Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

I see Apple Listened To The Users!!

C7 POWER

C7 POWER

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Apr 10, 2015
2,055
1,424
Charlotte, NC
Finally Apple is going to allow is to have a choice to extend the time our screen stays on after tapping it!!

DISPLAY SLEEP PERIOD

During the beta testing period, Apple added a feature to the Apple Watch that keeps the display active and turned on for 70 seconds after it's tapped. This new 70 second setting accompanies the original feature that kept the Apple Watch display on for 15 seconds after being tapped.
 
Im just glad we are getting an option longer than 15 seconds. I do think they should have at least one in between option like 30-45 seconds, I cant see that being to hard to offer for those who do not want it staying on for over a minute, but it beats no options.
 
I'm still not sure why one would want to stare at the time for more then 15 seconds
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Yes, for those of you wondering why it's 70 seconds long, it's for medical professionals who needed it to stay on for at least a minute to check their patients' vitals.
Click to expand...
Excellent observation/deduction. Did you deduce this yourself and are you in the medical profession? I was wonder why the 70 second time and this make perfect sense.

I still would like to see a 30 second option too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newtons Apple, DirtySocks85 and C7 POWER
Julien said:
Excellent observation/deduction. Did you deduce this yourself and are you in the medical profession? I was wonder why the 70 second time and this make perfect sense.
Click to expand...

There were quite a few posts on MacRumors forums where people were asking for the watch to stay on longer so they can take patients' pulse.

I'm not in a medical profession myself, but after reading so many posts saying "I need the watch to stay on for more than 60 seconds so I can take the pulse," I've gotten it drilled into my head that it takes 60 seconds to take a pulse. :p
 
Julien said:
Excellent observation/deduction. Did you deduce this yourself and are you in the medical profession? I was wonder why the 70 second time and this make perfect sense.

I still would like to see a 30 second option too.
Click to expand...

Like Night Spring said, there have been a few posts from medical professionals complaining that it goes to sleep while attempting to check the vitals. I'm a biomedical researcher so I can identify with their frustration.
 
Night Spring said:
There were quite a few posts on MacRumors forums where people were asking for the watch to stay on longer so they can take patients' pulse.

I'm not in a medical profession myself, but after reading so many posts saying "I need the watch to stay on for more than 60 seconds so I can take the pulse," I've gotten it drilled into my head that it takes 60 seconds to take a pulse. :p
Click to expand...
while 60secs is true you can also take it for 15sec then X by 4 but its not as accurate, i do this method at work and never run into an issue.
 
It's not just medical professionals. Lots of people want to time something for 60 seconds, or want to see exactly when the second hand hits :00 - I've run into this when setting a few clocks around the house: you're waiting for the exact start of the new minute, to hit "Set" on some device, and the display goes off just before the second you needed to see. Very annoying.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Like Night Spring said, there have been a few posts from medical professionals complaining that it goes to sleep while attempting to check the vitals. I'm a biomedical researcher so I can identify with their frustration.
Click to expand...
Genuine question; Why would you take someone's pulse for a whole minute, rather than take it for 15 seconds and then multiply it by 4?
 
Recognition said:
Genuine question; Why would you take someone's pulse for a whole minute, rather than take it for 15 seconds and then multiply it by 4?
Click to expand...
In healthcare, although you can take the pulse for 10 secs and multiply by 6 or 15 by 4, it is preferable to take it for a minute, as it is possible that they may have an irregular beat, caused by heart block etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruinsrme and Recognition
Madonepro said:
In healthcare, although you can take the pulse for 10 secs and multiply by 6 or 15 by 4, it is preferable to take it for a minute, as it is possible that they may have an irregular beat, caused by heart block etc.
Click to expand...
Cool thanks! Learnt somethings new today :)
 
dmrowley said:
That's the first explanation for 70 seconds that actually makes sense....
Click to expand...

I agree, and it is a highly educated hypothesis! I was thinking it was because sometimes apps take longer than 15 seconds to load, even native, and it looks bad when your watch takes so long to load that it times out. Yours makes much more logical sense.
 
Recognition said:
Genuine question; Why would you take someone's pulse for a whole minute, rather than take it for 15 seconds and then multiply it by 4?
Click to expand...

I'm a critical care vet tech. Not human medicine but use my watch in a way similar to how those in human med do.

If I have a patient with a history of short runs of tachycardia who hasn't been hooked up to an EKG yet I need to listen for more than 15 seconds. It's about more than a quick pulse sometimes and a solid minute is helpful when listening for arrhythmias or other abnormalities. Also, often with our cardiac patients our doctors like a full minute count on respiratory rate vs. a 15 sec count. On stable patients without a history of issues we usually do the 15x4 method.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RabbitLuvr and Recognition
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back