Apple Watch Learns Runners' Strides Over Time, Becoming More Independent From iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is really nothing new here. Garmin has used wrist based accelerometers for a couple of years now and they are quite limited. For starters, reading stride from the wrist is difficult, e.g., every time you check your watch, fast forward a song, wipe sweat from your forehead, adjust your speed on the treadmill, etc., the reading is impacted.
Also, if you are doing a specific workout, e.g., intervals, accuracy tends to go out he window. That is why pace via a calibrated footpod tends to be ideal.
Just my two cents.
D.T.
macrumors G4
There's a release on the watch body in that same position, both top and bottom, so I believe it's just part of the band locking/securing mechanism.
andreyirra
macrumors regular
We have free Wifi enabled parks so I can leave the iPhone at the car with wifi enabled and then run with the Apple Watch connected to the same wifi. It should use the GPS, right?
Of course it knows how fast you're running. It knows your stride distance, the time it takes for each stride, calories burnt, and it knows when you started and stopped running. That tells you everything except the street you ran on which is worthless as far as health data.
Drumjim85
macrumors 68030
no, it won't use the GPS, but you might still get notifications from twitter.
dugbug
macrumors 68000
No musc streams from the watch over Bluetooth. Gps though you are right
----------
I'll go out on a limb here and say the wifi from the watch is only to directly connect to the iPhone and does not join networks. So you would have to be in range of the iPhone radio
janderson0719
macrumors 6502
Why do fanny packs have to be so big and unstylish?
I saw a girl yesterday at the gym who had some kind of pouch embedded on the back of her workout shirt. Seemed like a good place to where she keeps her phone.
andreyirra
macrumors regular
Nevermind. Even if they are in the same wifi network the GPS wouldn't be used because the iPhone is in the car and not moving. Just realized it. 
MasterRyu2011
macrumors 65816
i care more about the other "communication-type" features of the watch. For those, you still need phone.
It's kinda frustrating to me that Apple had an entire event about Apple Watch, and didn't think to mention this. If they're trying to sell this to the public, they need to be informed of what the watch does. How it works, when the iPhone is absent, seems like an important one.
lazyrighteye
macrumors 601
**Misinformation alert**
Watch has 2GB onboard for music.
----------
This = very likely.
Not really. The entire fitness/running/cycling community with Strava and similar services is built upon GPS data. That's how you share workout with friends, automatically log time in segments where you can compete with friends and pro athletes. Logging distance without GPS data would be pretty pointless to me.
Tell that to true runners or cyclists. No matter how accurate stride gets, (which it will never be 100% accurate) you still miss out on elevation which is a huge aspect of training also. As a triathlete that both runs and cycles avidly, I analyze my runs and rides to improve my times and my training. Without elevation, a huge part of the data is lost. Fluctuations in heart rate and speed will not have a third degree to help explain these variations. Sites like SmashRun, RunKeeper, Strava, and 2Peaks utilize elevation data to make excellent analyses.
QCassidy352
macrumors G5
Ok, so it learns. That doesn't say anything about how good the accuracy is or isn't after that learning process is complete. Maybe it goes from good to excellent. Maybe it goes from poor to mediocre. Since we don't know how accurate it is to start with, or how much it can improve, it's hard to know how significant this news is.
Regardless, it would be shocking to find that the final accuracy is as good as gps. In my considerable experience running with both technologies, it's not even close.
And that doesn't even take into account the utility of having gps during the run (I often run on unfamiliar trails).
Bottom line is that to be a serious competitor for Garmin etc. among runners, it needs gps. Looking forward to v2.
Regardless, it would be shocking to find that the final accuracy is as good as gps. In my considerable experience running with both technologies, it's not even close.
And that doesn't even take into account the utility of having gps during the run (I often run on unfamiliar trails).
Bottom line is that to be a serious competitor for Garmin etc. among runners, it needs gps. Looking forward to v2.
I utilize a SPIBelt to hold my phone. Works like a charm. I also use iSmoothRun for run tracking and it actually does a pretty darn good job of tracking how far I run utilizing stride when GPS data is not available. It is usually only a few hundredths of a mile off from the distance I've run on a treadmill, typically about 3-5 hundredths. It gets more and more accurate over time. However, a few hundredth of a mile spread over 365 days since I run every day turns into miles over the year.
I want my car to fly but it doesn't though I still have a car for all the other things it allows me to do.
----------
What did all the avid runners and cyclists do before technology? Apparently not perform as well.
QCassidy352
macrumors G5
Inapt analogy because although there aren't any flying cars on the market, there are plenty of gps enabled fitness watches.
It wasn't meant as an analogy it was meant to point out not to expect a feature from a device not designed to provide said feature.