First impressions?

its why you should try before you buy!

 

There is definitely some limitations with this version. Not sure I can say the same as you though as I find the heart rate very accurate and you don't need your phone for workouts at the gym at all. You need it for outdoor runs if you need 100% GPS accuracy. It's great for runs to only have the watch and Bluetooth headphones which is what I like the best.

Fitbit is probably better for its one useful feature. It does what it does and it does it well. However, has anyone seen the huge lawsuit filed against Fitbit for their devices being wildly inaccurate - especially when heart rate is elevated?

Glad you bought with the intention of using apples two week window. Nothing wrong with that.

 

This is a common feeling from people who prioritize the activity tracking or fitness tracking features. Products optimized in those spaces (Microsoft, Fitbit, Garmin, Timex, etc.) are vastly superior to the AW's functions. Based on your other posts about running, are you already in one of the major fitness device ecosystems, like Garmin? If so, then you might want to consider one of the Garmin trackers. If not, then the Fitbit devices are pretty awesome and offer a great combination of activity and fitness features.

I use my AW for its phone integration and novelty features around activity and fitness. However, I use Fitbit for activity, health, and wellness and Garmin for fitness. The Apple software stack in these areas are years away from state of the market.

Finally, with the exception of GPS, the next gen AW is not likely to solve most of the gaps. The gaps are in the OS and software, not the hardware.

 

If you are unhappy after a day, that is not a good sign. The fitness aspects of the AW are not that good.

Check out the Fitbit Charge HR, it is the best I have found for heart rate information. It only lacks GPS. If GPS is a must look at the Fitbit Surge but it is huge!

 

1) With the AW having been out 8 months or so there is a plethora of reviews, professional and consumer, even a few in this very forum, on every aspect of the watch. Why didn't you do your research before buying? Anyone serious about their sport or workout could have told you the AW cannot replace a dedicated running/swimming/hiking/whatever sports watch.

2) The rest of AW's functions take more than a week to truly appreciate. The AW isn't a typical "love at first use" Apple product because, as you correctly point out, it's the least intuitive product Apple has released in quite some time. It takes a bit of getting use and to learn how to get the most out of it to to truly appreciate it. But eventually that happens and its pure joy.

Sorry you didn't like it but I think that is because you bought it for the wrong reason. I hope you find what you are looking for. There are a bunch of great dedicated sports watches out there. One bit of advice though. If you are looking for accuracy then buy a watch with a chest strap-on monitor. No optical HRM can match the chest strap for real time accuracy, not Apple, not MS, not Fitbit, not Garmin, not Polar. etc., etc.

 

Well said... If you are looking for a device that is primarily for fitness there are way better choices dedicated for this one feature. Of course, I can't think of one that would be nice to wear every day and all day for both casual and business and out for dinner at a nice restaurant.

What I love about the Apple Watch is all the things it can do. Maybe it is rated a C for fitness without GPS - especially if you are a serious runner who needs perfect stats. If that was me, I would have a separate device on one arm and the Apple Watch on another so I can run and listen to music and books and podcasts without a phone.

Since I will never be serious at running, the Apple Watch alone and bluetooth headphones does it all. I can workout and listen to music, and add reminders as they come to me. I can have Siri do many things and never have my phone with me. I can lift weights and listen to music and log my workouts and respond to every message with the phone in another room. I can take a shower with the watch and then switch the band to the link bracelet and put on a suit and look sharp.

Fitbit or Garmin or other will do a better job at HR readings and GPS but that is all it can do better than the Apple Watch and I wouldn't wear the thing more than an hour or so a day.

It all depends on the individual and what they want and need. Just my opinion.

 

For fitness you are better off with a Fitbit Surge or Microsoft Band 2. Both of those also offer notifications similar to what the Apple Watch can do.

 

And the new Fitbit blaze may be the best optimized activity tracker and watch. The Garmin vivoactive is also pretty good as a activity and fitness wearable that does a lot more.

 

I agree on this point. You need to get used to the flow and then you will enjoy it a lot more.

As for fitness, from what I've read it's at least as accurate as the competition if not more (unless you put a chest strap heart monitor on). But it's not perfect. Think of it more of a relative measure of activity (ie. a way to compare this week to last week, not to calc your exact calories burned).

 

Threads I started…

After two days:
Apple Watch owners' first impressions; what were yours?
http://forums.macrumors.com/index.p...-first-impressions;-what-were-yours?.1905781/

After about five months:
Comparing my AW to the rest of my collection (pic heavy)
http://forums.macrumors.com/index.p...he-rest-of-my-collection-(pic-heavy).1946056/