I got a Fitbit Surge this week and from my early testing it is pretty good at measuring resting pulse compared to a hospital-grade pulse oximeter (+/- 5bpm). But when doing exercises with a lot of movement--box jumps, burpees, p90-x type movements--its readings are significantly lower and inaccurate compared to what I normally get with Polar and Garmin chest strap monitors. Is this a limitation of wrist pulse technology? Is there any reason to think the Apple Watch's sensor will be more accurate? J/w...
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.
Is pulse technology good enough?
- Thread starter Andy0568
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course no one knows for sure outside of Apple. I'm skeptical and will do lots of comparison testing before going all aWatch (if ever). Optical pulse monitoring has lots of technical hurdles to overcome and tracking while in motion is a BIG one.
Apple may have a surprise and has perfected optical HR monitoring (hopeful but skeptical) like the way they did the finger print scanner (although they did buy a compony).
Even if not you will be able to pair a BT HR strap for when you are exercising and use the optical the rest [pun] of the time.
Apple has a long history of not releasing hardware if it doesn't work well. I have a hard time imagining them putting so much time and money into developing the apple watch and then releasing it with an inaccurate heart rate sensor. I'm willing to bet that it will be the most accurate sensor of all the wrist bands/smart watches currently on the market.
Whether or not it can compete with other types of heart rate monitors remains to be seen.
Whether or not it can compete with other types of heart rate monitors remains to be seen.
It's an interesting concept you bring up.
And it really depends what you mean about "working well" and your expectations and criteria for judging "working well"
One could select many pieces of Apple hardware, where Apple had deliberately chosen to make it work less well than it could do if they had chosen something different.
The whole Apple concept of "form over function" is perhaps the best way to demonstrate this, in that Apple will make something technically worse than it otherwise might be, simply for cosmetic reasons.
A very simple, very basic example?
Apple use Laptop grade low power graphics cards in their very expensive iMac range. Not desktop grade graphics chips which are faster.
Why do they do this?
Why do they fit worse components than they could simply select instead?
They do it, so they can make the case of the iMac thinner
Apple have decided that "It's good enough"
It could easily be better, and work better, but Apple have chosen to make the product technically worse.
This is why some people, including myself with Apple and these points, as I don't like this compromise.
Not at all.
I do not hate good looking things at all.
I don't think a slightly thicker, in the middle at the back iMac, that would be technically better, and house a proper desktop grade GPU, with a heatsink design to cool it, would look bad in any way at all.
It would IMHO look just as nice with a little redesign and thought about how to make it work.
Apple could change the way the stand attached, and incorporate a heat sink with air flow, and a far better GPU and everyone would say amazing.
But they don't. As something worse, they feel is fine
What I don't like is something being made worse simply for looks sake
Last edited:
I was more thinking of hardware that Apple designs, not drop-in commodity hardware like graphics cards or processors. Hardware that Apple designs is what allows it to distinguish itself from other manufacturers.
As for the iMac, it's not made to be a gaming machine, so the graphics cards they use are suited just fine for the vast majority of users.
As for the iMac, it's not made to be a gaming machine, so the graphics cards they use are suited just fine for the vast majority of users.
Well, it could be if they made that change.
It has the screen, the CPU, the Memory and the SDD to make it excellent, just that it's been made with the one weak spot, and makes you wonder why.
It's supposed to be a general purpose desktop machine that can do anything, so why make it worse than it could be?
It's obvious that Apple should use lower power internals for the iMac.
That's what allows it to be made into such a small shell. Be so quiet. No power brick, because the AC/DC converter is built in. Also be SO MUCH BETTER at power efficiency than normal desktops, or "AIO" desktops.
The Mac never was, and never will be a gaming machine.
That's what allows it to be made into such a small shell. Be so quiet. No power brick, because the AC/DC converter is built in. Also be SO MUCH BETTER at power efficiency than normal desktops, or "AIO" desktops.
The Mac never was, and never will be a gaming machine.
So, if you want a (as you put it) Gaming machine, and the iMac offers every aspect of a great gaming machine apart from the GPU, which they could use if they made a slight well designed change to the rear of the case, then you have no option than to not buy a Apple product, and have to buy a Windows PC instead.
Don't you feel Apple should consider, making one model that did offer a better GPU as then those who wished to play games and enjoy a Mac would have a product to purchase?
If you want a gaming machine, don't buy a Mac.
Buy a PS, a Xbox, a Nintendo, or ask you moms and pops to get you a gaming PC.
No, the iMac offers exactly the opposite of a gaming machine.
It's designed to sit at a desk, the monitor is of high resolution and favors image quality (specially with the older models, where the IPS design didn't favor fast moving graphics), it's meant to be very silent and power efficient. Specially when the electronics are right in front of you, and generate all the heat literally in front of your face.
Even the keyboard and mouse are wrong for games. With the mouse pointer, specially (it's not direct like in windows, it's optimized for productivity and not FPS games, and you can't change that).
OpenGL even is more geared towards workstation graphics than games, it takes too much of CPU power compared to DirectX, e.g.
Just putting a better graphics card won't made any sense considering the rest of the machine.
Seriously I can't find a single aspect of the iMac that's great for games, and so can't you.
Really? Look up the overheating issues of the first (and second) MacBook Pros. Remember antennagate? How about the original Air being woefully underpowered? I love what Apple does as well, but let's be honest here, they have certainly have released some half-baked, not ready for primetime, seriously flawed hardware. Not to mention the software fiascos like mobile me/icloud.
**EDIT** Oh, and don't forget the discoloring, cracking polycarbonate MacBooks. I am sure there are more.
I have the fiber charge hr, and same thing it's pretty darn inaccurate once you start doing anything athletic. Really makes me wonder and hope that apple gets it right. If they don't they will get killed in the media.
With the exception of Anntennagate, most of the things you posted are pretty standard issues that any company in a position offering them could fall into with a subset of products off a manufacturers line.
Generally speaking, when Apple is going to position a product feature, especially one that is the focal point of a product (Touch ID, 10hr battery iPad, touch screen UI, health monitoring in this case) it will be polished to the point that it just works - when given that label, these things are not even up for scrutiny or have questionable functionality.
But we still will never know, at least not until early '15!
IDC, because I've 2 years warranty (legal in Europe), and Apple does a good costumer service.