“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
I don't understand why Apple didn't make a Stainless Steel version available in GPS option. Argh!
I don't need cellular as I carry my iPhone all the time. Don't have any choice but maybe i'll just get the Nike version.
Whether you need it or not has no bearing on what Apple feels in the best move for them. It's quite possible that so many SS buyers were buying the GPS+Cellular models that it didn't make any sense for them to make both this year, along with the additional colors. If not having accessing to Emergency Services on your Watch and not carrying about the increased resale interest isn't a concern then simply buy the aluminum model which offers some benefits over the SS model.
mac_128 said: You don’t need to even activate the LTE service for it to be useful. My mom forgot her phone at home when she ran an errand one day, and of course that’s the day her car broke down, stranding her on the road, and having to seek out a phone to call a tow truck. It’s cheap insurance to have access to emergency services without even paying for a phone plan to otherwise use the calling and data features. A friend had his phone stolen while traveling and would have had a real problem if not for his LTE connected watch.
It comes really handy on situation you mentioned. AT&T charges $10 + fees etc, and I find that too much. If that would have been $5 per month, I probably would get a cellular version.
Again, it doesn't have to be activated which means you're not paying a carrier anything to have access to Emergency Services, as mac_128 stated in his first sentence.
Keep in mind that adding a cellular device isn't based on the size or weight of the device but adding a new node to their network. The Watch has UMTS and LTE so it's a $10 charge for an additional always-on node just like if you added another smartphone or even a dumb phone.
Why did they had to make the Battery smaller -
keep it as big as it was, to extend the Uptime &
perhaps allow Night Usage.
Or allow Usage of multiple Watches on one Phone,
so Data from two Watches can be recorded,
like one for Day Time & one Watch for the Night...
Why did they had to make the Battery smaller -
keep it as big as it was, to extend the Uptime &
perhaps allow Night Usage.
Or allow Usage of multiple Watches on one Phone,
so Data from two Watches can be recorded,
like one for Day Time & one Watch for the Night…
1) You've been able to wear it at night since the original Apple Watch. I've been doing it since 3rd-party apps were available a couple years ago. I wear my Watch day and night and only charge during my daily ablutions.
2) If you want to use multiple Watches you can. This has been around for at last a year.
Why did they had to make the Battery smaller -
keep it as big as it was, to extend the Uptime &
perhaps allow Night Usage.
Or allow Usage of multiple Watches on one Phone,
so Data from two Watches can be recorded,
like one for Day Time & one Watch for the Night...
Nothing prevents it from night usage. Just charge it as soon as the Activity rings are closed then wear again for the whole night and day. Charging time is an hour or so. My Series 0 goes well beyond 18 hrs after three years. Will update as soon as the ECG becomes active.
“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
“Core fitness functionality” does not make you an endurance athlete. Apple Watch fitness functionality is quite adequate to maintain a healthy life.
Fully realized is an overstatement. It’s getting there. It’s been an amazing engineering feat to get it here, but I can’t wait to see what it’s success and Apple’s mountain of cash can do with this new form factor.
“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
yep, apple watch is the worst “sports” watch I have owned for sure. garmin for the win!
“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
yep, apple watch is the worst “sports” watch I have owned for sure. garmin for the win!
Perhaps eventually the aluminum “sports” version can evolve into a true sports band and the stainless steel can diverge into a different more functional high end device.
“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
“Core fitness functionality” does not make you an endurance athlete. Apple Watch fitness functionality is quite adequate to maintain a healthy life.
That's true. The AW is "quite adequate to [help] maintain a healthy life".
But, the post you're responding to is equally true: "Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any
serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin?"
While I cannot concur with the rest of his post trashing the AW, he does have a valid point that serious athletes typically are not going to choose and Apple Watch. And that's a shame!
On running forums the AW is regularly trashed by serious athletes ("I'll never give up my Garmin!") for its inadequacies and, the only response I have to the criticisms is: "But it does so much other stuff so well!"
Weidly though, except for the face, the Apple Watch has all of the potential capabilities of the highest end Garmin. But, Apple for whatever reason has yet to fully exploit that potential. More specifically:
-- The face of the Garmin is an "always on" with low battery drain and that gives it an inherent advantage for endurance sports. That "problem" will never be fixed by Apple because it would involve too many other sacrifices and trade-offs to discard its magnificent OLED display.
BUT: -- The AW display is too hard to easily read during a running or cycling workout because the numbers are just too small to see at a quick glance while everything is bouncing around. You can remove metrics like "Calories burned" but instead of increasing the font size of the other metrics, it just leaves a black spot on the screen.
-- The Garmins are simply better at measuring things that matter to serious endurance athletes such as splits and intervals. The AW can do it, but its just not as good.
-- The data is simply dumped into the black hole called the "health app" where all you get are tiny, mostly worthless little graphs and very limited reporting and analytic tools.
The good news is that the Apple Watch already has all the power it needs to overcome those limitations. And, in fact, the limitations are due to crappy software rather than hardware limitations.
None of that is meant to trash the Apple Watch. I wear one everyday and fully intend to get a Series 4. But I do so despite its limitations as an exercise tracker for serious endurance athletes. And, I remain hopeful that one day Apple will do the necessary analysis to upgrade its software to Garmin level quality.
I think the Series 4 is defnitely the Apple Watch's coming of age, the finding of its place in the world, but its not the full realisation of a wearable yet. It's just getting started with the potential of what a device permananently in contact with the human body can do.
It has a lot more room to grow than the iPhone which is exciting.
“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
“Core fitness functionality” does not make you an endurance athlete. Apple Watch fitness functionality is quite adequate to maintain a healthy life.
That's true. The AW is "quite adequate to [help] maintain a healthy life".
But, the post you're responding to is equally true: "Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any
serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin?"
While I cannot concur with the rest of his post trashing the AW, he does have a valid point that serious athletes typically are not going to choose and Apple Watch. And that's a shame!
On running forums the AW is regularly trashed by serious athletes ("I'll never give up my Garmin!") for its inadequacies and, the only response I have to the criticisms is: "But it does so much other stuff so well!"
Weidly though, except for the face, the Apple Watch has all of the potential capabilities of the highest end Garmin. But, Apple for whatever reason has yet to fully exploit that potential. More specifically:
-- The face of the Garmin is an "always on" with low battery drain and that gives it an inherent advantage for endurance sports. That "problem" will never be fixed by Apple because it would involve too many other sacrifices and trade-offs to discard its magnificent OLED display.
BUT: -- The AW display is too hard to easily read during a running or cycling workout because the numbers are just too small to see at a quick glance while everything is bouncing around. You can remove metrics like "Calories burned" but instead of increasing the font size of the other metrics, it just leaves a black spot on the screen.
-- The Garmins are simply better at measuring things that matter to serious endurance athletes such as splits and intervals. The AW can do it, but its just not as good.
-- The data is simply dumped into the black hole called the "health app" where all you get are tiny, mostly worthless little graphs and very limited reporting and analytic tools.
The good news is that the Apple Watch already has all the power it needs to overcome those limitations. And, in fact, the limitations are due to crappy software rather than hardware limitations.
None of that is meant to trash the Apple Watch. I wear one everyday and fully intend to get a Series 4. But I do so despite its limitations as an exercise tracker for serious endurance athletes. And, I remain hopeful that one day Apple will do the necessary analysis to upgrade its software to Garmin level quality.
Endurance athletes will buy a Garmin @ $800. Who cares? Apple is not into niche markets, it has never been. Someone can create a Pilates watch as well, that doesn't mean necessarily that Apple should go in that direction. The criterion is the economy of scale. Apple has to think in millions, design for millions, produce and sell in millions. If the activity patterns of the endurance athletes are different from those of the general public, then the athletes are free to choose the sports equipment the best suited to their needs. Why would Apple compete with a small sports equipment manufacturer? Apple's job is not to drive Garmin out of business but to sell an Apple Watch and a multitude of bands to every Garmin user, so that those wear their sports equipment during sports activity and wear the Apple Watch the rest of their daily life.
-- The face of the Garmin is an "always on" Who cares if an ugly display is always on or not? Apple Watch provides the best display in the wearable market, period.
-- The AW display is too hard to easily read during a running or cycling workout because the numbers are just too small Garmin's are not large either. I won't flood the forum with Garmin watch images, one can see at garmin.com and compare.
-- The data is simply dumped into the black hole called the "health app" Analysis and reporting can also be done by third party applications. The health data is fully open up to the most minuscule samples, other apps and services can always access that data after getting authorization from the user. Yet the Health app is quite good in reporting and presenting the data in a fairly accurate and simple style.
Except the poor battery which makes it useless in the real outdoors!
Yeah, absolutely terrible how they dare to sell a watch to people without it being designed exactly to fit the whims of all these professional athletes, foresters and design experts that are working full time on commenting online.
“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
I'm a runner, training for my first marathon in a couple weeks and I just completed my 19th half marathon in 4 years. I take training very seriously and the AW has been a part of it for 3 of those years. The watch GPS accuracy is excellent. I just ran a half marathon last weekend and when I was done, my watch said I ran 13.14 miles (yes, one hundredth of a mile off on a 13.1 mile course, I'd call that pretty accurate). I would say the native workout app on the watch is OK (typically use it when I walk the dog), but could really improve. I prefer to run with the Strava app, which has much better post-workout data. But the hardware side of the watch is fantastic.
Interestingly, I have a co-worker who is a Samsung Galaxy user. He's very frustrated at the lack of smartwatch choices that do what he wants. He wants a watch that he can use while running and leave his phone behind. He also wants a watch that can stream music over cellular. He has Amazon's music subscription and therefore doesn't own the MP3's he listens to but wants to stream them on his runs. But there is no solution out there for him. Not a single non-apple smartwatch (at least that we've tried to research) allows to streaming music over cellular with just the watch. That's one of my absolute favorite things about the AW, I can throw in my AirPods, leave my phone behind, and have access to the thousands of songs in my music library wherever I am without having to load them on the watch. AW + apple music + AirPods is an absolute dream for a runner. Apple has hit is out of the park with their ecosystem, and needless to say he's a bit jealous.
Why did they had to make the Battery smaller -
keep it as big as it was, to extend the Uptime &
perhaps allow Night Usage.
Or allow Usage of multiple Watches on one Phone,
so Data from two Watches can be recorded,
like one for Day Time & one Watch for the Night...
Nothing prevents it from night usage. Just charge it as soon as the Activity rings are closed then wear again for the whole night and day. Charging time is an hour or so. My Series 0 goes well beyond 18 hrs after three years. Will update as soon as the ECG becomes active.
I wear mine all day, and almost all night, and there's still usually 50-75% battery available when I put it on the charger, which happens every morning when my alarm goes off. It stays there for between 30 and 60 minutes while I perform my morning ablutions, and then goes back on my wrist. If I have to take a shower during the day, it goes on the charger then as well.
I have on a couple of occasions just not charged it until it was in the sub 10% range. It lasted in the three day range each time.
“Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin? Not that I know. Did Apple fix the GPS lock delay? The lost data at the beginning of every workout? The bad triathlon transitions? The inability to handle European 33 1/3 m pools? AW has apps, which is a plus but for core fitness functionality it still has a long way to go to catch Garmin. I’ll take a pulse oximeter and integrated Strava over an ECG any day.
“Core fitness functionality” does not make you an endurance athlete. Apple Watch fitness functionality is quite adequate to maintain a healthy life.
That's true. The AW is "quite adequate to [help] maintain a healthy life".
But, the post you're responding to is equally true: "Full realization of a wearable”?? Not if you’re an athlete. Does any
serious endurance athlete choose an Apple Watch over a Garmin?"
While I cannot concur with the rest of his post trashing the AW, he does have a valid point that serious athletes typically are not going to choose and Apple Watch. And that's a shame!
On running forums the AW is regularly trashed by serious athletes ("I'll never give up my Garmin!") for its inadequacies and, the only response I have to the criticisms is: "But it does so much other stuff so well!"
Weidly though, except for the face, the Apple Watch has all of the potential capabilities of the highest end Garmin. But, Apple for whatever reason has yet to fully exploit that potential. More specifically:
-- The face of the Garmin is an "always on" with low battery drain and that gives it an inherent advantage for endurance sports. That "problem" will never be fixed by Apple because it would involve too many other sacrifices and trade-offs to discard its magnificent OLED display.
BUT: -- The AW display is too hard to easily read during a running or cycling workout because the numbers are just too small to see at a quick glance while everything is bouncing around. You can remove metrics like "Calories burned" but instead of increasing the font size of the other metrics, it just leaves a black spot on the screen.
-- The Garmins are simply better at measuring things that matter to serious endurance athletes such as splits and intervals. The AW can do it, but its just not as good.
-- The data is simply dumped into the black hole called the "health app" where all you get are tiny, mostly worthless little graphs and very limited reporting and analytic tools.
The good news is that the Apple Watch already has all the power it needs to overcome those limitations. And, in fact, the limitations are due to crappy software rather than hardware limitations.
None of that is meant to trash the Apple Watch. I wear one everyday and fully intend to get a Series 4. But I do so despite its limitations as an exercise tracker for serious endurance athletes. And, I remain hopeful that one day Apple will do the necessary analysis to upgrade its software to Garmin level quality.
Endurance athletes will buy a Garmin @ $800. Who cares? Apple is not into niche markets, it has never been. Someone can create a Pilates watch as well, that doesn't mean necessarily that Apple should go in that direction. The criterion is the economy of scale. Apple has to think in millions, design for millions, produce and sell in millions. If the activity patterns of the endurance athletes are different from those of the general public, then the athletes are free to choose the sports equipment the best suited to their needs. Why would Apple compete with a small sports equipment manufacturer? Apple's job is not to drive Garmin out of business but to sell an Apple Watch and a multitude of bands to every Garmin user, so that those wear their sports equipment during sports activity and wear the Apple Watch the rest of their daily life.
-- The face of the Garmin is an "always on" Who cares if an ugly display is always on or not? Apple Watch provides the best display in the wearable market, period.
-- The AW display is too hard to easily read during a running or cycling workout because the numbers are just too small Garmin's are not large either. I won't flood the forum with Garmin watch images, one can see at garmin.com and compare.
-- The data is simply dumped into the black hole called the "health app" Analysis and reporting can also be done by third party applications. The health data is fully open up to the most minuscule samples, other apps and services can always access that data after getting authorization from the user. Yet the Health app is quite good in reporting and presenting the data in a fairly accurate and simple style.
As I pointed out, except for the OLED watch face, all of those things are easily correctable by Apple without sacrificing anything. Apple can, and I hope will, do better. That's what Apple does. It improves with every generation, and these things both can be improved and need to be.
Comments
Again, it doesn't have to be activated which means you're not paying a carrier anything to have access to Emergency Services, as mac_128 stated in his first sentence.
Keep in mind that adding a cellular device isn't based on the size or weight of the device but adding a new node to their network. The Watch has UMTS and LTE so it's a $10 charge for an additional always-on node just like if you added another smartphone or even a dumb phone.
2) If you want to use multiple Watches you can. This has been around for at last a year.
“Core fitness functionality” does not make you an endurance athlete. Apple Watch fitness functionality is quite adequate to maintain a healthy life.
On running forums the AW is regularly trashed by serious athletes ("I'll never give up my Garmin!") for its inadequacies and, the only response I have to the criticisms is: "But it does so much other stuff so well!"
Weidly though, except for the face, the Apple Watch has all of the potential capabilities of the highest end Garmin. But, Apple for whatever reason has yet to fully exploit that potential. More specifically:
-- The AW display is too hard to easily read during a running or cycling workout because the numbers are just too small to see at a quick glance while everything is bouncing around. You can remove metrics like "Calories burned" but instead of increasing the font size of the other metrics, it just leaves a black spot on the screen.
-- The face of the Garmin is an "always on"
Who cares if an ugly display is always on or not? Apple Watch provides the best display in the wearable market, period.
-- The AW display is too hard to easily read during a running or cycling workout because the numbers are just too small
Garmin's are not large either. I won't flood the forum with Garmin watch images, one can see at garmin.com and compare.
-- The data is simply dumped into the black hole called the "health app"
Analysis and reporting can also be done by third party applications. The health data is fully open up to the most minuscule samples, other apps and services can always access that data after getting authorization from the user. Yet the Health app is quite good in reporting and presenting the data in a fairly accurate and simple style.
Interestingly, I have a co-worker who is a Samsung Galaxy user. He's very frustrated at the lack of smartwatch choices that do what he wants. He wants a watch that he can use while running and leave his phone behind. He also wants a watch that can stream music over cellular. He has Amazon's music subscription and therefore doesn't own the MP3's he listens to but wants to stream them on his runs. But there is no solution out there for him. Not a single non-apple smartwatch (at least that we've tried to research) allows to streaming music over cellular with just the watch. That's one of my absolute favorite things about the AW, I can throw in my AirPods, leave my phone behind, and have access to the thousands of songs in my music library wherever I am without having to load them on the watch. AW + apple music + AirPods is an absolute dream for a runner. Apple has hit is out of the park with their ecosystem, and needless to say he's a bit jealous.
I have on a couple of occasions just not charged it until it was in the sub 10% range. It lasted in the three day range each time.