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.
Apple watch 2 [Merged]
- Thread starter Juan007
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Fenix 3 is awesome. It is big and expensive, though. Apple would be wise to buy a case and hand them out to their designers to learn a few things. And maybe Apple will buy their designers Fitbit Surges (or Charges) to help with the learning. The Fenix 3, Surge, and Charge are best in class devices. The AW is best in class in aesthetics and some smart watch innovations, but a suckhole in the health, fitness, and activity tracking arena.
My personal combo is the Garmin 910XT for fitness, Fitbit Zip for overall activity tracking, and the AW for daily watch, smart watch features, and novelty activity tracking.
My personal combo is the Garmin 910XT for fitness, Fitbit Zip for overall activity tracking, and the AW for daily watch, smart watch features, and novelty activity tracking.
Gotcha. Well the Apple Watch and Garmin's Fenix are made to target different consumers if you ask me. I would like to see the Apple Watch be labeled as "water proof" to some degree, though no need to be able to go that deep what so ever. And I'm sure including internal GPS is something they will include in future versions, as well as enhancing the range of workouts/activities it includes within the Workout app. I don't think Apple is worried though about some people labeling the Watch as a casual fashion piece, as that is part of what they're going for IMO (fashion piece at the least).
No touchscreen, colors look washed out, $150 more than an Apple Watch, only gets 16 hours in GPS mode.... doesn't show me tweets, allow me to respond to text messages, or let me talk to Siri. Looks like no music or wireless headphones can be used. Wow. What DOES it have?
Looks like this is still lacking Apple Watch 1 capabilities. I'll have to wait for the Garmin Fenix 4 for it to be worth anything. It's a major fail right now.
Looks like this is still lacking Apple Watch 1 capabilities. I'll have to wait for the Garmin Fenix 4 for it to be worth anything. It's a major fail right now.
The Fenix 3's strengths are GPS, battery life, waterproof, and ruggedness. It gets 6 weeks battery life in watch mode, where the AW is good for 2 days in a best case scenario. (It gets 20 hours in hard core GPS mode and 40 hours in economy GPS mode. That probably smokes the iPhone and AW combo by 2x to 4x.) I would like Apple to learn about GPS and battery life from Garmin. Eventually, I would like Apple to learn about waterproof and ruggedness from Garmin, but that can come as a true sport product different from the sport today.
Both Garmin, and especially Fitbit, have a fully integrated and holistic fitness and wellness application ecosystems. I would like Apple to learn from that.
My guess is Garmin could make the Fenix show tweets, respond to text messages, and even talk to Siri a lot easier than AW could add 5 weeks and 6 days battery life to the AW. And I bet it could play music long before AW is usefully waterproof.
I love the looks of the AW and some of the complications and glances. They exceed what FB and Garmin do, and that is a good thing. It's just that Apple ignored so much good that was established in the wearable arena to simply release a clever notification and weather device.
Last edited:
Can we compare the size of the garmin side by side with the apple watch? My guess is the extra features in the garmin can be directly related to the humongous size of the garmin.
I think the Apple Watch could have all those features and more it it wanted to look like an eye sore on your wrist. The garmin has one purpose and it does it well. It's just not your typical daily wear device.
I think the Apple Watch g
I think the Apple Watch gets more than 2 days with just watch mode. Maybe a week or more? Not certain.
Everyone agrees the Apple Watch should do more. It had sensors installed that aren't even working yet. Shut off I think.
The Apple Watch went more for fashion and is on version 1.0. Give it time. The Fitbit isn't a fashion statement and neither is the garmin.
Apple has a ways to go and I love my version 1 SS watch. Probably overpriced but I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a Fitbit or garmin every day all day.
I think the Apple Watch gets more than 2 days with just watch mode. Maybe a week or more? Not certain.
Everyone agrees the Apple Watch should do more. It had sensors installed that aren't even working yet. Shut off I think.
The Apple Watch went more for fashion and is on version 1.0. Give it time. The Fitbit isn't a fashion statement and neither is the garmin.
Apple has a ways to go and I love my version 1 SS watch. Probably overpriced but I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a Fitbit or garmin every day all day.
I agree, the size of the Garmin is a beast next to an AW. And, the size probably does factor into its superior ruggedness, waterproof, and battery life.
But, the other interesting thing is that I have seen more Garmins being worn in the wild than Apple Watches.i would never have dreamed of seeing them outside of exercise, but they are popping up on wrists everywhere. And there has to be more than a million more AWs out there. The Garmin wears with purpose-- much like someone wearing a diving watch as a casual fashion piece. It makes a statement about its wearer. I would never my Garmin while not exercising. It is bulky and not comfortable. I would never wear any of the Fitbit wrist devices either. I think they look ugly.
You might as well move on as Apple is not trying to compete with a dedicated fitness watch. Even the $250 Surge beats the AW. Constant HR tracking, GPS and excellent software is what real fitness freaks are looking for.
Last edited:
That's exactly how it's been marketed. Not sure what the problem is? It's more fashion than tech.
Even in the Apple watch commercials you see every day normal people doing every day normal things not some guy diving or running in a forest.
Clearly the OP doesn't comprehend how it works to 'waterproof' a watch.
Watches are considered varying degrees of water-resistant. Much of the standard labeling is misleading as watches that are 50 or even 100M resistant often can't handle much more than a shower. To make a watch truly able to be used for swimming, and more so diving with depth, the entire chassis needs to be reinforced with extra strength and thickness, there needs to be a screw down bezel to protect any water from penetrating the crown, the cover glass or sapphire needs to be thickened to hold up as the pressure increases underwater.
And perhaps most importantly, it needs to be able to be read deep underwater with minimal light and other distortions. Which is why dive watches tend to have big faces, with large hour/minute indices, large watch hands, and extra generous lumibrite /florescent materials. None of which fit in with the design ideal of the Apple watch.
Over the coming generations it will become more water-resistant for light swimming and water recreation. But it will never be intended (or capable) of being used underwater.
Watches are considered varying degrees of water-resistant. Much of the standard labeling is misleading as watches that are 50 or even 100M resistant often can't handle much more than a shower. To make a watch truly able to be used for swimming, and more so diving with depth, the entire chassis needs to be reinforced with extra strength and thickness, there needs to be a screw down bezel to protect any water from penetrating the crown, the cover glass or sapphire needs to be thickened to hold up as the pressure increases underwater.
And perhaps most importantly, it needs to be able to be read deep underwater with minimal light and other distortions. Which is why dive watches tend to have big faces, with large hour/minute indices, large watch hands, and extra generous lumibrite /florescent materials. None of which fit in with the design ideal of the Apple watch.
Over the coming generations it will become more water-resistant for light swimming and water recreation. But it will never be intended (or capable) of being used underwater.
Who cares about battery life anyway when you're near a charger most of the time? Who's still complaining about phones not working longer than one day? That's the number one complaint I never quite got. Yes, it does mean that you may have to carry one charger more with you, but I'd rather do that than have way fewer possibilities and functions. Also, there are videos showing that you can swim with the Apple Watch. Deep see divers who want to use a watch shouldn't be looking at the Apple Watch in the first place.
As a doctor I'm very curious to know exactly which of the supposed 6+ sensors were planned to ship with the Apple Watch and which are currently thought to be in the running for introduction with the 2nd and 3rd gen ie. sooner rather than (much) later.
I say this because I am aware of few technologies which have been successful enough even in dedicated medical prototypes, let alone ready for the mass market. However this is not my personal area of expertise so I'm open to some learnin'.
Pulse oximetry is the obvious one as that has been around for yonks and the current Apple Watch sensor has this built in just not activated. Pulse oximetry in the wrist has seemingly been shown to work - so this is a given.
One I can imagine is cuffless blood pressure estimation as trials have shown that using the same technology as pulse oximetry you can get a pretty accurate reading of BP.
But beyond that I am lost.
Non-invasive glucose monitors have really not worked out well and even the minimally invasive ones we use now require repeated calibration throughout the day with regular finger prick blood tests.
I am presuming that there are other breakthroughs incoming that I just haven't heard of, anyone got any ideas? Body temperature? Relative hydration?
I say this because I am aware of few technologies which have been successful enough even in dedicated medical prototypes, let alone ready for the mass market. However this is not my personal area of expertise so I'm open to some learnin'.
Pulse oximetry is the obvious one as that has been around for yonks and the current Apple Watch sensor has this built in just not activated. Pulse oximetry in the wrist has seemingly been shown to work - so this is a given.
One I can imagine is cuffless blood pressure estimation as trials have shown that using the same technology as pulse oximetry you can get a pretty accurate reading of BP.
But beyond that I am lost.
Non-invasive glucose monitors have really not worked out well and even the minimally invasive ones we use now require repeated calibration throughout the day with regular finger prick blood tests.
I am presuming that there are other breakthroughs incoming that I just haven't heard of, anyone got any ideas? Body temperature? Relative hydration?
Pulse oximeter: It's the thing at the doctors office or hospital that clips on to your finger and has a little red light. It shows how much Oxygen you breathe in with every breath as a percentage.
cuffless blood pressure: Measuring blood pressure without having that arm band on that squeezes the heck out of your bicep.
Non-invasive glucose monitors: Fancy term for not poking your finger for a blood sample to stick into the machine to read your blood sugar level. (Diabetics do this multiple times per day)
The question is how many of these sensors will the FDA approve for the Apple watch? If I'm not mistaken it qualifies it as a Medical device at that point.
I agree that the obstacle to adding and activating additional sensors will be the need for approval by the FDA. Ultimately, though, the AW and similar devices could be extremely useful to provide input for algorithms that would generate warnings before patients need to visit an ED or be re-admitted to hospital.
The top two are tried and tested but non-invasive glucose monitors have not been cracked yet, not even in prototype studies.
The closest thing on the market right now are obscenely expensive subcut monitors that sit on the skin but have a tiny hair like needle that pokes into your subcut tissue. The issue is that interstitial fluid here poorly correlates with blood in terms of glucose values, so it requires, afaik, multiple calibrations with regular finger prick blood tests per day!
Then again even if it required calibration it would be of use to diabetics, but for the rest of us, for whom knowing of glucose on demand could potentially revolutionise the way we eat and exercise, I don't think people will be prepared to do that.
PN4 thanks for the list, although I think all of those in the list that we haven't mentioned already are asthma/COPD readings that would require an accessory. I'm just thinking of what they can actually build directly into the sensor on the back.
I wonder if they could manage body temperature? Might be surprisingly tricky.
I have just read that there has been some success with ECG recordings from the wrist.
But a lot of these things are nowhere near mass market, Apple would have to literally be prototyping medical devices and performing clinical trials in order for them to come to market with this stuff before anyone else...
Other than getting the O2 sensor up and running I do not see any other sensors that will be ready for the Gen2 watch. It is just not that easy to incorporate these in a watch when the medical field does not have them perfected at any size.
Blood pressure would be the "easiest" as it wouldn't require any additional hardware but whether Apple is bothered enough I don't know?
It would seem to me that sensors should be a priority, they are one of the few truly unique features of a wearable that is significant enough to be considered a killer app, but only at a certain point. Right now we are so far from that point, the Apple Watch can do less than devices that are 10% of the price and have been around for 10+ years (pulse oximeters), plus a pedometer... Those come in cereal boxes.
As a doctor how many BP devices have you seen in use that do not use the traditional cuff. I know there are a few but they are a long way from being imbedded in a watch. Heck Aplle could not even get the O2 sensor up and running.
Maybe in the Gen3 watch but until we see the new BP method used in the mainstream healthcare system, I doubt Apple will get it in it watch with the FDA approving.
I think your last sentence sums the situation up perfectly - I doubt Apple will want to go through the pain of getting the watch certified as a medical device across multiple countries (and re-doing it every time they bring a new one out) and I believe that's the reason the oximeter functionality is currently disabled even though the sensor in the watch can provide that information.
Non-invasive glucose monitors have been the holy grail of diabetes treatment for a long time but aren't any closer to becoming reality. Minimally invasive constant glucose monitors are available but cost an absolute fortune and if Apple (or anyone else) could at some point in the future succeed with a non-invasive solution that actually worked it would revolutionise the treatment of diabetes (as a diabetic myself, I have a vested interest in this!)
What I mean is the technology has been shown to work with good efficacy.
There's no reason I would see it on the wards when we have traditional tools to do it that are cheap, effective and completely ubiquitous.
But these devices are already mass market, Apple's job would be to develop the algorithms etc. required to produce reliable data from the infrared sensor in the watch under typical use.
You would think so, but this is very, very problematic, for several reasons. On one hand you might have a watch/device which is overly precautious, sending you to the doc or a hospital when there's no genuine need to, consuming health care resources (and possibly costing you money in fees) with zero to show for it and making you as the user/wearer worry over nothing.
On the other hand you might have a watch/device which is inaccurate and missing signs that should have sent you to a doc/hospital - and you know what the end result of that would be, regardless of whatever disclaimers come attached to the product in question: giant bolded headlines in tabloid press of distraught relatives exclaiming "Apple killed my father/wife/sister/child/etc!" Tim Cook and gang really doesn't need, or want that, you can be sure.
There's nothing worse or more useless than a device which is supposed to give you important advice which you cannot rely on. Such a thing would be entirely pointless, and quite possibly a legal liability to its manufacturer as well.
For sure and the classic example I can think of would be wrist-based ECG monitoring.
The layman can't read an ECG and so would rely on automatic analysis, which even in dedicated ECG machines on the wards is beyond garbage. At least 50% of healthy young people with no heart abnormalities at all are diagnosed as having acute infarctions on those things...
They are tuned so that they pick up a lot offalse positives rather than missing anything serious and probably a consumer device like the AW would do the same.
So yeah I agree it's tricky ground but it's ground that needs to be breached and I would like to see Apple spearhead it because bringing wearable sensors and a better awareness of our own health will help prolong life and alleviate the strain on our medical services. A change far more revolutionary than even the iPhone has managed.