Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Overcoming AW's lack of GPS
- Thread starter darkenedhue
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The issue is that you may not get much watch power at all. If the Fitbit Surge with a rated battery life of a week, can only handle 7 hours (or there abouts) of straight GPS time, you may only get one hour or less of GPS on the AW. I don't know about you, but my runs can extend beyond 1 hour
Same comparison with my ol' Garmin 410. Garmin specs the battery life in regular mode as two weeks, but in training mode (GPS and HR), it'll run for eight hours. And that's without Bluetooth or wifi, and with a plain black-and-white LCD display, and a much bulkier case (fat enough that I hated wearing it as a regular watch).
The key words are "should calibrate", but unfortunately this is not the case with Watch OS 2.
I also run outside 3-4 times a week and I have tried to calibrate my Watch more than 10 times without success. Each calibration run with my phone in an armband was 60+ minutes, 7+ miles and 11,000+ steps. I followed the directions on Apple's website and even reset the calibration data a couple of times.
In my case, the Watch records between 1.2 and 1.3 miles for every mile I run after calibrating. The calculated mileage without my phone is not consistent even though I run the same 7 mile route each time. Over the last 5 weeks, I upgraded my Watch and phone to the latest OS versions, but calibration is still broken.
I am all for adding a limited use GPS to Apple Watch 2 or a GPS accessory band as has been mentioned by others on this thread. Without a true GPS, the Apple Watch is a good step counter, but not a good fitness device.
TXWatch
The Forerunner 225 looks great but not something you would wear like a watch. At least I would not as it is a little on the large size. A few more years and they might get it a bit smaller.
Last edited:
Haha. By serious I just mean tracking your mileage ran. I used to use my phone and mapmyrun but quickly found the accuracy was off by too much for my standards. Forget about the AW learning your distance. That was way worse.
I remember it being off by a quarter mile on a 4 mile run. That was with my phone also.
I have had good success running with my Watch and Phone. The difference between my Phone's GPS and my Garmin are usually 1/10 of a mile over a 7 mile run. To me, this is an acceptable deviation.
However, as I mentioned above, as soon as I leave my "Giant" iPhone 6P at home, my Watch will record anywhere between 8.5 miles and 9.1 miles for the same 7 mile run.
I was not running with my Phone before I bought the Watch, but after reading all of the Apple marketing literature, I bought a "Giant" armband to carry my "Giant" Phone. It was not comfortable to run with my phone on my arm, but I did it for the good of the Watch. Sadly, calibrating did nothing to change the inaccuracies, so now I run with my Watch alone and let it count my steps. (which it does consistently...)
TxWatch
Lets say that the AW adds GPS.
What should you be able to do with it?
My Garmin could help me back home, but only in an "as the crow flies" manner -- no turn-by-turn or mapping, just an arrow pointing in the general direction. So it's kinda useful, but not too much; it could get me back to camp, but no way could it help me find a Starbucks.
There was no expectation for the Garmin to do anything more, though. No cellular radio, no apps, no mapping, no weather radar, no Uber -- nothing which would be expected of a smartphone or smartwatch today. So it's okay for it to not do everything.
Now, if there's GPS on the AW -- what should it be able to do? Would typical users -- not fitness gadget buffs like us who have been quietly accepting junky compromises for years (yes, really) -- be satisfied with the AW knowing their location but unable to do anything else?
Unless you add cellular data, you can't do anything else. Maps downloaded and stored offline are not the standard anymore because live maps give you traffic, road closures, or updated restaurant locations. You wouldn't be able to call Uber with one tap. And, if you were on a log jog to nowhere, you wouldn't be able to map a route home or find the nearest bus stop.
So -- IMNSHO -- you really need to tie GPS with cellular data. With data feeding its GPS, a smartwatch can do as much as you'd expect a smartwatch to handle.
Okay. So, now we've added two radios: a GPS receiver and a data connection. We still have a battery the size of a dime.
What should you be able to do with it?
My Garmin could help me back home, but only in an "as the crow flies" manner -- no turn-by-turn or mapping, just an arrow pointing in the general direction. So it's kinda useful, but not too much; it could get me back to camp, but no way could it help me find a Starbucks.
There was no expectation for the Garmin to do anything more, though. No cellular radio, no apps, no mapping, no weather radar, no Uber -- nothing which would be expected of a smartphone or smartwatch today. So it's okay for it to not do everything.
Now, if there's GPS on the AW -- what should it be able to do? Would typical users -- not fitness gadget buffs like us who have been quietly accepting junky compromises for years (yes, really) -- be satisfied with the AW knowing their location but unable to do anything else?
Unless you add cellular data, you can't do anything else. Maps downloaded and stored offline are not the standard anymore because live maps give you traffic, road closures, or updated restaurant locations. You wouldn't be able to call Uber with one tap. And, if you were on a log jog to nowhere, you wouldn't be able to map a route home or find the nearest bus stop.
So -- IMNSHO -- you really need to tie GPS with cellular data. With data feeding its GPS, a smartwatch can do as much as you'd expect a smartwatch to handle.
Okay. So, now we've added two radios: a GPS receiver and a data connection. We still have a battery the size of a dime.
IMHO, GPS is a requirement for a credible fitness device. It gives the user accurate distance. Otherwise for me, GPS is not an important feature for a watch. Apple markets the AW as a fitness device, yet it lacks this core table stakes feature.
An activity tracker can probably live without GPS, as the market does not have that expectation for basic activity tracking.
I have been running for 8 years & 6,000 miles with multiple generations of GPS-enabled watches. (I have a couple decades running without GPS watches.) I never thought GPS running watches were junky compromises. (Well, some of the Timex GPS attempts were junky.) My Garmin 305 was absolutely state of the art, and there was nothing else like it at the time. It revolutionized endurance sport. I am eagerly anticipating the announcement of the next generation 920XT, and I will buy it on its release date.
Last edited:
Am I missing something? Or is this a pre-October issue? My mapping app on my watch shows where I am right now. If it is not getting that information from the phone's location services, then where? Also, isn't it part of the activitity monitor calibration to have your phone with you for the at least the first 20 minutes so that the watch can dial in your stride distance from the phone's location services? Or is this something specific to the activity applet on the watch?
Yes you are missing something. It is called DATA. Why did apple not allow the watch to use the GPS coordinates/data so you can maybe map your run, etc.
How hard would that have been?
This is a current issue. The context is that the AW lacks its own GPS receiver for fitness recording. Therefore, the phone is a required companion for accurate distance and mapping capabilities.
The watch's mapping app is getting location from the phone. (For that matter, it is actually getting everything from the phone and is merely acting as an alternate UI to the mapping app running on the phone.)
I think it might be possible at some point with watch os2. A gps device that could be paired with the watch that you can carry as a clip on or something. We can hope
That's the thing, though -- the AW is not just a fitness device. It's a speakerphone, a home security monitor, a message sender, a baby monitor, a news reader… a whole bunch of things that your 305 (and my 410) wouldn't ever do. The AW does some fitness things on the side (and can be more precise with the phone and a Bluetooth HR strap if we choose).
That's why I don't think GPS-minus-data would be appropriate for the AW.
But, the AW doesn't pretend to be a 920XT, just like it doesn't pretend to be a hand-wound gold JLC dress watch. But-but, it's dressier than the 920, and it does fitness better than the JLC.
This gets back to the bigger picture: use a larger selection of more specialized wrist devices, or use one which does more stuff?
Last edited:
Sure, it is a lot more. But lack of GPS is a glaring gap in a device also marketed as a fitness tool. Telling the public that a celebrity used the AW to train for a marathon implies it is in the same class as a 225/620/920xt for fitness-- devices many performance-minded runners would use for a marathon.
The OP started the thread saying "I'm seriously looking at the AW for health and fitness and not really interested in many of the other features." So, the other stuff is not as important in this context as the fitness features.
Without GPS, the AW is not a credible fitness tool. It is a fitness toy, and that is exactly how I use it.
The OP started the thread saying "I'm seriously looking at the AW for health and fitness and not really interested in many of the other features." So, the other stuff is not as important in this context as the fitness features.
Without GPS, the AW is not a credible fitness tool. It is a fitness toy, and that is exactly how I use it.
Last edited:
(I write this as someone who wrote off the AW entirely as a fitness tool until he was given one as a gift.)
The reality is, however, that a huge number of people run today with their phones as their tracking devices. It is generally only the more serious folks who run with dedicated fitness watches. Apple, at this point anyhow, has fitness aspirations aimed primarily at the Nike+ crowd rather than the Strava crowd chasing segment records. The watch is a companion to the phone full stop. Yes, it will be a fantastic day when my watch operates stand alone to track my runs, make call and payments (everywhere - not just a few stores), unlocks and starts my car, opens my house or hotel room door, and acts as my ID. That it doesn't do everything we want right this moment does not, however, mean that it has nothing to offer.
The fact is that GPS is unlikely to be included in the AW any time soon. The watch would have to both grow in size while likely seeing a reduction in battery life. As stated above it would cause confusion to users if it could do simple route tracking but nothing more without having the phone along. So while I really, really, want a GPS in the AW personally, I'm not expecting it for v2, maybe not even for v3. I do hope that they make a stand-alone band a possibility however!
I agree. I have always said the Watch needs a "limited use" GPS which is only for distance measurements when performing an outdoor activity. If they want to continue marketing the Watch for fitness, they need to give it basic capabilities. Otherwise, they need to tell people it is just a step counter and quit pretending it can be calibrated after "20 minutes".
Calibration does not work, calibration does not work, calibration does not work.
The myth of calibrating the Watch with a 20 minute run is one of Apple's biggest marketing "lies" which has been repeated so many times in "reviews" and on this forum that the majority of people actually believe it. This very big oversight can be fixed with a limited use GPS in the Watch.
TxWatch
I agree with this post 100%. The AW is really NOT a fitness watch whatsoever (a $400 step counter)
What do you require the GPS for? If it's plotting your route on a map then you have no choice but to either carry your iphone with you, or buy a different fitness tracker that has gps built in.
If its purely to calculate distance, then the apple watch can be calibrated by carrying your iPhone with you for at least 20 cumulative minutes whilst running/walking outdoors, and it learns your stride and movement patterns so you can leave your phone at home next time but still get a reliable reading. I've found this to be very accurate, and reports of apple watch vs garmin also corroborate this.
You say you wouldnt use the other features the watch has, and you may not, but once its on your wrist you'd probably be surprised how unexpectedly useful it can be.
The AW method of calculating pace and distance from run cadence and stride length is fine for steady state runs .. it is useless for intervals. For that you need GPS. Apple should take a que from Motorola and offer at least one model wth GPS and proper waterproofing.. that would be a true Apple Watch Sport.
The touchscreen doesn't easily respond when it's wet.
It does Force Touch (kinda) and the watch handles Hey Siri (as long as the mic isn't waterlogged), but swipes and taps are pretty unreliable unless you blow the water off the screen (which is easy) and your fingertip (more difficult). This was how I could send a text while in the shower (free Motley Crue tickets were at stake).
So what does "proper waterproofing" mean? Are you going to use it while underwater?
So how are they going to use the touchscreen underwater? Or do you mean something else?