built for runners what a joke

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by steelem, Sep 8, 2016.

  1. steelem macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #1
    i run i run i run - tecnology got good when we had the ipod nano square 6 th gen - then we had the nano 7th gen which was nice to have the bluettoth feature but i wanted the deign of the 6th gen. now they bring a sports watch out seems to have the bluetooth but who runs with a watch and phone - come on - and who wants 2gb storage for the watch without the phone - gimme 16gb like the nano FFS and give me spotify! just another let down and ill now see what other brands come up ... who do like their buyers to run.
     
  2. BlueMoon63 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    #2
    Not picking on you, but you created an account just to say you will look for another brand? If you are a serious triathlon or marathon runner - the Apple Watch isn't the best choice.

    Apple Watch 2 will allow you to run with just the watch and Bluetooth headphones with enough music storage to outlast me running a marathon in 6 hours - maybe even 12-24 hours. GPS now includes as well. Battery will die before the music runs out. :)
     
  3. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #3
    2gb is not enough - i do 15hrs of exercise a week maybe more - 2gb will give me maybe 18hrs - thats crap
     
  4. BlueMoon63 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    #4
    Sounds like you need a Garmin or Fenix. They should give you 15 hours of music that doesn't repeat in 15 + hours a week of working out unlike the Apple Watch that can only do 18+ hours without repeating for your 15 hours.

    Serious runners need not think of the Apple Watch as the first choice. Even though the math above doesn't equate. :)
     
  5. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #5
    Considering there is virtually no other device on the market that does both GPS and music (this is beginning to change - slowly) - it's not like you have a lot of room to complain here. The AW is not intended for the most serious of athletes. It's aimed squarely at the mass-market.
     
  6. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #6
    hate to soun
    what i really need is a 8gb - & spotify to work OFFLINE - just cant get what i want .... ill keep looking - had a fenix by the way - was too bulky
     
  7. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #7
    There's nothing with the current design that wouldn't allow Spotify to work offline if Apple wanted to. Although I guarantee you Apple Music will get that capability first!
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #8
    Exactly, the AW is a "nudging" device designed to prompt regular people into being more conscious about their activity (or lack thereof), it's not a die hard athlete device.
     
  9. Bob190 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #9
    Apple Music already has that capability. You can download any playlist from Apple Music to your watch provided you have a subscription.
     
  10. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #10
    I suspected it probably did as I wrote that! I'm an AW owner and an AM subscriber and a runner but I never run with music. LOL.
     
  11. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #11
    If you are running 15 hours/week, then you would not be looking at the AW at all for that. That space solely belongs to Garmin. Even the Polar and Suunto cannot hang well with athletes in that space. I do intense aerobic work 10-12 hours/week, and I do not even attempt to use my AW with that. When I want music for a four or five hour workout, I bring my phone. My AW could handle it, but it is not worth the overhead. As someone on another endurance forum quipped about the Series 2 with GPS: "Apple watch is for normies."
     
  12. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #12
    your wrong mate - i had the garmin Fenix 2 - then the FR 235 - sold them both - pure rubbish - i have the Bluetooth Bose sport just need a small device to play with it - the AW 2 with GPS cuts it but that 2gb doesn't - i dont want pictures i want music ... apple FAILED
     
  13. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    Ok, the Apple watch is not for you.

    I also run, and I think the Aw2's features are a very nice addition
     
  14. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #14
    You would be one of the few people on the planet who think the 235 is pure rubbish. (The Fenix 2 was total garbage, so I will not argue that. But Garmin quickly rebounded with the F3 which is a market leader.) I think you seek something that does not exist in the universe. Are you looking for a wrist-worn device that can store 15 hours of music and also perform as a fully functional fitness tracker? Or, are you only looking for just a wrist-worn music player?

    Out of curiosity, what do you use when you run 15 hours a week? I use a Garmin 735XT to track my activity alongside my iPhone for music with wireless BT headphones. Occasionally I will wear the AW for music control and playlist selection, but I do not play music from the AW and I do not use the AW for fitness tracking. It all works beautifully.
     
  15. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #15
    Fenix 2 works great now that all the bugs are worked out!

    Garmin makes great hardware but you're better off holding back a generation or so to let others do the beta testing!
     
  16. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #16
    the garmin FR235 was way out with HR especially when doing HIIT - and i even compared with HR belt and conclusion was after a replacement that it was a pile of crap... the AW2 has all the functions i want but it has not been given extra storage which is what i was hoping for - looks like i know have to wait for AW3 unless garmin or Polar do something that makes me go back
     
  17. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #17
    There are no optical wrist based monitors that I would trust for my interval training. None of them are even remotely consistent enough for me to trust. The AW is worse than my 225 by a large margin. And the Garmin is bad.
     
  18. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #18
    well I'm glad you said that - i was hoping the AW had some decent HR sensor - obviously not then - my days of a belt are gone suppose ill just have to wait
     
  19. Bob190 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #19
    I really don't understand why the storage space is an issue. You can load a playlist from Apple Music or a playlist of your own. Conservatively, 2GB of storage would equal more than 200 songs. You're not getting thru that in a single workout. I don't think the watch was designed to be a hard drive storage device for your entire music collection.

    You have nearly an infinite amount of music at your disposal thru AM, and doesn't take that long to load a playlist to the watch before a workout. I usually load a different playlist from my phone before each run, it's not that big a deal.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 8, 2016 ---
    Have you tried WatchOS3? It is dead accurate vs. my 4iiii Viiiiva chest strap .. even for intervals. I agree it wasn't as accurate with WatchOS2, but something has changed with the new OS. I had a Garmin 225 and had terrible issues with cadence lock (where the watch would lock onto your run cadence and report that as your HR .. for me usually it was around 180). Never have that issue with the AW on WatchOS3.
     
  20. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #20
    i dont think you understand - its taking a step back ..... out with the iPod nano in with the watch - 16gb of music to 2gb of music on AW2 .... see what i mean taking many steps back..
     
  21. lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #21
    I'm going to lose a question because I don't know, I only assume.

    Would an 8 or 16 gb chip be much larger than the 2gb they provide? Would it be much more expensive?

    I've only seen the chips inside an iPhone in a teardown and they seem rather small and thin, so I'm curious what is holding Apple back on the storage front.

    I get the competition doesn't offer much more, if any more, but still. I don't understand.
     
  22. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #22
    right so it already has an 8gb chip on board but they only allow 2gb for music ... from what i have read ... they could have gone to 16gb but they overlooked the needs of music - simple
     
  23. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #23
    According to DCRainmaker, AW's HR sensor is worst than most. He has some pretty good data-driven analysis of the a variety of optical sensors, and honestly, the Garmin sensors are pretty good, even for intervals. You can look deep into the data for misses compared to a chest strap, but those do not really affect your workouts much. And to me, the benefit of the wrist HR far outweighs the downsides. I am through wearing chest straps. I use my 735XT for intervals, and I have no problems at all. Even the true professional athletes I follow that critique wrist optical HR often back down when they acknowledge how they use the HR readings and that the lags do not affect their workout effectiveness.
    This is an odd Apple behavior. The only downsides to Apple are cost and power usage. Cost of chips at that capacity are almost insignificant. So, it is possibly power consumption, but even that is probably a non-issue. Apple seems to lag the market for using larger memory in their devices. (Apple had something like a 2-year lag using the next two sizes up memory chips in the iPads.)
     
  24. jonnysods macrumors 603

    jonnysods

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    There & Back Again
    #24
    Wait I thought the AW2 had 4gb of storage?
     
  25. steelem thread starter macrumors newbie

    steelem

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    #25
    I've been testing garmin HR optical sensor for 2 years - running not a problem - its when you come to HIIT - it just doest not like it - DC rainmaker either runs cycles swims - not the same as HIIT so he can't compare
     

Share This Page