'Designed for athletes': Unboxing the Apple Watch Nike+

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited October 2016
For 2016, Apple joined forces with Nike to build a special version of its next-generation Apple Watch Series 2 with custom bands and a built-in app called Nike+ Run Club, software designed to motivate, guide and create personalized workout plans for athletes. AppleInsider unboxes the device that launched on Friday.







Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,684member
    I am the opposite of an athlete in every imaginable way, but I like the looks of this watch and band.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 9
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,588member
    Looking at the reviews for the run club app it appears that Nike have a complete dud on its hands. Not tracking runs, slow response and data loss. Oops. 
  • Reply 3 of 9
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,825member
    I've got mine. Love it. Don't much care for the app, but the band is great, and was the main reason I bought it instead of the regular W. 
  • Reply 4 of 9
    irnchriz said:
    Looking at the reviews for the run club app it appears that Nike have a complete dud on its hands. Not tracking runs, slow response and data loss. Oops. 
    I believe reviews you'd read is "before" the latest update.
    edited October 2016 watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 9
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,455member
    As a health and fitness tracker the original Apple Watch was a dud because, although it had great potential, it was designed by geeks with the help and advice of health care professionals -- and neither them understand athletics and fitness.

    The second iteration (particularly Watch OS3), was a vast improvement -- not because they teamed with Nike, nor because they added GPS & water proofing (both of which did more for marketing than functionality),-- but because they opened up the watch's heart rate monitor to third party apps.   Apple's own activity tracker is not bad, but it fails to provide much of the information that dedicated fitness trackers have provided on smart phones and GPS watches for years.   (BTW, the original watch always had GPS, you just had to carry your phone with you -- which most runners do anyway).

    It is good that they partnered with an athletics oriented company.  But Nike was a poor choice:  Nike has lost their mojo as they shifted from high-end athletics to a consumer grade clothing manufacturer.  I know of no serious athletes who use Nike products (unless they're being paid to do so) -- and particularly no runners who track or monitor their runs using Nike products.  Most runners use Smart Phone apps (often combined with chest straps for heart rate) or Garmin watches and similar products from FitBit, etc... 

    For myself, I am waiting for the third party apps to start taking advantage of the new, more open architecture of the Watch OS3 to make their Apple Watch apps as good as their IPhone apps.
    randominternetpersonalbegarc
  • Reply 6 of 9
    sandorsandor Posts: 523member
    for fitness, i believe there are far better solutions.

    I had a Basis Peak for years, and after that was recalled, switched to the Garmin Vivoactive HR. Both offer multi-day HR monitoring on one battery charge (the Peak lasted about a week, the Garmin about 10 days for me)

    The Garmin also adds in GPS which can either be on all the time or you can activate it when activities are started - this is significant for battery life and normal usage, in my estimation.

    I use(d) both to monitor recovery via resting heart rate (RHR). the Garmin is the best at this, as on the watch you get 4 hours of HR data, and then on the app you get quick 'n easy 7 day 4 week and 52 week graphs of RHR.


    i was really hoping for better from the newest Apple Watch, but it didn't suit my needs, so the Garmin won out.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 7 of 9
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,248member
    welshdog said:
    I am the opposite of an athlete in every imaginable way, but I like the looks of this watch and band.
    LOL. Same here. I'll never be able to use the running aspects of this watch, but I like the band and the faces. If the display activity metrics on the Nike watch face are suitable to walking, then I'm Ok. But I'll get one, anyway, just be cause I like the looks. There are knock-off and homage bands available already, for those who want to go the less expensive route or who already have a Space Gray Watch. They just won't have the Nike-only faces.



    GeorgeBMac said:
    (BTW, the original watch always had GPS, you just had to carry your phone with you -- which most runners do anyway).
    No, the original Apple Watch didn't have GPS. Only the phone had GPS. The original watch's Activity/Workout app functioned with the phone's GPS, but it didn't have GPS. And even with the Series 2—the only version with GPS—if you run with the iPhone, it's the phone's GPS that's used, and not the watch's. You may still need to use the phone to get metrics not displayed by the watch.

    And I don't know a lot of runners, but the casual ones run with a phone. More dedicated runners don't or hate doing so, that I've seen. I've also seen a lot of posts by runners who passed on the watches because they didn't have GPS and would need to run with the phone.

    It won't apply to me, but I'm interested in what third-party devs will do for runners.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 9
    As a health and fitness tracker the original Apple Watch was a dud because, although it had great potential, it was designed by geeks with the help and advice of health care professionals -- and neither them understand athletics and fitness.

    The second iteration (particularly Watch OS3), was a vast improvement -- not because they teamed with Nike, nor because they added GPS & water proofing (both of which did more for marketing than functionality),-- but because they opened up the watch's heart rate monitor to third party apps.   Apple's own activity tracker is not bad, but it fails to provide much of the information that dedicated fitness trackers have provided on smart phones and GPS watches for years.   (BTW, the original watch always had GPS, you just had to carry your phone with you -- which most runners do anyway).

    It is good that they partnered with an athletics oriented company.  But Nike was a poor choice:  Nike has lost their mojo as they shifted from high-end athletics to a consumer grade clothing manufacturer.  I know of no serious athletes who use Nike products (unless they're being paid to do so) -- and particularly no runners who track or monitor their runs using Nike products.  Most runners use Smart Phone apps (often combined with chest straps for heart rate) or Garmin watches and similar products from FitBit, etc... 

    For myself, I am waiting for the third party apps to start taking advantage of the new, more open architecture of the Watch OS3 to make their Apple Watch apps as good as their IPhone apps.
    it wasn't a dud, i did and continue to use Series 0 for this purpose. 

    as supposed evidence you cite the fact that it got better. well, yeah, that's how it goes with software and product dev -- things get better. challenges and hurdles are overcome. this stuff doesn't write itself and you gotta walk before you can run. 
  • Reply 9 of 9
    GeorgeBMac said:
    (BTW, the original watch always had GPS, you just had to carry your phone with you -- which most runners do anyway).
    No, the original Apple Watch didn't have GPS. Only the phone had GPS. The original watch's Activity/Workout app functioned with the phone's GPS, but it didn't have GPS. And even with the Series 2—the only version with GPS—if you run with the iPhone, it's the phone's GPS that's used, and not the watch's. You may still need to use the phone to get metrics not displayed by the watch.

    I think GeorgeBMac knows there was no GPS in the original Apple Watch and that it was only in the iPhone. He was just trying to be clever in his wording. At least that's how I interpreted it.
    edited November 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.