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

Is anyone else interested in the Microsoft Band?

D

davidwes

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 28, 2004
307
141
I can't help but like it. I've never owned anything Microsoft before, but this band does look good. I kinda of like focusing mostly on fitness.

That said, I've bought a MOOV instead and hopefully when it arrives it will be great (just missing heart rate).
 
It was under consideration (the old model) when I was looking at fitness trackers, but I ultimately went with the Apple Watch considering I had a gift card to knock down the price a bit. The new band does look pretty impressive though.
 
I also went with the Apple Watch but I prefer the direction Microsoft went, which allows me to wear my mechanical watches on the left side.
 
I have a coworker who has the first version. He said it is very good at what it does, but of course it doesn't do as much as an Apple Watch. The new version looks sleek compared to some of the other fitness bands out there, but the clasp is bulky (it's bulkier than the face).

I already had a Fitbit One before I bought the Apple Watch. I had no desire for one of the Fitbit bands because I just didn't find them to be attractive. I can carry the One in my pocket and it still measures my steps accurately. For a watch I wanted something more attractive and the Apple Watch was one of the first smart watches that I actually wanted to wear on my wrist.

I think the Microsoft band looks attractive for a fitness band that also has some additional features, but fitness tracking has never been my only reason for wanting an Apple Watch. For me the Apple Watch wins on additional attractiveness, features and third party apps. I think the Microsoft band competes more directly with other fitness bands rather than smart watches. I won't be surprised to see a full blown smart watch from Microsoft in another year though. They are on a roll these days and are putting out some excellent hardware and software.

Sean
 
  • Like
Reactions: page404
I'm not interested - I had the first generation and though it was ok. Not great but ok.

I've since moved on to the Surge, which was much better in terms of exercise options, and some smart watch features. What came out of my using the Surge was the desirer to have a more smart watch features then exercise features and thus I sold my Surge and bought an apple watch :)
 
First of all, Mods, the Apple Watch is NOT an iOS device so I'm not sure why this got placed into the "Alternatives to iOS devices" forum...

On topic, yeah from what I've seen of the band 2 (albeit very little) I really like what I see. I've always been much more interested in the watch as a fitness device with the smart watch features just being window dressing.
 
Mad Mac Maniac said:
First of all, Mods, the Apple Watch is NOT an iOS device so I'm not sure why this got placed into the "Alternatives to iOS devices" forum...

On topic, yeah from what I've seen of the band 2 (albeit very little) I really like what I see. I've always been much more interested in the watch as a fitness device with the smart watch features just being window dressing.
Click to expand...

Considering you have to use the Apple Watch in conjunction with an iPhone, I'd say that while it technically doesn't use iOS, it's basically an iOS device. I think the important word in the title of this subforum isn't iOS but rather Alternative. ;)

maflynn said:
I'm not interested - I had the first generation and though it was ok. Not great but ok.

I've since moved on to the Surge, which was much better in terms of exercise options, and some smart watch features. What came out of my using the Surge was the desirer to have a more smart watch features then exercise features and thus I sold my Surge and bought an apple watch :)
Click to expand...

I also had the first version of the Band and while it was pretty good, it suffered from a few significant flaws.

1) It was bulky, not that comfortable and pretty damn ugly. Also, for the heart rate sensor to be effective, you had to wear it on the inside of your wrist (notice in their promo video that most of the athletes were wearing it in this fashion). This was actually more comfortable and easier to quickly glance at but also meant the display was rubbing into everything--couldn't wear mine when typing on a computer. Consequently, my display looked like it had been through war. The synthetic material used for the band didn't wear very well either.

2) The smart watch functionality was rudimentary when using with anything other than a Windows Phone.

3) No onboard storage for offline music playback. This omission was compounded by the fact that the Band actually has GPS and could be used for athletic endeavors without carrying your phone. So unless you wanted to workout in silence, still had to bring your phone.

Version 2 certainly looks more sleek and less bulky but it still looks a bit rigid. As a fitness device, it's offers tons of functionality and data can be integrated into lots of popular third party applications. It you're looking for more smart watch type functionality, not the best IMO.
 
tbayrgs said:
3) No onboard storage for offline music playback. This omission was compounded by the fact that the Band actually has GPS and could be used for athletic endeavors without carrying your phone. So unless you wanted to workout in silence, still had to bring your phone.
Click to expand...

This is huge considering it has everything else including Bluetooth which could use headphones. Think they missed a trick.
 
bwfc0907 said:
Think this is TomTom not Garmin. It's top quality but no way of streaming to it, plus little or no resale value.
Click to expand...

You buy electronics for resale value? It costs between $250 and $300 bucks, how much do you expect to resell it for in a year of so?:p

Not all of us use streaming. I like to own my music and do not depend on the Cloud for my music.
 
Newtons Apple said:
You buy electronics for resale value? It costs between $250 and $300 bucks, how much do you expect to resell it for in a year of so?:p

Not all of us use streaming. I like to own my music and do not depend on the Cloud for my music.
Click to expand...

Just doesn't cater for enough people. All these wearables seem to miss a big factor. I've order an Apple Watch to try for 14 days. Seems the best of a bad bunch, as wont need phone at the gym or on a run.

Sell on matters to me as I regularly upgrade. Maybe the TomTom is more for the serious enthusiast. The fact they have give it 2 names, Runner 2 and Spark is weird. Exact same watch, only difference is the colour of band. Confusing a lot of people as they can't work out the model they should buy.
 
bwfc0907 said:
Just doesn't cater for enough people. All these wearables seem to miss a big factor. I've order an Apple Watch to try for 14 days. Seems the best of a bad bunch, as wont need phone at the gym or on a run.

Sell on matters to me as I regularly upgrade. Maybe the TomTom is more for the serious enthusiast. The fact they have give it 2 names, Runner 2 and Spark is weird. Exact same watch, only difference is the colour of band. Confusing a lot of people as they can't work out the model they should buy.
Click to expand...

The Runner 2 is old the Tomtom Spark series is brand new and offers different models with different options in each. They are for the physical fitness group without a doubt. I love my Apple watch and bought it for the "touted" fitness aspects and am somewhat disappointed. It is good all around but devices that cost much less than the AW do so much more if you are into fitness.
 
Preordered the Band 2. Currently use the Band 1, which is all scratched up and slowly falling apart. Before this I had a Moto 360 and a Pebble.

Pretty much use the Band 1 for notifications, exercise tracking linked to MyFitnessPal, and deep sleep tracking. That deep sleep tracking - not a lot of fitness bands support. IE the Fitibits just use accelerometer movement to determine if you fall asleep but can't detect when you're in and out of REM.

Honestly the market for bands and watches is so saturated, it becomes a question of what use case do I need the most. If I wanted accurate heart rate tracking, I'd get a Polar Loop. If I wanted to have weekly step competitions with friends I'd get a Fitbit. If I was a runner, I'd get something with a built in GPS. Me, I'm just replacing my Band 1 before it dies.
 
I've purchased a number of these bracelet trackers but decided I just don't like wearing them tight for the HR monitor, or wearing them in bed at all. Here's a pic showing the MS Band 2's(on right) HR monitor...

4c9c8785ff3612e8758fb636e7176598.jpg


I'd rather just use a small clip on just for activity. YMMV
 
Microsoft is usually not the best in terms of consumer hardware design, but I hope these ideas (design aesthetics that are more bracelet than watch) are successful enough for Apple to consider in the future.
 
Newtons Apple said:
The Runner 2 is old the Tomtom Spark series is brand new and offers different models with different options in each. They are for the physical fitness group without a doubt. I love my Apple watch and bought it for the "touted" fitness aspects and am somewhat disappointed. It is good all around but devices that cost much less than the AW do so much more if you are into fitness.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are incorrect.
https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sports/running-watches/

Runner 2 is pre-order as brand new.

The TomTom Runner 2 is the same device as the Spark. The only difference is the band. These misunderstandings of the product highlights the poor marketing by TomTom.

I pre-ordered & then cancelled after a lot of research in to them as couldn't get to the bottom of it all in the end. If I've not convinced you, check out the TomTom forum.
 
I'm actually ordering one for several reasons. The first band had one of the most accurate HR sensors, almost every other watch had horrible HR sensor, you would have to sit still and wait for the HR reading to come up. That's not measuring anything, certainly not HR *during* exercise. But the MS band got great reviews for using the HR while still in the zone. ALso the VO2 max is HUGE, and probably THE best indicator of how well you are doing. Granted it's not a true VO2 max reading but only a formula based on HR, but all the research I've read points to it being decently accurate, of course that's if the HR sensor is accurate. If the VO2 max calculation works well then I'm sold just for that feature alone.

I'd also like to continue to wear my dinosaur mechanical watch, and seeing most of the guys at the MS keynote wearing their dinosaur watches on one wrist and the MS band on the other wrist inspired me. It looked great and takes away the ridiculousness of wearing 2 watches.
 
It's appealing in theory as a run tracker as it has a wider array of sensors in a sleeker, less expensive package than most anything else out there. I'm curious though what the battery life is during extended GPS use (is it 4 hours or 10 hours?), how accurate the GPS tracking is, and what the Microsoft health software looks like and whether it can easily sync with Strava...
 
spinedoc77 said:
I'd also like to continue to wear my dinosaur mechanical watch, and seeing most of the guys at the MS keynote wearing their dinosaur watches on one wrist and the MS band on the other wrist inspired me. It looked great and takes away the ridiculousness of wearing 2 watches.
Click to expand...

Same, not looking to compete with Flava Flav. Very interested in the Band2. Looks like a great fitness accessory with some smart watch features on the side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHNXX and spinedoc77
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