Couple of questions: 1. Will it connect to more than one bluetooth device at a time? (When jogging I use a Polar heartbeat strap--the watch itself doesn't hold the pulse quite enough--and headphones). 2. Can I load on podcasts, my preferred listening venue while jogging.
Yep, there is an option in settings to connect to Bluetooth health accessories, so your Polar heartbeat strap should work fine (assuming it connects with your iPhone, at least). So you can run an external heart rate monitor (which disables the watch's own monitor and prefers the external one), and connect to Bluetooth headphones at the same time.
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
It's worth noting that iOS does support the ability to connect multiple Apple Watches to one iPhone. This could allow someone to have a "dressy" edition or stainless steel model alongside a "sporty" aluminum one. It could also allow someone to keep an older model around (say, a first-gen owner who buys a Series 3) and use that one at night for sleep tracking with third-party apps.
If needed, WatchOS could use the "heartbeat = yes/no" to decide which watch is "active". Man. So cool.
That's basically how it works. Put on your watch, unlock it, raise your wrist, and your iPhone knows which watch is being used and syncs with that one.
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
I can usually understand Apple's motivation (regardless of whether I agree with it or not). The lack of a podcast app or support makes no sense to me.
I am thinking of getting the AW3 non-cellular version, since my iPhone is on a company plan where adding this LTE companion capability is not possible (and I wouldn't get the value at $10/month anyways). Coming from the original AW (or "Series 0" as the "Star Wars, Episode 4" revisionists would say...:), which is 2.5 years old now, the improvements in Series 3 look pretty good. I wear my AW every day, and the improvements in brighter screen, battery life, GPS, water resistance, Siri and significant improvement in performance - all contribute to make it a product I will enjoy.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
If Apple changes the design next year and current lineup of bands no longer fit, they will face a mutiny from many current watch owners, myself included. I would welcome a redesign, or smart bands, or anything — but the existing bands need to still fit, no matter what.
I am thinking of getting the AW3 non-cellular version, since my iPhone is on a company plan where adding this LTE companion capability is not possible (and I wouldn't get the value at $10/month anyways). Coming from the original AW (or "Series 0" as the "Star Wars, Episode 4" revisionists would say...:), which is 2.5 years old now, the improvements in Series 3 look pretty good. I wear my AW every day, and the improvements in brighter screen, battery life, GPS, water resistance, Siri and significant improvement in performance - all contribute to make it a product I will enjoy.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
And altimeter. I used my Series 0 Watch for muti-day hikes through the mountains. No cellular connection for my iPhone so it stayed off and my Watch was put into Airplane Mode with the display set to not turn on which let the battery last up to 3 days of use. The calories burned and the minutes of exercise were not even close to accurate despite the effort exerted because your forward momentum can be slow over rough terrain and since it can't gauge an incline or altitude, not to mention carrying a heavy pack or the thinner air. Series 2 with the GPS is a step in the right direction, as is Series 3 with the altimeter, but I don't think it's yet smart enough to consider that kind of exercise.
It's worth noting that iOS does support the ability to connect multiple Apple Watches to one iPhone. This could allow someone to have a "dressy" edition or stainless steel model alongside a "sporty" aluminum one. It could also allow someone to keep an older model around (say, a first-gen owner who buys a Series 3) and use that one at night for sleep tracking with third-party apps.
What a fantastic idea THIS is. Wow. Never thought of this.
If needed, WatchOS could use the "heartbeat = yes/no" to decide which watch is "active". Man. So cool.
My glasses are like this. My "nice" ones have straight ear-pieces that stop above the ear. Any hot activity where I look down, and they slide. I use the backups (prior prescription) that hook around the ears, for mowing the lawn, working on cars, etc.
Wow. Nice AW + Workhorse AW.
That's so cool I can hardly stand it, and I don't even own an AW!
E.
It’s why I’m considering repairing my Series 0 whose display fell out (adhesive failure?) a week before the Series 3 was announced. The far less capable unit would be “good enough” for overnight tracking and I had noticed that “add another Apple Watch?” on the iPhone watch setup screen.
Though with my gettng 2+ day’s on a charge it’s less pressing. I’ve had my Series 3 on my wrist since Friday and charged it twice. No LTE useage yet though.
ETA: oh and I’d heartily second the suggestion Series 0 users would notice and appreciate the performance boost of the 3 over the 0. There was only a two week gap between my experience ( display adhesive failure ??? for the 0) so that’s almost back to back and the 3 is noticeably faster to the point of there not being any perceptible lag in responses for things the 0 would dog on.
Those functional improvements would be in 2 general categories: 1) More sensors (SpO2, Glucose)
I know there was a lot of chatter about a glucose sensor being built into this year's watch that never came to be. I never bought into those rumors, and frankly I wouldn't hold your breath for these kinds of sensors coming to the watch in the near future, for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, the more medical functionality that Apple builds into the device, the more likely it is that they will need to get FDA approval for various capabilities/claims/features. That's a regulatory can of worms Apple likely doesn't want to open.
Second is utility. SpO2 and glucose sensors would be great, but most consumers don't really need that information, as it's not a health issue for them. About 9% of the US population has diabetes, but 100% of them have a heart rate. That's not to say that Apple wouldn't include these capabilities if it was easy/cost efficient, but given a number of factors including space constraints in the device, I am not sure it's a priority.
Finally, advanced medical devices are going to be less reliable and less accurate when squeezed into a tiny wearable device and worn loosely on the wrist. The Apple Watch heart rate sensor is great, but it's not as reliable as a chest-strapped heart rate sensor — which is exactly why, since day one, Apple has given the ability to connect the watch to an external Bluetooth heart rate monitor and to defer heart rate readings to that device, and not the watch itself. I have no doubt that technology will continue to improve and medical devices will get smaller, but we're not really there yet.
Coming back to those glucose monitor rumors about the Series 3? The ones that included Tim Cook personally testing it? It turned out that they were related to an external accessory that taps into the new Core Bluetooth capabilities announced at WWDC. And the continuous glucose monitor doesn't operate on your skin — it has to be *embedded within your skin*.
That, for better or worse, is the answer to your desires: Advanced sensors are probably going to be integrated in other ways, whether they are external Bluetooth accessories, or the hypothetical "smart bands" I touched upon in the review, or, I guess, stuff embedded in your skin. Making them separate accessories solves all of the problems I listed above — it avoids FDA regulation of the watch itself, it allows the features to target audiences that need them, and it enables more capable medical devices that don't have to be packed inside of a wearable device that is size of a few stacked silver dollars.
Great post! Thank you for your insights! I agree completely!
Well, sort of: I wasn't actually advocating the additional sensors (SpO2 & Glucose) for health reasons -- but for sports performance reasons. Endurance athletes rely on getting two things to their muscles: Oxygen and sugar -- they're like getting Air and Gasoline to the cylinders of your car's engine. Without both of them, and in adequate quantities, you (or your car) sputter and stop moving. And, the more you feed it, the faster you (or your car) go.
So actually, I was thinking that these sensors could make a major change to sports performance. ... But that doesn't change anything that you said.
Fantastic review! I particularly loved the "Day in the Park" section which gives us a glimpse of what life without our phones and just the Watch can be like. Great observation about having everything you usually need from the phone except for the camera. I could relate to these experiences very well based on how the author described theirs.
Yes, it could be absolutely great for kids whose mom's won't let them have a phone. But a watch they could use for safety reasons without all the baggage and hangups parents tend to have about kids and phones.
But, conversely, it requires a phone number to duplicate. So, there goes the iPad/iPod connection.
Adding LTE to the watch was, I believe, a huge improvement. But, it must also be realized that this does not actually add any functionality to the watch. It just makes it a (far) better stand-alone device.
For myself: I wear a Gen 0 throughout my waking hours and use it daily for running, cycling and strength training. While I would love to have a Series 3 (brighter screen, faster processor and more independence from the iPhone), I am still waiting for some actual functional improvements in the Watch before upgrading.
... Right now, there's nothing I could do on a Series 3 LTE that I can't already do on my 1 year old Gen 0.
This is incorrect. The series 0 cannot do the new advanced HR monitoring features in watchOS 4. Hardware difference. Siri voice isn’t possible on 0. And lastly my 0 is just so slow with siri and HK that it’s almost unusable, my screen sleeps before it finishes processing requests, so the 3 gains functionality there too.
Gen 0 monitors heart rate just fine. No problems here -- at least none that a Series whatever would solve.
People said the EXACT same things about phones vs laptops in the 90's.............
I don't agree with the analogy. Phones could always do something laptops could not: make phone calls. Over time and as their physical dimensions grew, they could also do lots of things that were previously done by laptop. Compare that to the Apple Watch vs. iPhone: the only thing the Apple Watch does that your smartphone can't is measure your heart rate. And even that feature was already available as an app on the iPhone and in much cheaper activity trackers. What sells Apple Watches is the added convenience of not having to pull your phone out of your pocket every time you get a notification or when you want to read your heart rate. Yes, cellular, adds an additional convenience - but for a relatively small number of people.
The Apple Watch can't grow in size to do more of what the iPhone does. People are never going to run any serious apps on a 1.5" screen. Rather, I think the Apple Watch will grow more useful with ever more sensors (e.g. glucose monitor, oxygen monitor). But sensor data has to go somewhere - the iPhone.
But then - that's just my view.
No, Sog was correct. In the early days the primary reason for anybody getting a "car phone" was for safety -- being able to call if your car broke down.
The same reason exists for LTE on the Apple Watch: So you can call, if needed, during those times when it is inconvenient to be carrying a phone: Out windsurfing, swimming, running, or even just out cutting the grass.... ... Some will use it to chit-chat. But that doesn't take away any of the safety concerns.
Where are all the clowns who said the Watch was a flop?
All those haters are either ignorant, dumb, or lack vision.
Apple once again proving all the haters wrong.
Where are all the clowns who said that Cook wasn't fit to run Apple?
All those haters are either ignorant, dumb, or lack vision.
Apple once again proving all the haters wrong.
Where are all the clowns who said that Cook never made mistakes?
All those haters are either ignorant, dumb, or lack vision.
I don't know anyone who ever claimed Apple/Cook/Jobs/whoever never made mistakes. But you do indeed make fanatical claims like Cook being unfit to run Apple and needing to be fired. That's the difference.
4 hours of LTE up time? I'd call that a failure. No thanks thats ridiculous
Repeat after me: a device 1/6 the size of your smartphone is not a replacement for your smartphone... It's an auxiliary device. A, what do they call it? accessory.
Those functional improvements would be in 2 general categories: 1) More sensors (SpO2, Glucose)
I know there was a lot of chatter about a glucose sensor being built into this year's watch that never came to be. I never bought into those rumors, and frankly I wouldn't hold your breath for these kinds of sensors coming to the watch in the near future, for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, the more medical functionality that Apple builds into the device, the more likely it is that they will need to get FDA approval for various capabilities/claims/features. That's a regulatory can of worms Apple likely doesn't want to open.
Second is utility. SpO2 and glucose sensors would be great, but most consumers don't really need that information, as it's not a health issue for them. About 9% of the US population has diabetes, but 100% of them have a heart rate. That's not to say that Apple wouldn't include these capabilities if it was easy/cost efficient, but given a number of factors including space constraints in the device, I am not sure it's a priority.
Finally, advanced medical devices are going to be less reliable and less accurate when squeezed into a tiny wearable device and worn loosely on the wrist. The Apple Watch heart rate sensor is great, but it's not as reliable as a chest-strapped heart rate sensor — which is exactly why, since day one, Apple has given the ability to connect the watch to an external Bluetooth heart rate monitor and to defer heart rate readings to that device, and not the watch itself. I have no doubt that technology will continue to improve and medical devices will get smaller, but we're not really there yet.
Coming back to those glucose monitor rumors about the Series 3? The ones that included Tim Cook personally testing it? It turned out that they were related to an external accessory that taps into the new Core Bluetooth capabilities announced at WWDC. And the continuous glucose monitor doesn't operate on your skin — it has to be *embedded within your skin*.
That, for better or worse, is the answer to your desires: Advanced sensors are probably going to be integrated in other ways, whether they are external Bluetooth accessories, or the hypothetical "smart bands" I touched upon in the review, or, I guess, stuff embedded in your skin. Making them separate accessories solves all of the problems I listed above — it avoids FDA regulation of the watch itself, it allows the features to target audiences that need them, and it enables more capable medical devices that don't have to be packed inside of a wearable device that is size of a few stacked silver dollars.
Great post! Thank you for your insights! I agree completely!
Well, sort of: I wasn't actually advocating the additional sensors (SpO2 & Glucose) for health reasons -- but for sports performance reasons. Endurance athletes rely on getting two things to their muscles: Oxygen and sugar -- they're like getting Air and Gasoline to the cylinders of your car's engine. Without both of them, and in adequate quantities, you (or your car) sputter and stop moving. And, the more you feed it, the faster you (or your car) go.
So actually, I was thinking that these sensors could make a major change to sports performance. ... But that doesn't change anything that you said.
From what I understand, measuring blood oxygen levels on a future Apple Watch is far more likely to happen than glucose, for whatever that's worth. There are rumors that Apple dabbled in SpO2 testing, and I believe there is a Nokia health band that measures blood oxygen through the skin. I don't know how accurate that actually is, though, raising the question of how badly Apple would want/need to include it. It could happen, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.
The limits on local music storage remain something of a mystery -- I managed to sync more than 4 gigabytes of music with one playlist and the "Heavy Rotation" feature. But when I attempted to add another playlist, the iPhone Watch app told me I could not transfer anymore, despite the fact that I had a whopping 9 gigabytes of storage available.
So still not an adequate replacement for the iPod nano and shuffle they've discontinued? Odd that they won't just publish the local music sync storage specs.
Plus there is the weird "can't browse music library from your iPhone" change that I hope will be addressed.
This doesnt strike me as weird or a bother. My non-techie SO was routinely flummoxed by this, believing to be picking music from the Watch while prepping for a run then once running outside of phone-range having the music drop out and not knowing why or how to fix it. Caused aggravation. That won't happen now, especially since I'd bet most people have a "working out" or "running" or whatever playlist. And what is lost? To be able to play *any* music from a nearby phone now you have to start it on the phone first. Eh, not so big of a deal. Sure it could be if the phone is in your backpack or gym locker or whatever, but I'd bet Apple knows that use case is less than people being annoyed by my SO's use case. Just a hunch. So I think it was done in the name of simplicity and I bet we won't see it return. Especially with LTE streaming of entire iCloud Music Library coming up.
Couple of questions: 1. Will it connect to more than one bluetooth device at a time? (When jogging I use a Polar heartbeat strap--the watch itself doesn't hold the pulse quite enough--and headphones).
Check straps have been supported since series 0. And simultaneously with BT headphones, since there is no wired option anyway.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
If Apple changes the design next year and current lineup of bands no longer fit, they will face a mutiny from many current watch owners, myself included. I would welcome a redesign, or smart bands, or anything — but the existing bands need to still fit, no matter what.
So Apple should/will never change the shape of the AW so straps will still fit? Are we talking about the same Apple? Has this been a concern with iPhone shells and breaking case compatibility?
Comments
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/12/inside-ios-93-auto-switch-lets-you-use-multiple-apple-watches-with-one-iphone
I am thinking of getting the AW3 non-cellular version, since my iPhone is on a company plan where adding this LTE companion capability is not possible (and I wouldn't get the value at $10/month anyways). Coming from the original AW (or "Series 0" as the "Star Wars, Episode 4" revisionists would say...:), which is 2.5 years old now, the improvements in Series 3 look pretty good. I wear my AW every day, and the improvements in brighter screen, battery life, GPS, water resistance, Siri and significant improvement in performance - all contribute to make it a product I will enjoy.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
Though with my gettng 2+ day’s on a charge it’s less pressing. I’ve had my Series 3 on my wrist since Friday and charged it twice. No LTE useage yet though.
ETA: oh and I’d heartily second the suggestion Series 0 users would notice and appreciate the performance boost of the 3 over the 0. There was only a two week gap between my experience ( display adhesive failure ??? for the 0) so that’s almost back to back and the 3 is noticeably faster to the point of there not being any perceptible lag in responses for things the 0 would dog on.
You're either ignorant, or flat-out lying. Which one is it?
Well, sort of: I wasn't actually advocating the additional sensors (SpO2 & Glucose) for health reasons -- but for sports performance reasons. Endurance athletes rely on getting two things to their muscles: Oxygen and sugar -- they're like getting Air and Gasoline to the cylinders of your car's engine. Without both of them, and in adequate quantities, you (or your car) sputter and stop moving. And, the more you feed it, the faster you (or your car) go.
So actually, I was thinking that these sensors could make a major change to sports performance.
... But that doesn't change anything that you said.
But, conversely, it requires a phone number to duplicate. So, there goes the iPad/iPod connection.
In the early days the primary reason for anybody getting a "car phone" was for safety -- being able to call if your car broke down.
The same reason exists for LTE on the Apple Watch: So you can call, if needed, during those times when it is inconvenient to be carrying a phone: Out windsurfing, swimming, running, or even just out cutting the grass....
... Some will use it to chit-chat. But that doesn't take away any of the safety concerns.
Repeat after me: a device 1/6 the size of your smartphone is not a replacement for your smartphone... It's an auxiliary device. A, what do they call it? accessory.
This doesnt strike me as weird or a bother. My non-techie SO was routinely flummoxed by this, believing to be picking music from the Watch while prepping for a run then once running outside of phone-range having the music drop out and not knowing why or how to fix it. Caused aggravation. That won't happen now, especially since I'd bet most people have a "working out" or "running" or whatever playlist. And what is lost? To be able to play *any* music from a nearby phone now you have to start it on the phone first. Eh, not so big of a deal. Sure it could be if the phone is in your backpack or gym locker or whatever, but I'd bet Apple knows that use case is less than people being annoyed by my SO's use case. Just a hunch. So I think it was done in the name of simplicity and I bet we won't see it return. Especially with LTE streaming of entire iCloud Music Library coming up.
So Apple should/will never change the shape of the AW so straps will still fit? Are we talking about the same Apple? Has this been a concern with iPhone shells and breaking case compatibility?