Review: Microsoft's health tracking, iOS-compatible Band

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 90
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,379member
    dmax57 wrote: »
    No.



    morky wrote: »
    Correct. Those phone armbands are uncomfortable and I was hoping the Apple watch would free me from wearing one.


    So to those stating taking an iPhone (or what ever make) Is not a good idea on a run ...

    And that is advice you would give others? Say a single woman for example?

    With all due respect to your personal desires not to be able to make contact for any reason what-so-ever while out running (I am thinking seeing an accident, seeing a fire, a mugging ... and so on). I could be wrong but I would suggest Apple has done its research and found most people would.

    Now if the ?Watch could make a phone call that would solve all the problems. Stay tuned for ?Watch 5s ;)
  • Reply 62 of 90
    wigby wrote: »
    I had been wondering this, too.


    I can't imagine how it won't keep lighting up, as we constantly move our arms, but maybe Apple have found an ingenious solution, and it is my imagination that is lacking.


    It's the act of turning your wrist to face up towards your eyes. Your wrist and arms are on a mouse, swinging and moving all day but they are rarely doing that specific flip motion so it's easy for any watch to sense.

    Well described, but I still wonder.

    If you wear a watch, you can see the time as soon as you twist your wrist. Will Apple get the screen on displaying the time as quickly? I have my doubts. I can see this all-singing watch actually be slower at telling you the time! Could get annoying quickly if you have a constant delay to finding out simple information.
  • Reply 63 of 90
    Originally Posted by Morky View Post

    Those phone armbands are uncomfortable and I was hoping the Apple watch would free me from wearing one.

     

    It will.

     

    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

    They did. Apple Watch and keep the phone in a pocket.

     

    Or leave the phone at home.

  • Reply 64 of 90
    iaeen wrote: »
    They did. Apple Watch and keep the phone in a pocket. You'll have gps, heart rate, Music, and the ability to make a call in case of emergency.

    Again, not a good solution for a runner. The phone is then bouncing up and down in your pocket. The desire is to have limited extra stuff on your body.
  • Reply 65 of 90
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Those phone armbands are uncomfortable and I was hoping the Apple watch would free me from wearing </span>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">one.</span>

    It will.
    They did. Apple Watch and keep the phone in a pocket.

    Or leave the phone at home.

    You need GPS for accuracy; that's the crux of the matter.
  • Reply 66 of 90
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,715member
    Running with a phone in my pocket? Hell no.
  • Reply 67 of 90
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Well described, but I still wonder.



    If you wear a watch, you can see the time as soon as you twist your wrist. Will Apple get the screen on displaying the time as quickly? I have my doubts. I can see this all-singing watch actually be slower at telling you the time! Could get annoying quickly if you have a constant delay to finding out simple information.



    That is a different question and one we will not know until we get real hands-on time. For instance, I'm noticing a slight pause now in Mail and Safari in Yosemite that was never there in Mavericks when I enter text in the URL or mail search field. That's a little annoying and something I could never have known would pop up unless I used it.

     

    Then there's the reverse of this problem. My wife's iPhone screen is constantly turning on with every facebook notification she receives (the screen is probably lit half of the time during waking hours even though she is only looking at the screen for a few hours/day total. That is a huge battery suck.

     

    So the question I pose: Would you rather have the Apple Watch provide instant time every time you flick your wrist with less battery life (assuming it's falsely triggering time display for casual wrist movements) or would you sacrifice a half second to see time but gain a little more battery life?

  • Reply 68 of 90

    So to those stating taking an iPhone (or what ever make) Is not a good idea on a run ...

    And that is advice you would give others? Say a single woman for example?

    With all due respect to your personal desires not to be able to make contact for any reason what-so-ever while out running (I am thinking seeing an accident, seeing a fire, a mugging ... and so on). I could be wrong but I would suggest Apple has done its research and found most people would.

    Now if the ?Watch could make a phone call that would solve all the problems. Stay tuned for ?Watch 5s ;)


    Sure. I'm an Ironman, so that means I have run and biked a LOT. I don't live in some nice country town. I live in LA. Know how many times I've seen an accident/fire/mugging while training? Zero. You're playing that up too much. Unfortunately, the phone isn't going to protect you from a mugging or other evil either, so it's certainly no lifeline most of the time. I'd suggest that my wife choose her running spot well, not try to falsely guarantee her safety by carrying her phone.

    I get that this device we're looking for is not for everybody. It's for nearly everybody that would buy this Microsft band, though. Who says Apple can't make two pieces? The Sport version should absolutely be what we're asking for. Those who want more battery life and more of a regular watch can get the elite version without GPS.
  • Reply 69 of 90
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Naming it a watch is its biggest mistake- shows lack of innovation. The beauty of the name IPod was genius.
  • Reply 70 of 90
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

    You need GPS for accuracy; that's the crux of the matter.



    It can still know how you went, just not where. 

  • Reply 71 of 90
    wigby wrote: »
    Well described, but I still wonder.


    If you wear a watch, you can see the time as soon as you twist your wrist. Will Apple get the screen on displaying the time as quickly? I have my doubts. I can see this all-singing watch actually be slower at telling you the time! Could get annoying quickly if you have a constant delay to finding out simple information.


    That is a different question and one we will not know until we get real hands-on time. For instance, I'm noticing a slight pause now in Mail and Safari in Yosemite that was never there in Mavericks when I enter text in the URL or mail search field. That's a little annoying and something I could never have known would pop up unless I used it.

    Then there's the reverse of this problem. My wife's iPhone screen is constantly turning on with every facebook notification she receives (the screen is probably lit half of the time during waking hours even though she is only looking at the screen for a few hours/day total. That is a huge battery suck.

    So the question I pose: Would you rather have the Apple Watch provide instant time every time you flick your wrist with less battery life (assuming it's falsely triggering time display for casual wrist movements) or would you sacrifice a half second to see time but gain a little more battery life?

    Re your wife's phone: she can turn off notifications on the lock screen.

    Re watch: neither. I'd rather my traditional watch that has no delay and several year battery life.
  • Reply 72 of 90
    You need GPS for accuracy; that's the crux of the matter.


    It can still know how you went, just not where. 

    If you want accurate distance measurements for training, you need GPS.
  • Reply 73 of 90
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Re your wife's phone: she can turn off notifications on the lock screen.



    Re watch: neither. I'd rather my traditional watch that has no delay and several year battery life.

    My point is that she doesn't want to miss a notification. So she is willing to sacrifice battery life in the hopes that she sees a few notifications and responds instantly just like you want instant response when you want to see the time.

     

    If you really want a traditional watch I'm not sure what you're expecting from any smart watch. They're 2 completely different products that are only similar in that you wear them on your wrist. Traditional watches and smart watches are about as similar as watches and cufflinks.

  • Reply 74 of 90
    idreyidrey Posts: 647member
    You need GPS for accuracy; that's the crux of the matter.

    Doesnt the ?Watch have the m8 chip that counts your steps, feels inclines and all that stuff that helps calculated caloric burn or what ever. And how in the world did all of these people survived their runs in the past when we didn't have devices with gps?
  • Reply 75 of 90
    shsfshsf Posts: 302member

    I think the band is the epitome of what MSFT is about,

     

    it's the accessory best used with a face palm: 

     

     

    As you doing the natural face palm gesture, your trusted band it there for you to peak at! 

  • Reply 76 of 90
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Captain J View Post



    I think it's a good start. Comfort and improved styling will likely make the second Gen better. The GPS is big point that the Apple Watch is missing.

     

    I have to imagine that lots of people don't go anywhere without their phones, including when running (in case of emergency, for example).  I would guess that Watch+iPhone will do anything that the Band's embedded GPS would do.

     

    On the other hand (pun intended), the ability to trim all unnecessary weight/bulk by leaving one's phone behind and still get a GPS-tracked run will probably have some pick Band over (or in addition to) Watch.

  • Reply 77 of 90
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by idrey View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    You need GPS for accuracy; that's the crux of the matter.




    Doesnt the ?Watch have the m8 chip that counts your steps, feels inclines and all that stuff that helps calculated caloric burn or what ever. And how in the world did all of these people survived their runs in the past when we didn't have devices with gps?

     

    The steps function isn't accurate. GPS means that you can record the distance of your run, how fast you ran, your average pace, targets, etc. 

     

    Sure, you can run with nothing, which is also fine. Just do the same run and time yourself. But the Apple Watch is the worst of both worlds. A Jack of all trades and master of none.

  • Reply 78 of 90
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    netscorer wrote: »
    Since I own MS Band since day 1, I feel that I can comment on some of the common complaints that other pro (and not so much) reviewers have stated in their evaluations. First of all, I agree that this is a generation 1 device and I expected better polish from MS then this.
    ...

    I see you only have 5 posts. Your review would be more legible if there was more white-space.

    My personal opinion is that the cost doesn't seem justified. It lasts 48 hours on a battery charge which is good.

    http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-band/en-us/support/hardware/specifications

    But it seems like it may have been designed to appeal to the same market as the Jawbone Up devices
    http://jawbone.com/store/buy/up3

    Some of the people in my social space immediately went "OMG It's HALO" (Continuum (TV series), Halo is a health-band product made with tech from 2077 ) and of Course Halo (the game) is a Microsoft product.

    Like the only thing I'm really seeing difference from UP3 and The Microsoft Health Band is the addition of the touch screen.

    I'll wait and see what happens with the Apple Watch. I haven't worn a watch in years, so I'm not convinced that I need one. The Microsoft product looks compelling enough that I'd be willing to buy it as an initial investment into HealthKit stuff if the Apple Watch isn't what I want.
  • Reply 79 of 90
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,715member
    But the Apple Watch is the worst of both worlds. A Jack of all trades and master of none.
    How is it "the worst" of any world?

    Think before posting this nonsense pls.
  • Reply 80 of 90
    One word to describe this: Really?
    Talk about corporate espionage. You really think MS had this thing ready to go without knowing Apple was gonna to drop theirs. And right at the start of the holiday buying season.
    Cough cough!
Sign In or Register to comment.