE HR STEP COUNT DIFFERENT THAN MY COUNT ON OTHER FITBIT PRODUCTS?

    Charge HR has been tested extensively against our clip-based devices like the Fitbit One and Fitbit Zip. That said, because Charge HR is specifically designed for your wrist, if you move your body a lot and not your arms (or vice versa), you may get a slight difference in activity than you would see on your clip-based trackers. Additionally, since you’re more likely to wear Charge HR 24/7, you may count a few more steps.

    This is no different than any wrist-based tracker on the market. For most people, there may be no difference at all between clip and wrist based trackers or it may be within a few percentage points difference. That said, if you have a lifestyle where you move your hands a lot such as playing the drums everyday, you may see a few extra steps on your Charge HR because we do want to give you credit for this activity.

    WHY DO I GET EXTRA STEPS SOMETIMES?

    Charge HR is a motion sensor on your wrist. There are many instances where your hands may be moving, but your body may not be, such as playing the drums, cooking, or even burping a baby. Charge HR may count extra steps here and there to give you credit when it thinks you are active. For more information, see How does my tracker count steps?

    Don’t forget, it’s the trends that matter the most in achieving your health and fitness goals."

    Someone did a few tests with the Fitbit vs iPhone here:

    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6603356

    That showed both motion sensors (or rather the readings of the sensors) had some inaccuracy but usually within about 10% of the actual steps. It would be better always underestimating to push people to exceed their goals.

    It would probably be more accurate if they had ankle sensors (smart socks/shoes/soles?) and could detect when they passed by each other but I doubt people need to know the exact step counts. It's just a general target like calorie intake and burning. Maybe athletes need more precision but they'd probably have appropriate equipment in that case.
  • Reply 44 of 88
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    I can tell you I've been using the i6 for two months now to monitor my activity and it was at first off by as much as 50% high on monitoring steps. How do I know first I know my route and how long it was plus I was using a GPS monitor and they did not agree with the Apple motion engine. However over a period of time it got better and today it is right on. I also check to see if it matter if it was in my pants pocket or shirt or if I was holding it and today it is right on. Even the phone has to calibrate itself. I was impress how it did that since I knew everyone would be different.

    What you think is a weakness is actually good design and understanding of the various use cases and make a system that can learn.
    Hate to say it, but the Apple Watch will probably be less accurate than the iPhone for counting steps, due to its wrist placement.

    This is because we tend to move our wrists a lot more than our hips in day to day use (just look at an Italian gesticulating in everyday speech with his arms), which means that there will be many erroneous steps counted with the watch. Having your iPhone in your pocket or handbag is much more reliable due to the greater stability in those places.

    In fact, the reason for the Apple Watch's need to train itself is likely due to this intrinsic weakness.

    In Burns's case, the Watch may not be so inaccurate if she uses it only when running a marathon, as she will adopt a regular motion with her arms. But most people will be using the Apple Watch for counting steps throughout the day, not for a specific workout. In that more common scenario, the iPhone will win for accuracy.

    I examined the wrist-worn Fitbit devices and the feedback they have received to arrive at this conclusion. Fitbit do make some non-wrist devices.
  • Reply 45 of 88
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    Hate to say it, but the Apple Watch will probably be less accurate than the iPhone for counting steps, due to its wrist placement.



    This is because we tend to move our wrists a lot more than our hips in day to day use (just look at an Italian gesticulating in everyday speech with his arms), which means that there will be many erroneous steps counted with the watch. Having your iPhone in your pocket or handbag is much more reliable due to the greater stability in those places.



    In fact, the reason for the Apple Watch's need to train itself is likely due to this intrinsic weakness.



    In Burns's case, the Watch may not be so inaccurate if she uses it only when running a marathon, as she will adopt a regular motion with her arms. But most people will be using the Apple Watch for counting steps throughout the day, not for a specific workout. In that more common scenario, the iPhone will win for accuracy.



    I examined the wrist-worn Fitbit devices and the feedback they have received to arrive at this conclusion. Fitbit do make some non-wrist devices.

    There's a reason why everyone in Apple's super secret exercise lab is wearing Apple Watches. They are trying to improve accuracy of all activity that is logged. This is much more than they've ever attempted with phones in users' pockets so I think the wrist-worn watch will actually be much more accurate. Besides, before you exercise, you choose the type of exercise you are doing so that Apple Watch accurately counts motion and calories. I'm not worried about a few extra steps added to my 10,000/day. I'm already getting imperfect data using just my phone now because it has no idea what my arms are doing.

  • Reply 46 of 88
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

     

    This is much more than they've ever attempted with phones in users' pockets so I think the wrist-worn watch will actually be much more accurate.


    Do we know that? I feel like this lab has been around for a while, and when Apple first offered Nike+ on the iPhone, similar tests would have likely occurred. 

  • Reply 47 of 88
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post



    This is a good thing that the device will be learning over time. The health app on my phone sometimes thinks I have been cycling when I have not.



    You can choose cycling as an activity in the Apple Watch.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ross.alex.k View Post



    Still no GPS. Can't accurately track my pace. Deal breaker for this Apple fan. I run with my iPhone today, I don't want to run with it anymore, and the Watch doesn't give me relief from it.



    What is pace but just the number of times you trigger the accelerometer in the watch? I would bet that the watch alone would accurately measure your pace. Add the phone to that for the first week of workouts and now you have an even more accurate measurement. Everyone is looking for an excuse not to buy this watch and I still haven't heard a valid one yet. That doesn't mean everyone should buy one either - just saying that the criticism so far doesn't hold up.

  • Reply 48 of 88
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    Hate to say it,

     

    Then don't.

  • Reply 49 of 88
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     

    Do we know that? I feel like this lab has been around for a while, and when Apple first offered Nike+ on the iPhone, similar tests would have likely occurred. 




    What we do know is that Apple Watch + iPhone offers much more points of data than any single set of sensors.

     

    They did say in the report that that particular lab has been running for about 3 years so that tells me the fitness research lab was created specifically for the Apple Watch since they began development on it around that time.

  • Reply 50 of 88
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

     

    They did say in the report that that particular lab has been running for about 3 years so that tells me the fitness research lab was created specifically for the Apple Watch since they began development on it around that time.


    I tend to agree with you, however, this is all specious reasoning. Obviously the watch did not exist except in concepts three years ago, so the lab was obviously testing other things at that time, that or sitting empty waiting for the first watch prototypes ...

  • Reply 51 of 88
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     

    I tend to agree with you, however, this is all specious reasoning. Obviously the watch did not exist except in concepts three years ago, so the lab was obviously testing other things at that time, that or sitting empty waiting for the first watch prototypes ...




    I don't think prototypes work that way. Apple definitely had sensors on wrists 3 years ago. The prototypes probably looked nothing like Apple Watch as we know it but the data is the same. Over the next 2 years they revise the size and shape and features of the watches but the sensors don't really change because we've had tiny heart rate and accelerometers for years and years. Data is data.

  • Reply 52 of 88
    wigby wrote: »

    You can choose cycling as an activity in the Apple Watch.


    What is pace but just the number of times you trigger the accelerometer in the watch? I would bet that the watch alone would accurately measure your pace. Add the phone to that for the first week of workouts and now you have an even more accurate measurement. Everyone is looking for an excuse not to buy this watch and I still haven't heard a valid one yet. That doesn't mean everyone should buy one either - just saying that the criticism so far doesn't hold up.
    I'm not looking for an excuse. GPS is a valid reason. That, coupled with the fact that the $350 model has a glass face, and the watch is sensitive to water, are deal breakers for me personally. This is something I have been looking forward to since early last year when rumors started, and I WANT to buy the watch but I can't justify the cost of a $500+ watch that may not be accurate for my running. Sorry.
  • Reply 53 of 88
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

     



    I don't think prototypes work that way. Apple definitely had sensors on wrists 3 years ago. The prototypes probably looked nothing like Apple Watch as we know it but the data is the same. Over the next 2 years they revise the size and shape and features of the watches but the sensors don't really change because we've had tiny heart rate and accelerometers for years and years. Data is data.




    Again, all speculation. But is this the first lab Apple had to study health, or only the new one they built 3 years ago? Again, they were clearly testing the iPhone with Nike+, and the iPod before that. The Nike+ App appeared in the App store in 2010, which is two years before the lab was built. Are you suggesting Apple wasn't doing anything with health before the ?Watch began development, ceding it all to Nike and others until 3 years ago?

  • Reply 54 of 88
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ross.alex.k View Post


    GPS is a valid reason. That, coupled with the fact that the $350 model has a glass face, and the watch is sensitive to water, are deal breakers for me personally.

    I'm in complete agreement. There are some notable demographic groups Apple has excluded from this initial launch.

     

    1) People who don't own iPhones, but otherwise own an Apple product that could just as easily setup a watch.

    2) People who need better water-resistance.

    3) People who are looking primarily for a fitness watch to operate independently of the iPhone, with comparable features of competing models (not everyone wants to carry their phone with them when they go out for a jog, et al.).

    4) People who wear gold-colored jewelry and accessories, and aren't in the top 2% of income earners.

    Now that's not to say this is a problem. I personally believe this is intentional on Apple's part for various reasons, but perhaps chief among them, controlling the size and demand of the rollout. No Apple product rollout is without its problems, however small. But what better way to control the unknowns than by limiting the size of the demographic you're creating demand from?
  • Reply 55 of 88
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ross.alex.k View Post





    I'm not looking for an excuse. GPS is a valid reason. That, coupled with the fact that the $350 model has a glass face, and the watch is sensitive to water, are deal breakers for me personally. This is something I have been looking forward to since early last year when rumors started, and I WANT to buy the watch but I can't justify the cost of a $500+ watch that may not be accurate for my running. Sorry.



    Fair enough if it doesn't fit in your budget but GPS only gives you street names and running routes. And that's if you don't carry an iPhone with you. I hardly call that a deal breaker. Not sure what you mean about glass face. It's Ion-X so it's basically Gorilla Glass but isn't that the face of all smart watches these days other than sapphire or plastic? Not sure what more you're looking for in a watch face with a touchscreen. Sensitivity to water is also debatable. We know that Apple Watch has an IPX7 which is under 1 meter of water for 30 minutes. That covers everyone except for swimmers if you ask me.

  • Reply 56 of 88
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,056member

    At this stage, one of the big unknowns is the band attach mechanism. I think this is the first picture I've seen of the band part not inserted into the Watch case. I would believe Apple could have put some pairing mechanism in the bands to make them proprietary; but I think it unlikely. It remains to be seen how much Apple will tolerate third party bands. I'm told attendees at the Spring Forward event were not able to toy or inspect that mechanism.

     

    The idea of DRM-like hardware controls can backfire very quickly and dramatically, as Keurig recently found out.

     

    The fitness software will evolve, just like every other device's. One thing I would hope Apple does is to set the defaults in most of the features to off on delivery. There is a huge risk to people being bombarded with information they don't want - they'll get pissed and return the thing. If it isn't displaying stuff they want, they'll quickly find the "on" button. 

     

    I hate tutorial videos. Hate 'em. Any technology that requires an owners' manual is failed technology.

  • Reply 57 of 88
    wigby wrote: »

    Fair enough if it doesn't fit in your budget but GPS only gives you street names and running routes. And that's if you don't carry an iPhone with you. I hardly call that a deal breaker. Not sure what you mean about glass face. It's Ion-X so it's basically Gorilla Glass but isn't that the face of all smart watches these days other than sapphire or plastic? Not sure what more you're looking for in a watch face with a touchscreen. Sensitivity to water is also debatable. We know that Apple Watch has an IPX7 which is under 1 meter of water for 30 minutes. That covers everyone except for swimmers if you ask me.
    From what I have read, IPX7 is not rated for showers. Mind you, I'm not going to wear my watch in the shower, but I will when I wash my hands. Cause for concern. GPS gives you distance and pace. Two very important features for runners like myself. Especially mid-run when I want to be able to look down at my wrist and see if I'm behind pace. I want to be able to run without my phone. I don't want to run with my phone AND a watch. What would the purpose be of adding the watch when I run with the phone today already. I want sapphire watch face. I have had glass watch faces and they're too sensitive to bumps on furniture and putting hands in pockets with keys and stuff. So that one feature alone puts me in the $500 bracket- WAYY too high.
  • Reply 58 of 88
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    wigby wrote: »

    Fair enough if it doesn't fit in your budget but GPS only gives you street names and running routes. And that's if you don't carry an iPhone with you. I hardly call that a deal breaker. Not sure what you mean about glass face. It's Ion-X so it's basically Gorilla Glass but isn't that the face of all smart watches these days other than sapphire or plastic? Not sure what more you're looking for in a watch face with a touchscreen. Sensitivity to water is also debatable. We know that Apple Watch has an IPX7 which is under 1 meter of water for 30 minutes. That covers everyone except for swimmers if you ask me.
    You're imposing your values on others. Runners like to travel as light as possible. That's why at the launch keynote someone mentioned you go out for a run without your iPhone and buy a sports drink with ?Pay using your watch only. The steel watch and Edition watch have sapphire crystals like every fine watch I've ever had. My iPhone is screens have scratches all over them. My 16 year old Citizen doesn't have mark on its crystal, and it's had a hard life. It's a "sport" watch -- it's going to get abused. Apple specifically says NOT to submerge the watch in water. That affects almost anyone who comes into contact with water on a daily basis, whether for sport, leisure, or occupation. Apple expressly says you can sweat on it, wash your hands, and get caught in the rain, but say nothing about showers, or baths, nor anything else. So pardon me if I don't take your word for it that Apple will honor my warranty should the watch fail from water damage because I used it in every situation involving water besides swimming.
  • Reply 59 of 88
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    eightzero wrote: »
    I would believe Apple could have put some pairing mechanism in the bands to make them proprietary; but I think it unlikely. It remains to be seen how much Apple will tolerate third party bands. ...One thing I would hope Apple does is to set the defaults in most of the features to off on delivery. There is a huge risk to people being bombarded with information they don't want - they'll get pissed and return the thing.
    The flip side to opening this up to third party bands is that Apple will have to tightly police their licenses. Even though it's not Apple's fault if a third party band fails and your watch falls in the toilet, or flies off your wrist on the freeway, then who is the customer going to blame? The metal tab in the center hole might be DRM, and it wouldn't surprise me to slow down the unlicensed manufactures so they can better oversee then halite control, at least at first.

    But you're right about the apps notifications. I almost think Apple should have held off on inviting the app makers until after the launch, so as to delay the number of apps a person could overload their watch with. Delivering core functionality at first is more than enough, especially considering the speed app developers rushed their updates to market.
  • Reply 60 of 88
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ross.alex.k View Post





    From what I have read, IPX7 is not rated for showers. Mind you, I'm not going to wear my watch in the shower, but I will when I wash my hands. Cause for concern. GPS gives you distance and pace. Two very important features for runners like myself. Especially mid-run when I want to be able to look down at my wrist and see if I'm behind pace. I want to be able to run without my phone. I don't want to run with my phone AND a watch. What would the purpose be of adding the watch when I run with the phone today already. I want sapphire watch face. I have had glass watch faces and they're too sensitive to bumps on furniture and putting hands in pockets with keys and stuff. So that one feature alone puts me in the $500 bracket- WAYY too high.



    Visit the IPX7 wiki page for detailed testing on showers, water jet streams and much more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code

     

    Apple Watch gets distance and pace from it's accelerometers. Once it knows your stride distance (which it gets when you input your height) and also learns from your iPhone's GPS, you have every metric you need except for street names and a picture of your route. Since it's a timepiece at heart, it knows your pace and can give you run speed at the end of the run because it knows how far you ran and has a start and stop time. You might need your phone for the first few runs (in theory you would never need it if the right questions are asked and answered before the first workout) but you would not need it after that.

     

    Are you saying glass faces are more prone to scratching or shattering because those are two different things? If you're worried about scratches and nicks, sapphire is the way to go but if you're just worried about shattering from a lot of activity, sapphire is not a good choice.

Sign In or Register to comment.