From what I have read, IPX7 is not rated for showers.
Exactly ipx7 is rated for the one very specific test. To say Otherwise is to not understand the rating. However, Tim Cook said he wears his watch in the shower all the time, so that won't be something Apple can refuse warranty service on, despite not explicitly permitting it on their extremely limited disclaimer.
I expect the watch is far more robust than Apple suggests it is by their disclaimer, and we will know them I'll extent on April 24th after tear-downs start to appear on the web along with drop tests, et al. However, it will still not serve a large demographic of people for whom work and play revolve around water.
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.
What values? Don't run with your phone and you will be fine. That's it. The phone GPS doesn't provide any useful metrics that the Watch cannot provide unless you like to look at your phone to see street routes while you run. That doesn't sound like the light traveling runner you describe.
So we agree that sapphire screens scratch less than glass but glass is more durable overall. So Sport Watch should have glass. If you don't want scratches, get the Steel or Edition models. Simple enough.
If you don't believe me, look up the IPX7 rating. it's rated for showers, under water and more. Apple recommends not submerging the watch because idiots will test it for an hour and complain that it's not waterproof. Standard legal phrasing because "waterproof" has no real meaning in marketing terms.
*Apple Watch is splash and water resistant but not waterproof. You can, for example, wear and use Apple Watch during exercise, in the rain, and while washing your hands, but submerging Apple Watch is not recommended. Apple Watch has a water resistance rating of IPX7 under IEC standard 60529. The leather bands are not water resistant.
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.
There is now rating for "showers" just as there is no rating for dragonfly tears. The IP ratings are very specific. In the case of ?Watch Apple is wiling to stand behind the device being submerged in 1M of water for 30 minutes. If you don't think you can wash your hands within those parameters then so be it, but that's not a legitimate "cause for concern." How about picking one of the many legitimate reasons not to buy ?Watch instead of inventing dumb ones?
GPS gives you distance and pace. Two very important features for runners like myself.
So does an accelerometer, but a "real runner" would know that. Do you even know the accuracy of the iPhone's GPS?
Especially mid-run when I want to be able to look down at my wrist and see if I'm behind pace.
Again, something an accelerometer and clock can tell you. Have you even looked into the accuracy of the M-series chips Apple uses?
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.
Have you had a sapphire watch face before? Have you have an Ion-X or another alkali-aluminosilicate toughened sheet glass utilizing an ion exchange for hardening the surface? What was the thickness of these materials that we're "too sensitive"? Why not note whether they were scratched or cracked, which makes all the difference when comparing sapphire to alkali-aluminosilicate toughened sheet glass
So that one feature alone puts me in the $500 bracket- WAYY too high.
It costs too much for you to warrant. See, now that's a legitimate reason for you not to buy one. Now why couldn't you just started and ended with that instead of inventing ridiculous claims?
I enjoy having somone's perspective on their daily use of the apple watch. Changing faces, straps, workout settings. I think I'm gonna give it a try just can't decide if I want to go low key all black sport or if its worth $200 more for the sapphire display and such.
The phone GPS doesn't provide any useful metrics that the Watch cannot provide unless you like to look at your phone to see street routes while you run. That doesn't sound like the light traveling runner you describe.
Again, you are speaking from your perspective, seemingly with no experience. ross.alex.k just told you "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." Just because this is of no value to you, doesn't mean it has no validity for someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby
So we agree that sapphire screens scratch less than glass but glass is more durable overall. So Sport Watch should have glass.
If glass is more durable overall, then why would Apple want to put a sapphire glass on an iPhone? A watch is more likely to pick up nicks and scrapes over time than be subjected to an impact that might shatter it. And clever engineering can mitigate the problem anyway, otherwise why consider it for a phone which is extremely prone to screen shattering impacts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby
If you don't believe me, look up the IPX7 rating. it's rated for showers, under water and more. Apple recommends not submerging the watch because idiots will test it for an hour and complain that it's not waterproof. Standard legal phrasing because "waterproof" has no real meaning in marketing terms.
You look it up, someplace besides a summary on Wikipedia that you clearly don't understand.
Ratings IPX7 and IPX8. Tests for the ratings IPX7 and IPX8 address the possibility of moisture ingress from submersion in water. For IPX7 testing, the sample is submerged for 30 minutes. The lowest point of the enclosure should be 1000 mm below the surface of the water, and the highest point at least 150 mm below the surface. For IPX8, the test time and submersion depth are according to the manufacturer’s specifications and must be marked on the product (for example, “submersible for up to 1 hour at a depth up to 2 meters”).
Compliance with either of these tests does not imply compliance with IPX5 or IPX6 unless the product is marked with both ratings (for example, “IPX5/IPX7”). For some of the moisture tests, the standard requires control of the test water temperature. This necessitates having a storage tank system to allow the water to be maintained at room temperature.
The bottom line here is that when submerged in up to 1 meter of motionless, room temperature water, for at least :30, no water will enter the case. So if you knock your watch into the bathtub, and retrieve it quickly, there should theoretically be no water ingress. But it says nothing about heated water, chilled water, moving water, impact in or under water, exposure to jets of water, et al. Only what happens when you carefully place the watch on the bottom of a still water tank for :30. And it's amazing how physics can change the performance of such a test when other variables enter into the picture. Not only is it not rated for it, Apple does not say it's OK to wear the watch in the shower, only in rain, which is a vastly different kind of force. It will be interesting to see if it can withstand extended exposure to driving rain.
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.
Fitbit have been developing both wrist-worn and pocket devices for several years, though.
However clever the software is at interpreting arm movements, it is always going to be less accurate than a pocket device, because a pocket device is close to the leg, which means steps, and we don't generally wave our legs around.
You may think you don't care about a few inaccurate steps, but I have been using a tracking app on my iPhone for a couple of years, and every little step counts! Even a 5% inaccuracy would be 500 steps on a 10,000 day, which is quite a lot of walking.
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.
GPS simply makes the tracking more accurate, because it gives extra data points that can be compared and assimilated. Any pedometer that doesn't use GPS will always be less accurate. That's quite apart from being able to use maps, track routes, etc.
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.
All good points, especially about the GPS.
The lack of GPS effectively means that if you are using it for fitness, you will want your iPhone with you as well, which rather defeats the point of having the Apple Watch in the first place. It’s actually adding dead weight! Distance and pace need GPS, as you said, for accuracy. In addition, people tend to change routes, and it’s good to be able to track it and see the hills and obstacles on the route.
Again, you are speaking from your perspective, seemingly with no experience. ross.alex.k just told you "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." Just because this is of no value to you, doesn't mean it has no validity for someone else.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">If glass is more durable overall, then why would Apple want to put a sapphire glass on an iPhone? A watch is more likely to pick up nicks and scrapes over time than be subjected to an impact that might shatter it. And clever engineering can mitigate the problem anyway, otherwise why consider it for a phone which is extremely prone to screen shattering impacts?</span>
Yes, I'm speaking from my perspective. That's what we do here. Would you prefer I pretend to be someone else? That being said, I am a runner so I know better. The only reason to check your iPhone while you're running is if you get lost. An Apple Watch will do everything else a runner needs. I'll try explaining again. You don't need GPS at all to know how far and how fast someone runs. Any simple pedometer will tell you steps. Now add your stride distance and time it. Now you are measuring speed, distance, pace and calories which any Apple Watch can do without an iPhone. I believe any runner would prefer to glance at their Apple Watch on the wrist for all of their data instead of pulling out a phone to look at that. The only thing GPS on a phone gives you is a street map overlay. If you need that, you're probably lost.
How do you know what Apple wants to put on their phone? Talk about speaking from your own perspective. You have no clue what goes on at Apple. If they did want sapphire screens on iPhones, it would be to keep the screen from getting scratched by car keys and change in your pocket. I don't use an iPhone case but I do know others that have many little scratches because they do not use any protection. Apple Sport Watch doesn't use sapphire because a presumably active lifestyle will deliver a beating that sapphire cannot endure. But if you're spending more money on a stainless steel or gold edition, you do not place as much value on the fitness but rather on the appearance. No one wants a scratched watch face, especially if they paid between $600 and $17,000 for their watch.
you don't need GPS at all to know how far and how fast someone runs. Any simple pedometer will tell you steps. Now add your stride distance and time it. Now you are measuring speed, distance, pace and calories which any Apple Watch can do without an iPhone.
And carry the one ... that sounds convenient. Again, you like to work math problems while you run. Not everyone does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby
Apple Sport Watch doesn't use sapphire because a presumably active lifestyle will deliver a beating that sapphire cannot endure. But if you're spending more money on a stainless steel or gold edition, you do not place as much value on the fitness but rather on the appearance. No one wants a scratched watch face, especially if they paid between $600 and $17,000 for their watch.
There's that word "presume" again. Yeah those active people love to smash their watches against things that would shatter sapphire, but not glass. Better to obscure your tiny display with scratches. Perhaps more likely is that sapphire glass is more expensive than gorilla glass. Perhaps the company that bankrupted themselves last year, after failing to meet Apple's sapphire glass targets, including that rumored for the iPhone 6, cost Apple adequate supply to cover all of their watches in time for their delayed launch. Other news stories about late production yields seem to substantiate that possibility.
Guys, while gps tells the device where your are at any time, a pedometer does not need it to measure the number of paces you take. Mechanical pedometers have been around for decades. Athletes have been using them for decades. You need to manually set your pace length if you want to see how far you've gone. These things do work. But, if you're off by an inch, and don't know it, an easy error to make, your distance will be off.
The watch also does not need gps to know how many paces you've gone, just to tell you where you've gone. As it learns your pace length, it will know how far you've gone as well, likely to greater accuracy that a mechanical device which is still being used by professional sports organizations.
Guys, while gps tells the device where your are at any time, a pedometer does not need it to measure the number of paces you take. Mechanical pedometers have been around for decades. Athletes have been using them for decades. You need to manually set your pace length if you want to see how far you've gone. These things do work. But, if you're off by an inch, and don't know it, an easy error to make, your distance will be off.
The watch also does not need gps to know how many paces you've gone, just to tell you where you've gone. As it learns your pace length, it will know how far you've gone as well, likely to greater accuracy that a mechanical device which is still being used by professional sports organizations.
There's really too much being made of this here.
GPS are also really crappy, because position jumps around making precise speed/pace calculation unpredictable. Apple's using a 3 axis accelerometer which is probably more precise than the standard pedometer,
And carry the one ... that sounds convenient. Again, you like to work math problems while you run. Not everyone does.
There's that word "presume" again. Yeah those active people love to smash their watches against things that would shatter sapphire, but not glass. Better to obscure your tiny display with scratches. Perhaps more likely is that sapphire glass is more expensive than gorilla glass. Perhaps the company that bankrupted themselves last year, after failing to meet Apple's sapphire glass targets, including that rumored for the iPhone 6, cost Apple adequate supply to cover all of their watches in time for their delayed launch. Other news stories about late production yields seem to substantiate that possibility.
I've got watches with sapphire covers, and watches with "hardened mineral glass" covers. And over the years, it's always been the glass covers that have been gauged and broken. A couple of those sapphire covers are flush with the watch case, and are therefore not protected. Don't believe those who say how easily sapphire cracks.
GPS are also really crappy, because position jumps around making precise speed/pace calculation unpredictable. Apple's using a 3 axis accelerometer which is probably more precise than the standard pedometer,
As I say, too much is being made of this. I simply don't believe that Apple is doing this willy nilly. Apple takes their time. And sometimes that time seems glacial. But when it comes to something like this, where they are making such a massive push into health, I simply do not believe that they would have the watch be so inaccurate as to be useless. If it differs from the phone by a percent, or so, it's of no importance. And no one here can point to any knowledge that gives us reason to believe otherwise, at this time. As Turlington is showing, the watch gets more accurate with time (no pun intended) - just as Apple says it will.
Quite frankly, I find this entire argument specious. Until the watch is out, been tested over some meaningful time, by someone who themselves can be trusted, and by enough actual users, we need to assume that Apple does know what they are doing. I would be shocked if this does not perform closely to how Apple is saying it will. They are basing a good deal of their reputation on the performance of this thing, showing Ads with athletes, in sports magazines, with articles explaining how to get the best results with it, etc.
Every pacing device shows differences with every other pacing device, even professional ones. If they are off from each other by some small amount, it simply doesn't matter. It's of absolutely no importance if one says 5,000 steps, another says 4,900, and yet another says 5,100. If the differences range from 4,000 to 6,000, then it matters. If the consistency is within a few percent, that's fine too.
We really need to keep this in perspective. Even heart rate doesn't need to be 100% accurate. If it reads 125:75 rather than 120:70, it doesn't matter. It's not medically consequential.
GPS are also really crappy, because position jumps around making precise speed/pace calculation unpredictable. Apple's using a 3 axis accelerometer which is probably more precise than the standard pedometer,
As I say, too much is being made of this. I simply don't believe that Apple is doing this willy nilly. Apple takes their time. And sometimes that time seems glacial. But when it comes to something like this, where they are making such a massive push into health, I simply do not believe that they would have the watch be so inaccurate as to be useless. If it differs from the phone by a percent, or so, it's of no importance. And no one here can point to any knowledge that gives us reason to believe otherwise, at this time. As Turlington is showing, the watch gets more accurate with time (no pun intended) - just as Apple says it will.
Quite frankly, I find this entire argument specious. Until the watch is out, been tested over some meaningful time, by someone who themselves can be trusted, and by enough actual users, we need to assume that Apple does know what they are doing. I would be shocked if this does not perform closely to how Apple is saying it will. They are basing a good deal of their reputation on the performance of this thing, showing Ads with athletes, in sports magazines, with articles explaining how to get the best results with it, etc.
Every pacing device shows differences with every other pacing device, even professional ones. If they are off from each other by some small amount, it simply doesn't matter. It's of absolutely no importance if one says 5,000 steps, another says 4,900, and yet another says 5,100. If the differences range from 4,000 to 6,000, then it matters. If the consistency is within a few percent, that's fine too.
We really need to keep this in perspective. Even heart rate doesn't need to be 100% accurate. If it reads 125:75 rather than 120:70, it doesn't matter. It's not medically consequential.
There's a big difference between 1% error and 10% error, which are the examples you gave (roughly). I think a 5% error would be unacceptable. Even 3% is undesirable.
Of course, we are all speculating; I just don't think that Apple will get enough accuracy without GPS. GPS on its own is not necessarily very accurate, but combined with the internal motion sensor, it should allow for quite a lot more accurate reading than would ever be possible with just a motion sensor on its own.
The watch also does not need gps to know how many paces you've gone, just to tell you where you've gone.
And where you've gone is is just as valid a reason for a runner to have GPS as anything else. What of the runner who goes to an unfamiliar city on business, and hits the streets for a run from his hotel. Surely being able to know where you are is useful, so you can get back. Or the runner who wants to plan his routes and see where he's been and where he's going. Again, it's personal preference.
But I agree too much is being made of this. There are going to be a lot of people who won't buy an ?Watch because there's no mid-priced gold option. Again, personal preference, but the arguments around here seem to be that, 'people can just spend $10k', or 'start wearing silver jewelry since they can't afford real gold anyway' -- "simple enough".
The list of features the ?Watch does have, far outweigh those it doesn't. So I don't really understand the aggressively defensive posture the watch defenders are taking against what is clearly the minority demographic for the product, for whom Apple has not addressed some of their expectations.
GPS isn't even on my list of top features that will affect most users, but I do understand its importance to some, and respect their preference for it. Just like I get people who wear their watches in the shower, and those who would never do that. So I'm stunned when I read the guy who wouldn't is telling the guy who does, that its not a big deal to just take off the watch. The same for battery life arguments, et al. The ?Watch isn't all things to all people, and never will be, no matter how beautiful, or how well made. These debates are often shaded in absolutes, which is far from reality. There is no right or wrong in personal preference, at least where it doesn't affect someone else's rights. And don't get me started on how these discussions devolve into calling people trolls and idiots for their often reasonable, if opposing viewpoints...
And carry the one ... that sounds convenient. Again, you like to work math problems while you run. Not everyone does.
There's that word "presume" again. Yeah those active people love to smash their watches against things that would shatter sapphire, but not glass. Better to obscure your tiny display with scratches. Perhaps more likely is that sapphire glass is more expensive than gorilla glass. Perhaps the company that bankrupted themselves last year, after failing to meet Apple's sapphire glass targets, including that rumored for the iPhone 6, cost Apple adequate supply to cover all of their watches in time for their delayed launch. Other news stories about late production yields seem to substantiate that possibility.
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your replies. You're the one whining about not being able to look at maps while you run. Who does that?
I'm telling you (and so is everyone else in this forum) that you don't need GPS or pedometer or anything to measure distance and pace. it's all built into the Apple Watch, you know , the thing that Apple has been working no for years and also the thing you have never used, touched (or apparently even thought that much about before you criticize it).
No one has any idea what you're talking about in terms of glass and sapphire. We all know glass is more resistant to blunt force than sapphire and we also all know that sapphire is more resistant to scratching and nicks than glass is. I have no idea if you want glass on every watch or sapphire on every watch but it seems that once again Apple has come to the rescue with some common sense by using sapphire in the models you would expect them to and using glass in the model you would expect them to. Try to keep up with the discussion.
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your replies. You're the one whining about not being able to look at maps while you run. Who does that?
I'm telling you (and so is everyone else in this forum) that you don't need GPS or pedometer or anything to measure distance and pace. it's all built into the Apple Watch, you know , the thing that Apple has been working no for years and also the thing you have never used, touched (or apparently even thought that much about before you criticize it).
No one has any idea what you're talking about in terms of glass and sapphire. We all know glass is more resistant to blunt force than sapphire and we also all know that sapphire is more resistant to scratching and nicks than glass is. I have no idea if you want glass on every watch or sapphire on every watch but it seems that once again Apple has come to the rescue with some common sense by using sapphire in the models you would expect them to and using glass in the model you would expect them to. Try to keep up with the discussion.
Says the guy who insists he understands IPX7 after reading an entry about it on Wikipedia, and the rest of us are wrong.
It's clear you cannot be reasoned with, and cite your pinion as fact, regardless of what other evidence is presented, nor whomever else agrees with me, or otherwise opposes your position.
So now you're just being abusive. Best to agree to disagree, and move on.
Says the guy who insists he understands IPX7 after reading an entry about it on Wikipedia, and the rest of us are wrong.
It's clear you cannot be reasoned with, and cite your pinion as fact, regardless of what other evidence is presented, nor whomever else agrees with me, or otherwise opposes your position.
So now you're just being abusive. Best to agree to disagree, and move on.
You're now arguing against wikipedia, not me. Have fun with that.
Comments
I expect the watch is far more robust than Apple suggests it is by their disclaimer, and we will know them I'll extent on April 24th after tear-downs start to appear on the web along with drop tests, et al. However, it will still not serve a large demographic of people for whom work and play revolve around water.
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.
So we agree that sapphire screens scratch less than glass but glass is more durable overall. So Sport Watch should have glass. If you don't want scratches, get the Steel or Edition models. Simple enough.
There is now rating for "showers" just as there is no rating for dragonfly tears. The IP ratings are very specific. In the case of ?Watch Apple is wiling to stand behind the device being submerged in 1M of water for 30 minutes. If you don't think you can wash your hands within those parameters then so be it, but that's not a legitimate "cause for concern." How about picking one of the many legitimate reasons not to buy ?Watch instead of inventing dumb ones?
So does an accelerometer, but a "real runner" would know that. Do you even know the accuracy of the iPhone's GPS?
Again, something an accelerometer and clock can tell you. Have you even looked into the accuracy of the M-series chips Apple uses?
Have you had a sapphire watch face before? Have you have an Ion-X or another alkali-aluminosilicate toughened sheet glass utilizing an ion exchange for hardening the surface? What was the thickness of these materials that we're "too sensitive"? Why not note whether they were scratched or cracked, which makes all the difference when comparing sapphire to alkali-aluminosilicate toughened sheet glass
It costs too much for you to warrant. See, now that's a legitimate reason for you not to buy one. Now why couldn't you just started and ended with that instead of inventing ridiculous claims?
I enjoy having somone's perspective on their daily use of the apple watch. Changing faces, straps, workout settings. I think I'm gonna give it a try just can't decide if I want to go low key all black sport or if its worth $200 more for the sapphire display and such.
The phone GPS doesn't provide any useful metrics that the Watch cannot provide unless you like to look at your phone to see street routes while you run. That doesn't sound like the light traveling runner you describe.
Again, you are speaking from your perspective, seemingly with no experience. ross.alex.k just told you "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." Just because this is of no value to you, doesn't mean it has no validity for someone else.
So we agree that sapphire screens scratch less than glass but glass is more durable overall. So Sport Watch should have glass.
If glass is more durable overall, then why would Apple want to put a sapphire glass on an iPhone? A watch is more likely to pick up nicks and scrapes over time than be subjected to an impact that might shatter it. And clever engineering can mitigate the problem anyway, otherwise why consider it for a phone which is extremely prone to screen shattering impacts?
If you don't believe me, look up the IPX7 rating. it's rated for showers, under water and more. Apple recommends not submerging the watch because idiots will test it for an hour and complain that it's not waterproof. Standard legal phrasing because "waterproof" has no real meaning in marketing terms.
Ratings IPX7 and IPX8. Tests for the ratings IPX7 and IPX8 address the possibility of moisture ingress from submersion in water. For IPX7 testing, the sample is submerged for 30 minutes. The lowest point of the enclosure should be 1000 mm below the surface of the water, and the highest point at least 150 mm below the surface. For IPX8, the test time and submersion depth are according to the manufacturer’s specifications and must be marked on the product (for example, “submersible for up to 1 hour at a depth up to 2 meters”).
Compliance with either of these tests does not imply compliance with IPX5 or IPX6 unless the product is marked with both ratings (for example, “IPX5/IPX7”). For some of the moisture tests, the standard requires control of the test water temperature. This necessitates having a storage tank system to allow the water to be maintained at room temperature.
The bottom line here is that when submerged in up to 1 meter of motionless, room temperature water, for at least :30, no water will enter the case. So if you knock your watch into the bathtub, and retrieve it quickly, there should theoretically be no water ingress. But it says nothing about heated water, chilled water, moving water, impact in or under water, exposure to jets of water, et al. Only what happens when you carefully place the watch on the bottom of a still water tank for :30. And it's amazing how physics can change the performance of such a test when other variables enter into the picture. Not only is it not rated for it, Apple does not say it's OK to wear the watch in the shower, only in rain, which is a vastly different kind of force. It will be interesting to see if it can withstand extended exposure to driving rain.
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.
Fitbit have been developing both wrist-worn and pocket devices for several years, though.
However clever the software is at interpreting arm movements, it is always going to be less accurate than a pocket device, because a pocket device is close to the leg, which means steps, and we don't generally wave our legs around.
You may think you don't care about a few inaccurate steps, but I have been using a tracking app on my iPhone for a couple of years, and every little step counts! Even a 5% inaccuracy would be 500 steps on a 10,000 day, which is quite a lot of walking.
Hate to say it,
Then don't.
See no evil.
Speak no evil.
Notice no evil.
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.
GPS simply makes the tracking more accurate, because it gives extra data points that can be compared and assimilated. Any pedometer that doesn't use GPS will always be less accurate. That's quite apart from being able to use maps, track routes, etc.
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.
All good points, especially about the GPS.
The lack of GPS effectively means that if you are using it for fitness, you will want your iPhone with you as well, which rather defeats the point of having the Apple Watch in the first place. It’s actually adding dead weight! Distance and pace need GPS, as you said, for accuracy. In addition, people tend to change routes, and it’s good to be able to track it and see the hills and obstacles on the route.
Yes, I'm speaking from my perspective. That's what we do here. Would you prefer I pretend to be someone else? That being said, I am a runner so I know better. The only reason to check your iPhone while you're running is if you get lost. An Apple Watch will do everything else a runner needs. I'll try explaining again. You don't need GPS at all to know how far and how fast someone runs. Any simple pedometer will tell you steps. Now add your stride distance and time it. Now you are measuring speed, distance, pace and calories which any Apple Watch can do without an iPhone. I believe any runner would prefer to glance at their Apple Watch on the wrist for all of their data instead of pulling out a phone to look at that. The only thing GPS on a phone gives you is a street map overlay. If you need that, you're probably lost.
How do you know what Apple wants to put on their phone? Talk about speaking from your own perspective. You have no clue what goes on at Apple. If they did want sapphire screens on iPhones, it would be to keep the screen from getting scratched by car keys and change in your pocket. I don't use an iPhone case but I do know others that have many little scratches because they do not use any protection. Apple Sport Watch doesn't use sapphire because a presumably active lifestyle will deliver a beating that sapphire cannot endure. But if you're spending more money on a stainless steel or gold edition, you do not place as much value on the fitness but rather on the appearance. No one wants a scratched watch face, especially if they paid between $600 and $17,000 for their watch.
you don't need GPS at all to know how far and how fast someone runs. Any simple pedometer will tell you steps. Now add your stride distance and time it. Now you are measuring speed, distance, pace and calories which any Apple Watch can do without an iPhone.
And carry the one ... that sounds convenient. Again, you like to work math problems while you run. Not everyone does.
Apple Sport Watch doesn't use sapphire because a presumably active lifestyle will deliver a beating that sapphire cannot endure. But if you're spending more money on a stainless steel or gold edition, you do not place as much value on the fitness but rather on the appearance. No one wants a scratched watch face, especially if they paid between $600 and $17,000 for their watch.
There's that word "presume" again. Yeah those active people love to smash their watches against things that would shatter sapphire, but not glass. Better to obscure your tiny display with scratches. Perhaps more likely is that sapphire glass is more expensive than gorilla glass. Perhaps the company that bankrupted themselves last year, after failing to meet Apple's sapphire glass targets, including that rumored for the iPhone 6, cost Apple adequate supply to cover all of their watches in time for their delayed launch. Other news stories about late production yields seem to substantiate that possibility.
The watch also does not need gps to know how many paces you've gone, just to tell you where you've gone. As it learns your pace length, it will know how far you've gone as well, likely to greater accuracy that a mechanical device which is still being used by professional sports organizations.
There's really too much being made of this here.
Guys, while gps tells the device where your are at any time, a pedometer does not need it to measure the number of paces you take. Mechanical pedometers have been around for decades. Athletes have been using them for decades. You need to manually set your pace length if you want to see how far you've gone. These things do work. But, if you're off by an inch, and don't know it, an easy error to make, your distance will be off.
The watch also does not need gps to know how many paces you've gone, just to tell you where you've gone. As it learns your pace length, it will know how far you've gone as well, likely to greater accuracy that a mechanical device which is still being used by professional sports organizations.
There's really too much being made of this here.
GPS are also really crappy, because position jumps around making precise speed/pace calculation unpredictable. Apple's using a 3 axis accelerometer which is probably more precise than the standard pedometer,
I've got watches with sapphire covers, and watches with "hardened mineral glass" covers. And over the years, it's always been the glass covers that have been gauged and broken. A couple of those sapphire covers are flush with the watch case, and are therefore not protected. Don't believe those who say how easily sapphire cracks.
As I say, too much is being made of this. I simply don't believe that Apple is doing this willy nilly. Apple takes their time. And sometimes that time seems glacial. But when it comes to something like this, where they are making such a massive push into health, I simply do not believe that they would have the watch be so inaccurate as to be useless. If it differs from the phone by a percent, or so, it's of no importance. And no one here can point to any knowledge that gives us reason to believe otherwise, at this time. As Turlington is showing, the watch gets more accurate with time (no pun intended) - just as Apple says it will.
Quite frankly, I find this entire argument specious. Until the watch is out, been tested over some meaningful time, by someone who themselves can be trusted, and by enough actual users, we need to assume that Apple does know what they are doing. I would be shocked if this does not perform closely to how Apple is saying it will. They are basing a good deal of their reputation on the performance of this thing, showing Ads with athletes, in sports magazines, with articles explaining how to get the best results with it, etc.
Every pacing device shows differences with every other pacing device, even professional ones. If they are off from each other by some small amount, it simply doesn't matter. It's of absolutely no importance if one says 5,000 steps, another says 4,900, and yet another says 5,100. If the differences range from 4,000 to 6,000, then it matters. If the consistency is within a few percent, that's fine too.
We really need to keep this in perspective. Even heart rate doesn't need to be 100% accurate. If it reads 125:75 rather than 120:70, it doesn't matter. It's not medically consequential.
There's a big difference between 1% error and 10% error, which are the examples you gave (roughly). I think a 5% error would be unacceptable. Even 3% is undesirable.
Of course, we are all speculating; I just don't think that Apple will get enough accuracy without GPS. GPS on its own is not necessarily very accurate, but combined with the internal motion sensor, it should allow for quite a lot more accurate reading than would ever be possible with just a motion sensor on its own.
But I agree too much is being made of this. There are going to be a lot of people who won't buy an ?Watch because there's no mid-priced gold option. Again, personal preference, but the arguments around here seem to be that, 'people can just spend $10k', or 'start wearing silver jewelry since they can't afford real gold anyway' -- "simple enough".
The list of features the ?Watch does have, far outweigh those it doesn't. So I don't really understand the aggressively defensive posture the watch defenders are taking against what is clearly the minority demographic for the product, for whom Apple has not addressed some of their expectations.
GPS isn't even on my list of top features that will affect most users, but I do understand its importance to some, and respect their preference for it. Just like I get people who wear their watches in the shower, and those who would never do that. So I'm stunned when I read the guy who wouldn't is telling the guy who does, that its not a big deal to just take off the watch. The same for battery life arguments, et al. The ?Watch isn't all things to all people, and never will be, no matter how beautiful, or how well made. These debates are often shaded in absolutes, which is far from reality. There is no right or wrong in personal preference, at least where it doesn't affect someone else's rights. And don't get me started on how these discussions devolve into calling people trolls and idiots for their often reasonable, if opposing viewpoints...
And carry the one ... that sounds convenient. Again, you like to work math problems while you run. Not everyone does.
There's that word "presume" again. Yeah those active people love to smash their watches against things that would shatter sapphire, but not glass. Better to obscure your tiny display with scratches. Perhaps more likely is that sapphire glass is more expensive than gorilla glass. Perhaps the company that bankrupted themselves last year, after failing to meet Apple's sapphire glass targets, including that rumored for the iPhone 6, cost Apple adequate supply to cover all of their watches in time for their delayed launch. Other news stories about late production yields seem to substantiate that possibility.
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your replies. You're the one whining about not being able to look at maps while you run. Who does that?
I'm telling you (and so is everyone else in this forum) that you don't need GPS or pedometer or anything to measure distance and pace. it's all built into the Apple Watch, you know , the thing that Apple has been working no for years and also the thing you have never used, touched (or apparently even thought that much about before you criticize it).
No one has any idea what you're talking about in terms of glass and sapphire. We all know glass is more resistant to blunt force than sapphire and we also all know that sapphire is more resistant to scratching and nicks than glass is. I have no idea if you want glass on every watch or sapphire on every watch but it seems that once again Apple has come to the rescue with some common sense by using sapphire in the models you would expect them to and using glass in the model you would expect them to. Try to keep up with the discussion.
It's clear you cannot be reasoned with, and cite your pinion as fact, regardless of what other evidence is presented, nor whomever else agrees with me, or otherwise opposes your position.
So now you're just being abusive. Best to agree to disagree, and move on.
Says the guy who insists he understands IPX7 after reading an entry about it on Wikipedia, and the rest of us are wrong.
It's clear you cannot be reasoned with, and cite your pinion as fact, regardless of what other evidence is presented, nor whomever else agrees with me, or otherwise opposes your position.
So now you're just being abusive. Best to agree to disagree, and move on.
You're now arguing against wikipedia, not me. Have fun with that.