LTE Series 3 Apple Watch cut off from networks in China, government concerns likely to bla...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    lkrupp said:
    How long will we in the U.S. be able to keep the power hungry government from doing the same thing? We meekly (sheepleness) accepted the TSA and Homeland Security out of fear. I recently found out about Real ID. Real ID is a federally mandated program that states must comply with when issuing drivers licenses or state ID cards. Starting in 2018 the TSA will no longer accept non Real ID compliant state IDs and drivers licenses as a valid photo ID for domestic travel. Real ID compliant IDs provide Homeland Security/TSA with much more additional personal information about you. Real ID is more than just an ID card. Currently four states are refusing to comply and their citizens will be unable to board a domestic flight unless they also have their passport with them. Bottom line is that citizens of this country can no longer travel freely (by airplane) without the government know exactly who you are and where you are going inside the country. How long until Real ID is mandated for all forms of commercial travel?
    Ya gotta stop reading the right wing/Russian propaganda...  It's rotting your brain.  
    ....  It's like being the only one riding a see-saw.   A bit lopsided.   Actually, one-sided.
    Oh, it’s not propaganda at all. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
  • Reply 22 of 37
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
  • Reply 23 of 37
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,801member
    Does this mean the Chinese don't get the ugly red dot? If so, at least there's something good that came out of it. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 24 of 37
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    tzeshan said:

    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    iPhone GPS location accuracy and speed can be enhanced using two other factors  - nearby WiFi points and cell towers. Since the AW3 can see all those same sources it should be able to identify the location just as well as an iPhone in the same situation, however if the GPS signal is not available the accuracy will be questionable on either device. 
  • Reply 25 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
  • Reply 26 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 27 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
  • Reply 28 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 29 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
  • Reply 30 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 31 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    You are right -- there are better run trackers.   But only because of better software -- NOT because of any deficiencies in heart rate, pace or distance tracking on the Apple Watch
    .
    Phony, so called studies -- like testing a GPS while standing under an overpass -- don't change that.  Or, even more laughably, his claim that pace was off when he first started running -- when, without the Apple Watch he would have been still standing there staring at his wrist because most other trackers wouldn't even have started their GPS yet! 
  • Reply 32 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    You are right -- there are better run trackers.   But only because of better software -- NOT because of any deficiencies in heart rate, pace or distance tracking on the Apple Watch
    .
    Phony, so called studies -- like testing a GPS while standing under an overpass -- don't change that.  Or, even more laughably, his claim that pace was off when he first started running -- when, without the Apple Watch he would have been still standing there staring at his wrist because most other trackers wouldn't even have started their GPS yet! 
    No idea what you're basing your accuracy claims on but how would you explain the Apple Watch continuing to register paces and distance well after the runner had stopped. It doesn't sound like accuracy. In any event I was simply trying to add actual test results to your guess that the Apple Watch is far more accurate as a running companion than other run tracking devices. It would appear it is not. No biggie. The Apple Watch has other use cases. 
  • Reply 33 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    You are right -- there are better run trackers.   But only because of better software -- NOT because of any deficiencies in heart rate, pace or distance tracking on the Apple Watch
    .
    Phony, so called studies -- like testing a GPS while standing under an overpass -- don't change that.  Or, even more laughably, his claim that pace was off when he first started running -- when, without the Apple Watch he would have been still standing there staring at his wrist because most other trackers wouldn't even have started their GPS yet! 
    No idea what you're basing your accuracy claims on but how would you explain the Apple Watch continuing to register paces and distance well after the runner had stopped. It doesn't sound like accuracy. In any event I was simply trying to add actual test results to your guess that the Apple Watch is far more accurate as a running companion than other run tracking devices. It would appear it is not. No biggie. The Apple Watch has other use cases. 
    So who would "test" a GPS while under an overpass?  
    ... A crazy person?   A liar?   Certainly not anybody looking to run a valid test.

    An invalid test (such as the one you site) produces invalid results -- which is worse than any so called "guess"...

  • Reply 34 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    You are right -- there are better run trackers.   But only because of better software -- NOT because of any deficiencies in heart rate, pace or distance tracking on the Apple Watch
    .
    Phony, so called studies -- like testing a GPS while standing under an overpass -- don't change that.  Or, even more laughably, his claim that pace was off when he first started running -- when, without the Apple Watch he would have been still standing there staring at his wrist because most other trackers wouldn't even have started their GPS yet! 
    No idea what you're basing your accuracy claims on but how would you explain the Apple Watch continuing to register paces and distance well after the runner had stopped. It doesn't sound like accuracy. In any event I was simply trying to add actual test results to your guess that the Apple Watch is far more accurate as a running companion than other run tracking devices. It would appear it is not. No biggie. The Apple Watch has other use cases. 
    So who would "test" a GPS while under an overpass?  
    ... A crazy person?   A liar?   Certainly not anybody looking to run a valid test.

    An invalid test (such as the one you site) produces invalid results -- which is worse than any so called "guess"...

    You think he was running in place under overpass?? Did you even watch the entire video? Apparently not. You have you mind mind up obviously, screw anything evidence contrary to what you want to believe. No big deal, he's far from dishonest, but as you are completely ignoring everything but "overpass" your honesty is becoming questionable. To pull out the "liar" card simply because his test, the same type of test he does on a regular basis with other fitness trackers and hiking devices, doesn't agree with your opinion? Really? But it IS absolutely possible he simply had a bad watch. It happens.Or just maybe where he uses it is different from where you use it. You do use it for running don't you? 

    But surely you don't think this marathoner must be a liar too?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/23/apple-watch-series-2-review/
    Or this one:
    http://www.techradar.com/reviews/wearables/apple-watch-2-1323213/review/3
    or this one who happens to be a huge fan of Apple:
    https://www.cultofmac.com/454600/runners-review-apple-watch-series-2/
    I think what you'd find if you pay closer attention is that Apple Watch accuracy varies based on location more so than many of the other gps-enabled run trackers such as those from TomTom and Garmin. Out in wide-open spaces the Apple Watch reportedly does quite well with distance accuracy (not so much with route tracking but if you don't care about that it doesn't matter. Most serious runners do). But take it into the city canyons or a mixed environment and it's an entirely different matter. Both Garmin and TomTom are likely to be far more accurate, and that comes from experience runner's who know how to use a smartwatch. That would be evidence that the GPS function on "other" trackers is more accurate would it not? TBH I don't expect an answer from you on that.

    Doesn't matter tho as this distraction from the thread has gone on long enough. You will believe what you want anyway and nothing will be allowed to dent your faith that the Apple Watch is the most GPS accurate running watch available, so no need to keep discussing it. 
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 35 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    You are right -- there are better run trackers.   But only because of better software -- NOT because of any deficiencies in heart rate, pace or distance tracking on the Apple Watch
    .
    Phony, so called studies -- like testing a GPS while standing under an overpass -- don't change that.  Or, even more laughably, his claim that pace was off when he first started running -- when, without the Apple Watch he would have been still standing there staring at his wrist because most other trackers wouldn't even have started their GPS yet! 
    No idea what you're basing your accuracy claims on but how would you explain the Apple Watch continuing to register paces and distance well after the runner had stopped. It doesn't sound like accuracy. In any event I was simply trying to add actual test results to your guess that the Apple Watch is far more accurate as a running companion than other run tracking devices. It would appear it is not. No biggie. The Apple Watch has other use cases. 
    So who would "test" a GPS while under an overpass?  
    ... A crazy person?   A liar?   Certainly not anybody looking to run a valid test.

    An invalid test (such as the one you site) produces invalid results -- which is worse than any so called "guess"...

    You think he was running in place under overpass?? Did you even watch the entire video? Apparently not. You have you mind mind up obviously, screw anything evidence contrary to what you want to believe. No big deal, he's far from dishonest, but as you are completely ignoring everything but "overpass" your honesty is becoming questionable. To pull out the "liar" card simply because his test, the same type of test he does on a regular basis with other fitness trackers and hiking devices, doesn't agree with your opinion? Really? But it IS absolutely possible he simply had a bad watch. It happens.Or just maybe where he uses it is different from where you use it. You do use it for running don't you? 

    But surely you don't think this marathoner must be a liar too?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/23/apple-watch-series-2-review/
    Or this one:
    http://www.techradar.com/reviews/wearables/apple-watch-2-1323213/review/3
    or this one who happens to be a huge fan of Apple:
    https://www.cultofmac.com/454600/runners-review-apple-watch-series-2/
    I think what you'd find if you pay closer attention is that Apple Watch accuracy varies based on location more so than many of the other gps-enabled run trackers such as those from TomTom and Garmin. Out in wide-open spaces the Apple Watch reportedly does quite well with distance accuracy (not so much with route tracking but if you don't care about that it doesn't matter. Most serious runners do). But take it into the city canyons or a mixed environment and it's an entirely different matter. Both Garmin and TomTom are likely to be far more accurate, and that comes from experience runner's who know how to use a smartwatch. That would be evidence that the GPS function on "other" trackers is more accurate would it not? TBH I don't expect an answer from you on that.

    Doesn't matter tho as this distraction from the thread has gone on long enough. You will believe what you want anyway and nothing will be allowed to dent your faith that the Apple Watch is the most GPS accurate running watch available, so no need to keep discussing it. 
    No, I'll believe what I see as well as valid reports and tests.   But I will refrain from believing trash.
  • Reply 36 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    You are right -- there are better run trackers.   But only because of better software -- NOT because of any deficiencies in heart rate, pace or distance tracking on the Apple Watch
    .
    Phony, so called studies -- like testing a GPS while standing under an overpass -- don't change that.  Or, even more laughably, his claim that pace was off when he first started running -- when, without the Apple Watch he would have been still standing there staring at his wrist because most other trackers wouldn't even have started their GPS yet! 
    No idea what you're basing your accuracy claims on but how would you explain the Apple Watch continuing to register paces and distance well after the runner had stopped. It doesn't sound like accuracy. In any event I was simply trying to add actual test results to your guess that the Apple Watch is far more accurate as a running companion than other run tracking devices. It would appear it is not. No biggie. The Apple Watch has other use cases. 
    So who would "test" a GPS while under an overpass?  
    ... A crazy person?   A liar?   Certainly not anybody looking to run a valid test.

    An invalid test (such as the one you site) produces invalid results -- which is worse than any so called "guess"...

    You think he was running in place under overpass?? Did you even watch the entire video? Apparently not. You have you mind mind up obviously, screw anything evidence contrary to what you want to believe. No big deal, he's far from dishonest, but as you are completely ignoring everything but "overpass" your honesty is becoming questionable. To pull out the "liar" card simply because his test, the same type of test he does on a regular basis with other fitness trackers and hiking devices, doesn't agree with your opinion? Really? But it IS absolutely possible he simply had a bad watch. It happens.Or just maybe where he uses it is different from where you use it. You do use it for running don't you? 

    But surely you don't think this marathoner must be a liar too?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/23/apple-watch-series-2-review/
    Or this one:
    http://www.techradar.com/reviews/wearables/apple-watch-2-1323213/review/3
    or this one who happens to be a huge fan of Apple:
    https://www.cultofmac.com/454600/runners-review-apple-watch-series-2/
    I think what you'd find if you pay closer attention is that Apple Watch accuracy varies based on location more so than many of the other gps-enabled run trackers such as those from TomTom and Garmin. Out in wide-open spaces the Apple Watch reportedly does quite well with distance accuracy (not so much with route tracking but if you don't care about that it doesn't matter. Most serious runners do). But take it into the city canyons or a mixed environment and it's an entirely different matter. Both Garmin and TomTom are likely to be far more accurate, and that comes from experience runner's who know how to use a smartwatch. That would be evidence that the GPS function on "other" trackers is more accurate would it not? TBH I don't expect an answer from you on that.

    Doesn't matter tho as this distraction from the thread has gone on long enough. You will believe what you want anyway and nothing will be allowed to dent your faith that the Apple Watch is the most GPS accurate running watch available, so no need to keep discussing it. 
    No, I'll believe what I see as well as valid reports and tests.   But I will refrain from believing trash.
    Trash = Any professional and/or well-experienced serious runner or tester that disagrees with what GeorgeBMac believes. Got it.  
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 37 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tzeshan said:
    volcan said:
    tzeshan said:

    How does 911 know you are calling from the iPhone or the AW3?
    If the calling device has GPS, the location is sent to 911 dispatch immediately by the software running on the device. The dispatch center doesn't have to do anything. It is automatically sent by the device. In the case that the iPhone is at home and you call with the watch while on a jog, the location of the watch is what is sent.
    Good answer.  The question is sometimes GPS chip cannot see the satellite. The iPhone has special function to calculate the location.  Does AW3 have this capability? 
    The use of GPS positioning on the Apple Watch is primarily for athletic tracking of pace and distance.  As such it has to be highly accurate -- not just a rough guess.   Other exercise trackers such as Garmin worked out those rough edges long ago.   I believe the Apple Watch is probably superior to them (although Garmin fans would argue that vehemently -- its like a religion).

    A good example is a group of friends who identified that the carefully measured course length (and therefor their pace) in a local race was inaccurate -- based on the distance reported by their Garmins when they ran the race.
    The run-pacing via Apple Watch 2 gps is reported to be "horrid". 


    If you want in-depth non-fan-driven workout wearable reviews check out DCRainmaker. I don't know of a better reviewer.
    Anybody could have gotten those "shaky" results with any pace tracker:
    ...  Calculating pace is a matter of smoothing out time vs distance and when movement is first starting out every tracker is shaky -- it all depends on how much time it includes in the calculation.  They also get shaky when you turn around and retrace your steps - at some point you are right back to where you were, so your pace calculates as zero.   These things are not auto speedometers that can track wheel revolutions.

    Even changing the app you're using can change the pace -- because, even though they all have the same input, their algorithms are different.

    ...  And, he runs under an overpass and then says the GPS is inconsistent?   Come on...

    Actually, a lot of the "reported inaccurate" comes from those using a non-GPS Apple Watch without a phone -- so it tries to guess at pace and distance based on your historical stride and cadence -- which can only give a very rough approximation.
    Except DCRainmaker is not just "anybody". I'm pretty sure he knows how to test a smartwatch and tracking functions. :/ He also wasn't testing a non-GPS Apple Watch so no idea where you plucked that from. 

    If you follow the video all the way to the end he goes so far as to say the Apple Watch run-pacing performed worse than any than any other device he's tested for that function in the past 10 years. What more can be said as it continued counting paces long after he had come to a complete stop.  If you follow to his blog you'll find he's tested dozens upon dozens over a lot of years and knows what he's doing. 
    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/
    The first half proved to me that he's an asshole.  I didn't bother beyond that.
    Understandable since he didn't agree with you.

     Everyone knows it's a great smartwatch with fantastic build. There's just far better run trackers.  Pace and distance isn't one of its core competencies, at least yet. 
    You are right -- there are better run trackers.   But only because of better software -- NOT because of any deficiencies in heart rate, pace or distance tracking on the Apple Watch
    .
    Phony, so called studies -- like testing a GPS while standing under an overpass -- don't change that.  Or, even more laughably, his claim that pace was off when he first started running -- when, without the Apple Watch he would have been still standing there staring at his wrist because most other trackers wouldn't even have started their GPS yet! 
    No idea what you're basing your accuracy claims on but how would you explain the Apple Watch continuing to register paces and distance well after the runner had stopped. It doesn't sound like accuracy. In any event I was simply trying to add actual test results to your guess that the Apple Watch is far more accurate as a running companion than other run tracking devices. It would appear it is not. No biggie. The Apple Watch has other use cases. 
    So who would "test" a GPS while under an overpass?  
    ... A crazy person?   A liar?   Certainly not anybody looking to run a valid test.

    An invalid test (such as the one you site) produces invalid results -- which is worse than any so called "guess"...

    You think he was running in place under overpass?? Did you even watch the entire video? Apparently not. You have you mind mind up obviously, screw anything evidence contrary to what you want to believe. No big deal, he's far from dishonest, but as you are completely ignoring everything but "overpass" your honesty is becoming questionable. To pull out the "liar" card simply because his test, the same type of test he does on a regular basis with other fitness trackers and hiking devices, doesn't agree with your opinion? Really? But it IS absolutely possible he simply had a bad watch. It happens.Or just maybe where he uses it is different from where you use it. You do use it for running don't you? 

    But surely you don't think this marathoner must be a liar too?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/23/apple-watch-series-2-review/
    Or this one:
    http://www.techradar.com/reviews/wearables/apple-watch-2-1323213/review/3
    or this one who happens to be a huge fan of Apple:
    https://www.cultofmac.com/454600/runners-review-apple-watch-series-2/
    I think what you'd find if you pay closer attention is that Apple Watch accuracy varies based on location more so than many of the other gps-enabled run trackers such as those from TomTom and Garmin. Out in wide-open spaces the Apple Watch reportedly does quite well with distance accuracy (not so much with route tracking but if you don't care about that it doesn't matter. Most serious runners do). But take it into the city canyons or a mixed environment and it's an entirely different matter. Both Garmin and TomTom are likely to be far more accurate, and that comes from experience runner's who know how to use a smartwatch. That would be evidence that the GPS function on "other" trackers is more accurate would it not? TBH I don't expect an answer from you on that.

    Doesn't matter tho as this distraction from the thread has gone on long enough. You will believe what you want anyway and nothing will be allowed to dent your faith that the Apple Watch is the most GPS accurate running watch available, so no need to keep discussing it. 
    No, I'll believe what I see as well as valid reports and tests.   But I will refrain from believing trash.
    Trash = Any professional and/or well-experienced serious runner or tester that disagrees with what GeorgeBMac believes. Got it.  
    LOL...  I AM a "well-experienced serious runner"
    ..........  You are starting to look as foolish as the source of your misinformation campaign.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.