Ok.
I'll take any improvements.
Hopefully, devs can raise it to a higher level within apps.
➰
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.
How can watchOS 3 be so much faster than v2?
- Thread starter otozuz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok.
I'll take any improvements.
Hopefully, devs can raise it to a higher level within apps.
➰
To optimise stability and performance. It's called development. On the contrary, why would you not test performance on a beta release? You seem to intimate app creators just code and test on an Xcode simulator, release apps and expect no issues.
My contention is with the way it's been advertised on their own site. Launch and re-launch have different meanings. Sure, saying favourite apps or most used is fine with developers but why not use the exact same wording to the consumer? Under-promise and over deliver might be wise here rather than the reverse.
In a way, the more success they have with developers creating apps will only lead to users having more than 10 apps as their 'most-used'. I've no doubt Watch 2 will have the hardware to cope better with it being 18-24 months on from Rev. 1.
I'd go along with this. They do load quicker initially but there are still clear load times. I think the underlying hardware just isn't what is needed to fully take advantage of plans for OS3. On a run today with music (192kbps MP3s) playing from the watch to BT earphones, I had a couple of instances of stutter when changing tracks and lag when raising my wrist to check my pace, etc. It was most obvious when I finished and the activity summary was being processed - lots of stutter and the music cut off entirely. It'll get better as development progresses but I fear simultaneous actions could be too much for the hardware on watch 1.
I've been testing the dock and (yes I appreciate this is beta 1) there have been first party apps that reload (Music, Breathe, Activity). Still time to optimise and 'learn' when background refreshes work for my habits so these should be cleaned up eventually.
If Watch 1 struggles because of the hardware, I'll jump to the new one as the software side is coming along nicely I feel.
Are you sure about that? even the stock apps? Those are what I am talking about when I mention load times.
Stock apps have never suffered from load time issues. This is all about 3rd party apps.
Hmmm, not sure that is 100% right. I would say that Stock apps are faster than 3rd party apps but they still have issues. The Stocks app is an example. It can be slow, even the "Glance", and especially when it comes to the graph.
Is the performance of watchOS 3 Dock apps in line with what we have now with "Glances", or is it better than that? If its not then performance would still be an issue for me.
Keith
The dock is faster than glances for sure. Stock apps seem to load instantly. Some of third party apps are instant too. Not all yet.
I want to know if updates can be dynamic for sports and weather and similar. Carrot loads instant most of the time but it can have a delay updating the weather. Maybe 2 seconds. So far, I am very impressed with the stock apps and those would be the only ones ready for os 3. If Apple still limits updates to 30 minutes, some dynamic apps won't be really faster.
If they're in the dock, they will be updated at a minimum of once an hour. If they have a complication on the active watch face, they can be updated much more frequently, at least once every 30 minutes.
That said, if you open the dock and "rest" on one of the apps, it can update itself right away... so at first you'd be looking at data that is no more than an hour old, but within a couple seconds it would be updated, right there in the dock, without having to re-open the app.
I'm thrilled with what Apple has pulled off here.
I don't feel it's being untruthful at all. The bottom line is the overall user experience will be WAY improved, using third party apps regularly will now be viable and enjoyable, developer interest in the Watch will kick way up because their products will now be so much more useable, and most importantly we are all getting this upgrade for no additional cost.
Clearly the flash memory on the watch has a slow read speed compared to what we are used to on current-gen iPhones (not surprisingly) which is why initial app loads take so long, and why caching in RAM is the best solution and makes such a huge difference. If Apple made this work without a big battery hit, it's ingenious.
Way back at the time of the iPhone 3G (when apps first came out), app load time was slow on that device too, there was no multitasking, nor could an app be held in RAM. A similar solution was subsequently implemented which made using multiple apps much more enjoyable.
Can't wait for the final version to roll out (I don't do betas).
I don't feel it's being untruthful at all. The bottom line is the overall user experience will be WAY improved, using third party apps regularly will now be viable and enjoyable, developer interest in the Watch will kick way up because their products will now be so much more useable, and most importantly we are all getting this upgrade for no additional cost.
Clearly the flash memory on the watch has a slow read speed compared to what we are used to on current-gen iPhones (not surprisingly) which is why initial app loads take so long, and why caching in RAM is the best solution and makes such a huge difference. If Apple made this work without a big battery hit, it's ingenious.
Way back at the time of the iPhone 3G (when apps first came out), app load time was slow on that device too, there was no multitasking, nor could an app be held in RAM. A similar solution was subsequently implemented which made using multiple apps much more enjoyable.
Can't wait for the final version to roll out (I don't do betas).
At the moment when I open a glance it seems to update right there and then. It's state when I open it is based on the previous time I opened it. It sounds like that has been improved with these hourly background updates. However, the app still has to connect to the phone to update and hence it is not instant, right?
I sort of get the feeling that Apple, having reinvented the meaning of "glance", has now done the same with "instant"?
That depends on the app. Some are native and don't need to go to the watch for additional updates. Weather apps that are native will need to go to the phone to get updates and can do that in the background but if you load from the dock it will load "instantly" but still may update the temp if it changed. Workout, heart rate, breathe and apps like that will load instantly and not need to go to the phone.
I'm sorry, should have been more clear. I was talking about apps that need to make a connection to some kind of web service to update. Those kinds of apps, native or not, will take at least a second or two to update, that is not instant. It is however, better than what we have now, so something at least.
That's what I figured. I would like to see how sports apps work. Will Apple relax the update time frame. Will apps in the dock be allowed to update more often so that those apps that get frequent updates can update dynamically.
Very good point. An hourly update is okay for weather but sport, not a chance. The ironic thing is, Apple demoed this feature with a sports app at the keynote. I'd love to believe in instant updates, especially for sports apps, but have my doubts.
Presumably sports apps will be getting cloud push notifications. These will show on watch in real(ish) time the same way as push notifications always did. (Think messages, mail etc.). Or am I misunderstanding your question?
I'm pretty sure it's not an hourly update.
According to the wwdc videos, the apps are given 50 chances to update an app a day. It is up to the developer to decide how those 50 chances are used.
If we take sports as an example, a developer could concentrate the updates around times where there is an actual football match going on. And not update the rest of the day.
Apple can only hope that they have the problem that users are chomping at the bit to be able to run more than ten apps at once. Maybe that will mean a killer-must-have app has been created. That is good for dev's, users, and Apple.
I do see where you are coming from. But they kept saying "favorite apps" so many times that I had the feeling that there was going to be a limit to the number of apps in the dock.