For running a watch has to be (ultra)slim and ultra light. For cycling it also has to be on all the time (it's strapped to the bicycle in that case because it will kill you when it's on your arm). I strongly suspect that a long training - especially when cycling - will kill the battery before its finished ... The display isn't good enough when cycling in full sunlight, a $10 LCD will do a much better job. Doing long hikes is also out of the question because of battery life and display technology used.
From a technological point of view Apple made some serious improvements and that's an indication to me that Apple can produce a usable sports watch in 6 years time.
Why does it have to be (ultra) slim and ultra light? How is that going to improve your running? Yes, lighter shoes make a difference but an ounce on your wrist certainly won't -- and neither will the thickness. You would be better off worrying about that pizza you ate yesterday than your smart watch.
And, I have used it on bike rides -- no problem at all... Certainly nothing that a Fitbit or Garmin or any other sports watch would solve.
As for seeing it in daylight, I have no trouble with my original Apple Watch -- but the Series 2 pretty much put that issue to bed too.
As for battery life, I have had no problem even with long training runs. But, if you are concerned, then turn off the heart rate sensors and the battery life will be very much extended. And, if you still want heart rate, then connect a Bluetooth chest strap such as the popular Polar H7. It doesn't use watch batteries and provides a more accurate heart rate than any wrist based sensor because it samples hundreds of times a second while getting its readings from the heart's electrical signals just as an EKG does -- its sensitive enough to measure heart rate variability (which all wrist sensors are incapable of doing accurately).
5) Watch Series 1 will last many days on a single charge. I've personally tested this. Since I was in the mountains with no cellular coverage I enabled BT mode on the Watch and turned off my iPhone. If you are lucky enough to have a cellular connection, then bring a small battery backup which will give you more than enough changes and/or use solar.
I m really wondering how long can last a series two with the gps on if you are running or walking. I m regularly running 1h/1h30 i m affraid to cannot have a full day of use and an a sport activity.
Hopefully we'll be able to find out. GPS can be a battery drain for a navigation system since it's always calculating your location, route, distance, and time, but on Watch Series 2 I would imagine it acts in a more passive manner. How much does the frequent heart rate monitor take up when in training mode?
For instance, if you have an iPhone tethered I would assume it gets the GPS/A-GPS data from it, which is how it's able to pair so quickly when it has to use its internal GPS to lock with satellites. I would then assume that it only verifies your location in intervals to reduce power usage. If you're on foot your satellites aren't going to radically change in a few minutes time.
I say wait for the reviews if you're worried, but do keep in mind that Apple has a long history of making sure usability is well balanced before releasing a product.
5) Watch Series 1 will last many days on a single charge. I've personally tested this. Since I was in the mountains with no cellular coverage I enabled BT mode on the Watch and turned off my iPhone. If you are lucky enough to have a cellular connection, then bring a small battery backup which will give you more than enough changes and/or use solar.
I m really wondering how long can last a series two with the gps on if you are running or walking. I m regularly running 1h/1h30 i m affraid to cannot have a full day of use and an a sport activity.
Hopefully we'll be able to find out. GPS can be a battery drain for a navigation system since it's always calculating your location, route, distance, and time, but on Watch Series 2 I would imagine it acts in a more passive manner. How much does the frequent heart rate monitor take up when in training mode?
For instance, if you have an iPhone tethered I would assume it gets the GPS/A-GPS data from it, which is how it's able to pair so quickly when it has to use its internal GPS to lock with satellites. I would then assume that it only verifies your location in intervals to reduce power usage. If you're on foot your satellites aren't going to radically change in a few minutes time.
I say wait for the reviews if you're worried, but do keep in mind that Apple has a long history of making sure usability is well balanced before releasing a product.
Off the top, I'm thinking that the heart rate monitor would drain the battery faster than the GPS.
If so, that could be remedied by using a heart strap monitor which is not only more accurate, but the only battery drain is Bluetooth LE which is very slight.
Plus, I would wonder if there is a way to tell the watch to use the phone's GPS (like the Series 1 and the original) if you have it on you. Or, it may even default to using the phone's anyway if the two are linked. That may not only save battery life but, would it maybe be more accurate too?
5) Watch Series 1 will last many days on a single charge. I've personally tested this. Since I was in the mountains with no cellular coverage I enabled BT mode on the Watch and turned off my iPhone. If you are lucky enough to have a cellular connection, then bring a small battery backup which will give you more than enough changes and/or use solar.
I m really wondering how long can last a series two with the gps on if you are running or walking. I m regularly running 1h/1h30 i m affraid to cannot have a full day of use and an a sport activity.
Hopefully we'll be able to find out. GPS can be a battery drain for a navigation system since it's always calculating your location, route, distance, and time, but on Watch Series 2 I would imagine it acts in a more passive manner. How much does the frequent heart rate monitor take up when in training mode?
For instance, if you have an iPhone tethered I would assume it gets the GPS/A-GPS data from it, which is how it's able to pair so quickly when it has to use its internal GPS to lock with satellites. I would then assume that it only verifies your location in intervals to reduce power usage. If you're on foot your satellites aren't going to radically change in a few minutes time.
I say wait for the reviews if you're worried, but do keep in mind that Apple has a long history of making sure usability is well balanced before releasing a product.
Off the top, I'm thinking that the heart rate monitor would drain the battery faster than the GPS.
If so, that could be remedied by using a heart strap monitor which is not only more accurate, but the only battery drain is Bluetooth LE which is very slight.
Plus, I would wonder if there is a way to tell the watch to use the phone's GPS (like the Series 1 and the original) if you have it on you. Or, it may even default to using the phone's anyway if the two are linked. That may not only save battery life but, would it maybe be more accurate too?
I guess we have to wait and see…
1) It would have some power draw, and I'd have assumed it would be excessive, but I've had no issues with multi-hour exercise and the battery not lasting a day.
2) Even if you use a separate heart rate monitor, I don't think there's a way to disable that function on the Watch.
3) I think it automatically does use the phone's GPS if tethered. That may have been mentioned during the event. The real test will see how quickly it picks up a GPS signal from a restart with iPhone connected via BT/WiFi, after the iPhone is put in Airplane Mode (read: BT and WiFi off), and from a cold start with the iPhone still in Airplane Mode. How battery life affects running with iPhone connected and running without It connected. Hopefully we'll be able to see how often it checks for a signal, but that seems tough.
The heart rate sensor is also dramatically faster.. dramatically faster.
What used to take about 20-30 seconds (or sometimes time out entirely) seems to pop up in less than 3 seconds.
2) Even if you use a separate heart rate monitor, I don't think there's a way to disable that function on the Watch.
Yes, at least during a workout. To turn it off:
On the Watch app on the IPhone, Under My Watch: tap on "Workout" then turn on Power Saving mode. That turns off the heart rate monitor. But, it seems to me that whenever I pair my Polar H7 heart rate strap with the watch (as seen under Bluetooth in the watch settings (not the phone)), that the watch shuts down its own wrist based heart rate monitor automatically. I base that on the fact that not only does the heart rate seem to be much quicker and more responsive to changes, but the green LEDs on the back are not lit.
2) Even if you use a separate heart rate monitor, I don't think there's a way to disable that function on the Watch.
Yes, at least during a workout. To turn it off:
On the Watch app on the IPhone, Under My Watch: tap on "Workout" then turn on Power Saving mode. That turns off the heart rate monitor. But, it seems to me that whenever I pair my Polar H7 heart rate strap with the watch (as seen under Bluetooth in the watch settings (not the phone)), that the watch shuts down its own wrist based heart rate monitor automatically. I base that on the fact that not only does the heart rate seem to be much quicker and more responsive to changes, but the green LEDs on the back are not lit.
That smart watch is pretty darn smart!
Nice! I have no reason to turn it off, but I'm glad to know it's possible.
For running a watch has to be (ultra)slim and ultra light. For cycling it also has to be on all the time (it's strapped to the bicycle in that case because it will kill you when it's on your arm). I strongly suspect that a long training - especially when cycling - will kill the battery before its finished ... The display isn't good enough when cycling in full sunlight, a $10 LCD will do a much better job. Doing long hikes is also out of the question because of battery life and display technology used.
1) Being (ultra)slim makes no effective difference over being slim, or do you shave your body when you run to cut down on wind resistance?¡
2) If you think Watch on your arm is unsafe, then that goes for all sports bands. If you can't just bike and have it on without looking it every 5 seconds to check your performance, then get a proper bike computer.
3) I can go 2 days with my Watch. I'm pretty sure you don't bike for 12+ hours in a single session.
4) 1000nt it's bright enough? Note that it's not the LCD that supplies the brightness to the display, but the backlight. What $10 LCD with presumably an LED backlight would you replace the Watch Series 2's OLED display with?
5) Watch Series 1 will last many days on a single charge. I've personally tested this. Since I was in the mountains with no cellular coverage I enabled BT mode on the Watch and turned off my iPhone. If you are lucky enough to have a cellular connection, then bring a small battery backup which will give you more than enough changes and/or use solar.
Serious cycling means shaving, but seriously, even a ring can get your finger cut off, and sport means freedom of movement, so yes, a serious sports watch should be ultra slim.
As I stated, cycling and looking at a watch is very dangerous, so it has to be strapped to the bicycle. Apples watch isn't suiteable in that case, as are most other watches I know (except ultra cheap $10 LCD watches). Because of that I already have a very nice bike computer, that has, you guessed it: an LCD.
The point is of course not to use a backlight and use LCDs that reflect the sunlight (the way they entered the market in the 70ies), a modern variant would be e-ink (it's nice to have colors), but that would be more expensive.
10 hours continuous biking (300k, most solo), done that, but the A watch will fail because 2 hours continuous GPS is probably max (my iPhone 5s can track me for 3 hours maybe). The A watch 1 isn't a good comparison because it has no GPS, and so it lasts much much longer (as you should know GPS drains the batteries). So all in all the A watch will fail, even when I do a long run.
For running a watch has to be (ultra)slim and ultra light. For cycling it also has to be on all the time (it's strapped to the bicycle in that case because it will kill you when it's on your arm). I strongly suspect that a long training - especially when cycling - will kill the battery before its finished ... The display isn't good enough when cycling in full sunlight, a $10 LCD will do a much better job. Doing long hikes is also out of the question because of battery life and display technology used.
From a technological point of view Apple made some serious improvements and that's an indication to me that Apple can produce a usable sports watch in 6 years time.
Why does it have to be (ultra) slim and ultra light? How is that going to improve your running? Yes, lighter shoes make a difference but an ounce on your wrist certainly won't -- and neither will the thickness. You would be better off worrying about that pizza you ate yesterday than your smart watch.
And, I have used it on bike rides -- no problem at all... Certainly nothing that a Fitbit or Garmin or any other sports watch would solve.
As for seeing it in daylight, I have no trouble with my original Apple Watch -- but the Series 2 pretty much put that issue to bed too.
As for battery life, I have had no problem even with long training runs. But, if you are concerned, then turn off the heart rate sensors and the battery life will be very much extended. And, if you still want heart rate, then connect a Bluetooth chest strap such as the popular Polar H7. It doesn't use watch batteries and provides a more accurate heart rate than any wrist based sensor because it samples hundreds of times a second while getting its readings from the heart's electrical signals just as an EKG does -- its sensitive enough to measure heart rate variability (which all wrist sensors are incapable of doing accurately).
Your right about the pizza (I don't do that) and right about the chest strap (I use that). I would have to see the A watch in full sunlight to believe that it's visible even from a meter or so. But the point is that that drains the batteries and on a bicycle it has to be constantly on, so why not use a better technology, e-ink or a LCD that uses the sun as backlight (that would be a nice invention).
I personally find it very iritating to have something bulky and heavy on my wrist while running, I don't assume that I will go faster when it's slimmed down. Extra weight on a bike is another matter, every gram counts when you go uphill in the Alps (Col de la Bonette for example).
Comments
Why does it have to be (ultra) slim and ultra light? How is that going to improve your running? Yes, lighter shoes make a difference but an ounce on your wrist certainly won't -- and neither will the thickness. You would be better off worrying about that pizza you ate yesterday than your smart watch.
And, I have used it on bike rides -- no problem at all... Certainly nothing that a Fitbit or Garmin or any other sports watch would solve.
As for seeing it in daylight, I have no trouble with my original Apple Watch -- but the Series 2 pretty much put that issue to bed too.
As for battery life, I have had no problem even with long training runs. But, if you are concerned, then turn off the heart rate sensors and the battery life will be very much extended. And, if you still want heart rate, then connect a Bluetooth chest strap such as the popular Polar H7. It doesn't use watch batteries and provides a more accurate heart rate than any wrist based sensor because it samples hundreds of times a second while getting its readings from the heart's electrical signals just as an EKG does -- its sensitive enough to measure heart rate variability (which all wrist sensors are incapable of doing accurately).
For instance, if you have an iPhone tethered I would assume it gets the GPS/A-GPS data from it, which is how it's able to pair so quickly when it has to use its internal GPS to lock with satellites. I would then assume that it only verifies your location in intervals to reduce power usage. If you're on foot your satellites aren't going to radically change in a few minutes time.
I say wait for the reviews if you're worried, but do keep in mind that Apple has a long history of making sure usability is well balanced before releasing a product.
Off the top, I'm thinking that the heart rate monitor would drain the battery faster than the GPS.
If so, that could be remedied by using a heart strap monitor which is not only more accurate, but the only battery drain is Bluetooth LE which is very slight.
Plus, I would wonder if there is a way to tell the watch to use the phone's GPS (like the Series 1 and the original) if you have it on you. Or, it may even default to using the phone's anyway if the two are linked. That may not only save battery life but, would it maybe be more accurate too?
I guess we have to wait and see...
2) Even if you use a separate heart rate monitor, I don't think there's a way to disable that function on the Watch.
3) I think it automatically does use the phone's GPS if tethered. That may have been mentioned during the event. The real test will see how quickly it picks up a GPS signal from a restart with iPhone connected via BT/WiFi, after the iPhone is put in Airplane Mode (read: BT and WiFi off), and from a cold start with the iPhone still in Airplane Mode. How battery life affects running with iPhone connected and running without It connected. Hopefully we'll be able to see how often it checks for a signal, but that seems tough.
Yes, at least during a workout. To turn it off:
On the Watch app on the IPhone, Under My Watch: tap on "Workout" then turn on Power Saving mode. That turns off the heart rate monitor. But, it seems to me that whenever I pair my Polar H7 heart rate strap with the watch (as seen under Bluetooth in the watch settings (not the phone)), that the watch shuts down its own wrist based heart rate monitor automatically. I base that on the fact that not only does the heart rate seem to be much quicker and more responsive to changes, but the green LEDs on the back are not lit.
That smart watch is pretty darn smart!
As I stated, cycling and looking at a watch is very dangerous, so it has to be strapped to the bicycle.
Apples watch isn't suiteable in that case, as are most other watches I know (except ultra cheap $10 LCD watches). Because of that I already have a very nice bike computer, that has, you guessed it: an LCD.
The point is of course not to use a backlight and use LCDs that reflect the sunlight (the way they entered the market in the 70ies), a modern variant would be e-ink (it's nice to have colors), but that would be more expensive.
10 hours continuous biking (300k, most solo), done that, but the A watch will fail because 2 hours continuous GPS is probably max (my iPhone 5s can track me for 3 hours maybe). The A watch 1 isn't a good comparison because it has no GPS, and so it lasts much much longer (as you should know GPS drains the batteries). So all in all the A watch will fail, even when I do a long run.
I would have to see the A watch in full sunlight to believe that it's visible even from a meter or so.
But the point is that that drains the batteries and on a bicycle it has to be constantly on, so why not use a better technology, e-ink or a LCD that uses the sun as backlight (that would be a nice invention).
I personally find it very iritating to have something bulky and heavy on my wrist while running, I don't assume that I will go faster when it's slimmed down. Extra weight on a bike is another matter, every gram counts when you go uphill in the Alps (Col de la Bonette for example).