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.
This has also been my experience. Nevertheless there are studies of sapphire glass vs. gorilla glass which show sapphire is more brittle. But I'm convinced they don't use glass because it's tougher in the applied use, they use it because it's cheaper. You're probably not going to find a sport watch under $200 with a saphire crystal. On the other hand you're not going to find a $350 watch without one, sport or otherwise. A quick look on Amazon and virtually every watch at that price point had a sapphire crystal. It's the level of quality expected at that price. I can't imagine anybody wants a display they have to read through scratches, even if means they might have to replace a broken crystal at some point.
Of course we haven't heard Apple's official explanation as to why they chose glass for the Sport, but I'd love to hear it.
The watch knows when you are just waving your hand and not walking or running. I would expect it can detect an actual gait within a step or two even if you are on a tread mill and your location has not changed. Just more FUD on your part.
It's pointless replying to super troll Benjamin frost.
No idea why some one who has so many negative things to say about Apple spends so much time on this forum. Unless he's getting paid to, then in that case he's doing a fine job.
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.
Nobody wants any error. But there are a,says errors, even with equipment in a doctors Office. What matters is that it's close enough, and 5% Is close enough. We see results from some of the Android devices out there that are 50% off. For example, Samsung's phones have heart rate monitors that have been described as being as much as +75% to -50%. That's obviously useless. But you're wring in insisting that we need 1%. We don't. These are not devices that are used for medical analysis in illness. The idea behind them is to give us a pretty accurate and consistent reading so that we can assess our long term situation. If we find that our reading move too high, or too low, we should verify that with medical personnel. And that's another purpose to this.
The error I gave was a lot less than 10%. Moving from 5,000 to 4,900 or 5,100 is just plus or minus 2%.
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...
Runners have been running for decades without GPS, and they can, and will continue to do so. I'm not saying that it isn't useful. All new technology adds to what we can do. But the question here is whether as a pacing device, this is useful without GPS, and the answer is yes.
What you are forgetting, is that those here, or elsewhere, who are saying that this or that is required, and that since the watch doesn't have that, it's useless for what Apple is promoting it for, are the ones doing what you are saying, not those who are saying that it doesn't need that.
I recognize that some people will insist on one feature or another that the watch doesn't (yet) have. But they are saying that the watch is useless because it doesn't have that feature. We are saying that that isn't true. So I acknowledge that for some people, the thought that you would need your phone for GPS location while you're running, is an issue. But the declaration by them that without GPS, the watch is useless for the purpose of running is dogmatic, and wrong.
The reality is that without those features, even those who insist on them can use this product successfully, abet, without that feature. But these who say that without that feature the product is useless, are saying that about everybody. So yes, it may be annoying to wear your phone while running, if you do need, or think you need, GPS, but it can be done. But to say that the product is useless because of that, is wrongheaded.
This has also been my experience. Nevertheless there are studies of sapphire glass vs. gorilla glass which show sapphire is more brittle. But I'm convinced they don't use glass because it's tougher in the applied use, they use it because it's cheaper. You're probably not going to find a sport watch under $200 with a saphire crystal. On the other hand you're not going to find a $350 watch without one, sport or otherwise. A quick look on Amazon and virtually every watch at that price point had a sapphire crystal. It's the level of quality expected at that price. I can't imagine anybody wants a display they have to read through scratches, even if means they might have to replace a broken crystal at some point.
Of course we haven't heard Apple's official explanation as to why they chose glass for the Sport, but I'd love to hear it.
I'm sure it's price. The replacement sapphire crystal for my smallest watch, which is a Baum Mercier, is close to $100. While Apple's volumes will bring theirs lower, it's still more expensive than glass. In a $349 product, even a $10 difference has an impact, no pun intended, though it's not a bad one.;)
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.
Nobody wants any error. But there are a,says errors, even with equipment in a doctors Office. What matters is that it's close enough, and 5% Is close enough. We see results from some of the Android devices out there that are 50% off. For example, Samsung's phones have heart rate monitors that have been described as being as much as +75% to -50%. That's obviously useless. But you're wring in insisting that we need 1%. We don't. These are not devices that are used for medical analysis in illness. The idea behind them is to give us a pretty accurate and consistent reading so that we can assess our long term situation. If we find that our reading move too high, or too low, we should verify that with medical personnel. And that's another purpose to this.
The error I gave was a lot less than 10%. Moving from 5,000 to 4,900 or 5,100 is just plus or minus 2%.
I think the problem is that most runners and cyclists have already got used to using GPS with their phones. If they then go to an Apple Watch, they are likely to see a decrease in accuracy, not to mention miss out on all the other advantages that having GPS entails. That in itself is unattractive. I agree that 1% probably wouldn't matter, but I think 5% would. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
The Apple Watch is not entering a vacuum; it has an incredibly high standard to live up to.
I think the problem is that most runners and cyclists have already got used to using GPS with their phones. If they then go to an Apple Watch, they are likely to see a decrease in accuracy, not to mention miss out on all the other advantages that having GPS entails. That in itself is unattractive. I agree that 1% probably wouldn't matter, but I think 5% would. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
The Apple Watch is not entering a vacuum; it has an incredibly high standard to live up to.
I don't know if most runners are used to it, or even care. Most runners run in the same places most of the time. They don't need GPS. If they're in a race, they also know where they are. It's rare when they run in unfamiliar places.
This has also been my experience. Nevertheless there are studies of sapphire glass vs. gorilla glass which show sapphire is more brittle. But I'm convinced they don't use glass because it's tougher in the applied use, they use it because it's cheaper. You're probably not going to find a sport watch under $200 with a saphire crystal. On the other hand you're not going to find a $350 watch without one, sport or otherwise. A quick look on Amazon and virtually every watch at that price point had a sapphire crystal. It's the level of quality expected at that price. I can't imagine anybody wants a display they have to read through scratches, even if means they might have to replace a broken crystal at some point.
Of course we haven't heard Apple's official explanation as to why they chose glass for the Sport, but I'd love to hear it.
Their official explanation is on the website:
Strengthened, lightweight
Ion-X glass.
To keep the Sport collection models as light as possible, we used an aluminosilicate glass that’s especially resistant to scratches and impact. It’s fortified at the molecular level through ion exchange, with smaller ions being replaced by larger ones to create a surface layer far tougher than ordinary glass.
Or are you really looking for a different answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
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.
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 Mac_128
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.
We all understand IPX7 just fine because we can all read. What really matters is real world use, right?
Comments
Of course we haven't heard Apple's official explanation as to why they chose glass for the Sport, but I'd love to hear it.
It's pointless replying to super troll Benjamin frost.
No idea why some one who has so many negative things to say about Apple spends so much time on this forum. Unless he's getting paid to, then in that case he's doing a fine job.
Nobody wants any error. But there are a,says errors, even with equipment in a doctors Office. What matters is that it's close enough, and 5% Is close enough. We see results from some of the Android devices out there that are 50% off. For example, Samsung's phones have heart rate monitors that have been described as being as much as +75% to -50%. That's obviously useless. But you're wring in insisting that we need 1%. We don't. These are not devices that are used for medical analysis in illness. The idea behind them is to give us a pretty accurate and consistent reading so that we can assess our long term situation. If we find that our reading move too high, or too low, we should verify that with medical personnel. And that's another purpose to this.
The error I gave was a lot less than 10%. Moving from 5,000 to 4,900 or 5,100 is just plus or minus 2%.
Runners have been running for decades without GPS, and they can, and will continue to do so. I'm not saying that it isn't useful. All new technology adds to what we can do. But the question here is whether as a pacing device, this is useful without GPS, and the answer is yes.
What you are forgetting, is that those here, or elsewhere, who are saying that this or that is required, and that since the watch doesn't have that, it's useless for what Apple is promoting it for, are the ones doing what you are saying, not those who are saying that it doesn't need that.
I recognize that some people will insist on one feature or another that the watch doesn't (yet) have. But they are saying that the watch is useless because it doesn't have that feature. We are saying that that isn't true. So I acknowledge that for some people, the thought that you would need your phone for GPS location while you're running, is an issue. But the declaration by them that without GPS, the watch is useless for the purpose of running is dogmatic, and wrong.
The reality is that without those features, even those who insist on them can use this product successfully, abet, without that feature. But these who say that without that feature the product is useless, are saying that about everybody. So yes, it may be annoying to wear your phone while running, if you do need, or think you need, GPS, but it can be done. But to say that the product is useless because of that, is wrongheaded.
I'm sure it's price. The replacement sapphire crystal for my smallest watch, which is a Baum Mercier, is close to $100. While Apple's volumes will bring theirs lower, it's still more expensive than glass. In a $349 product, even a $10 difference has an impact, no pun intended, though it's not a bad one.;)
I think the problem is that most runners and cyclists have already got used to using GPS with their phones. If they then go to an Apple Watch, they are likely to see a decrease in accuracy, not to mention miss out on all the other advantages that having GPS entails. That in itself is unattractive. I agree that 1% probably wouldn't matter, but I think 5% would. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
The Apple Watch is not entering a vacuum; it has an incredibly high standard to live up to.
I don't know if most runners are used to it, or even care. Most runners run in the same places most of the time. They don't need GPS. If they're in a race, they also know where they are. It's rare when they run in unfamiliar places.
This has also been my experience. Nevertheless there are studies of sapphire glass vs. gorilla glass which show sapphire is more brittle. But I'm convinced they don't use glass because it's tougher in the applied use, they use it because it's cheaper. You're probably not going to find a sport watch under $200 with a saphire crystal. On the other hand you're not going to find a $350 watch without one, sport or otherwise. A quick look on Amazon and virtually every watch at that price point had a sapphire crystal. It's the level of quality expected at that price. I can't imagine anybody wants a display they have to read through scratches, even if means they might have to replace a broken crystal at some point.
Of course we haven't heard Apple's official explanation as to why they chose glass for the Sport, but I'd love to hear it.
Their official explanation is on the website:
Strengthened, lightweight
Ion-X glass.
To keep the Sport collection models as light as possible, we used an aluminosilicate glass that’s especially resistant to scratches and impact. It’s fortified at the molecular level through ion exchange, with smaller ions being replaced by larger ones to create a surface layer far tougher than ordinary glass.
Or are you really looking for a different answer?
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.
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?
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.
We all understand IPX7 just fine because we can all read. What really matters is real world use, right?
ahem...