The Band 2 has pretty accurate heartrate levels, plus that little 'example' is highly flawed since the band and band 2 track heart rate using a combination of things, one of which is skin temperature
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.
Jony Ive's Design Team Nixed Apple Watch Band With Sensors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Band 2 has pretty accurate heartrate levels, plus that little 'example' is highly flawed since the band and band 2 track heart rate using a combination of things, one of which is skin temperature
What part of "for me" did you miss ? Yes the Microsoft band is way more accurate.
Read the forum here champs, for some people it's horrible, for other the HR works. Linking me a review from the metro of all places.....are serious!
Not to mention that no wearable that measures temperature is going to accurately be able to tell the difference between a human arm and a ham sandwich? It's just measuring temps.
Somebody is being intentionally dishonest.
The experiment is flawed? Maybe I'm being a little too fussy, but I would have expected a heart rate of 0 from a piece of dead chicken meat, at any temperature. I wouldn't call 119 bpm an accurate heart rate.
Last edited:
Besides this being my field, I've been a type 1 diabetic since 12, more than half my life. I've been involved in many research trials. Guess what type? Non-invasive blood glucose monitoring. Since the 80's, a lot of progress has been made and similar to many industries that use lobbyists to influence policy, much of it was either denied due to "unreliable results" by the FDA (pure crap), and/or patents bought and sat on by pharmaceutical corporations who won't relinquish control over a multi-billion dollar industry in Type 1 juvenile diabetes alone.
Interestingly, invasive or "traditional" blood glucose monitors are extremely inaccurate, a fact acknowledged by the industry and endocrinologists. Here are just a few links on this subject matter:
Test Strips for Blood Glucose Monitors Are Not Always Accurate
a great comparison that truly gets to the heart of the matter by independent research:
Why Meters Can't Tell Us Our Blood Sugar Levels
https://www.diabeteseducator.org/do.../pdf/research/Practice_Advisory_BGM_FINAL.pdf
Thankfully, recent success with online startups has brought this out to the forefront:
Laser device detects blood glucose levels without the finger-prick
That's just a quick Google. I have more. Now, how am I "moving goal posts" again?
I was one of the AW skeptics, too, until my wife bought me one and I wore it for a week. It's the only watch in the last 35 years that I've made sure I use every day.
As for fashion, I'm not sure why people would be surprised or upset that appearance would be such an important aspect for 'wearable tech'. It's technical jewelry that people wear to work, in business, visits to the arts, dates, etc., Of COURSE people want it to look appealing and fashionable in a variety of settings.
Apologies. It was originally not so "political", yet expounded on as someone didn't quite understand the point. Back on topic, I hope and look forward to more advances in healthcare with Apple products and know a few on the way that will make a difference for many.
Well to play devil's advocate ...
People wore wristwatches for over 100 years without any great need to change the bands on their watches regularly, except to replace one when they wore out. Various solutions have come up that allow watch bands to be interchanged over the years, but none of those ever became main stream, because it simply wasn't a necessity. And really, neither are the Apple bands. What Apple has done is provide a certain amount of choice to customize a featureless slab of glass and steel that otherwise looks identical to every other Watch on the planet, and offered a multitude of choice for the customer incentivizing a fashion accessory that previously nobody seemed to need. But Apple markets it as having greater choice, and it's easy to do, so why not?
Apple's watch bands are essentially the epitome of consumerism -- buying something that nobody needed, nor particularly wanted. But now that it's available, they start collections of them because they can, and it gives them an excuse to shop for something else. In the past, these kinds of fads usually ran their course over a few years. In the 1980s it was the customizable, interchangeable, grosgrain watch band. It was around a good 4 years or so, before people just got tired of swapping their watch bands, and novelty wore off. It will be interesting to see if the same thing happens here. I suspect it will hit people right around the time Apple releases a great new upgrade to the watch in which the old bands are no longer compatible.
To be fair, for some customers, there's the need to switch from a nice leather band to a rubber sport band for exercise. In the past that would require two watches. But the need for such a wide variety of interchangeable bands is completely unnecessary to accomplish that goal, and nobody seemed to need it before the Watch came along. True they might have two watches to serve that purpose, and one could argue that such was the more prudent approach. I know when I only had one watch that I wore everywhere it would get dinged and scratch in rough environments, and didn't look as nice in more formal settings. That didn't happen any more when I got a dedicated Sports watch. Eventually I had a nice chronograph, a sport watch and dress watch. I never felt the urge to update the bands, but if I did, I could go to the jeweler, pick a new band, have them install it and keep going until I grew tired of it. And that's pretty much how it's been for over 100 years. Funny how Apple comes along and suddenly everybody needs to change their bands constantly.
We'll see how long it lasts.
Ah, but that's not what you said. 'Engineering is about putting stuff in, and design is about taking stuff out'. That is wrong. Design often drives engineering, and engineering should drive design. Give all the 'goodies' that you can, and have designers, like I said, make us want to give up a kidney for it. If a designer 'took stuff out' enough, what's the sense in having an updated product. I'm sure it happens sometimes, but damn... This is Apple we are talking about. An engineer found the way to do the iPod, a designer made us want it more than life itself...
[doublepost=1471313618][/doublepost]
Ahh, but Spidel made BILLIONS by offering people the ability to change their bands. Imagine that...
When did people forget that even fitness is about style. Just look at the olympics or a Sunday football game, naw no style in anything at all.
If style wasn't important then the majority of our fitness gear would still be some form of grey cotton flannel.
Now is the AW a great fitness device? No, but it works.
If style wasn't important then the majority of our fitness gear would still be some form of grey cotton flannel.
Now is the AW a great fitness device? No, but it works.
I'm not against the design of Apple Watch, I just can't find utility in using a smartwatch. A naked wrist is still so much better to me. And it doesn't need to recharge either. I wonder if they left out the heart rate sensor completely and replaced it with battery, maybe the watch would even be more useful?
As usual, everyone thinks they know better than Apple's legendary, $200BN-generating ID group. Keep on dreaming, that's all it will be.
You originally said that there are devices that can detect blood glucose levels, but they are not allowed by the FDA.
I said that the FDA is not the problem right now, because they are unavailable in other countries.
Sorry, but you're reading only what you want.
Promises and experimental devices are what they are: promises and experimental.
[doublepost=1471315003][/doublepost]
It's not a review...
It's a video of how ridiculous it is!
Accuracy is not a question of "for me".
I also can't wait for noninvasive CGM, and I'm hoping that in the future apple will crack the case. I'm not sure if the patents you refer to were really ready for the mainstream, but either way Apple has hired several people who specialize in noninvasive CGM. And Apple doesn't have a vested interest in selling test strips. As I'm sure you know the current more invasive CGM techniques have at least a 15 minute delay between the true blood glucose and the interstitial fluid glucose that they monitor, which could have disastrous effects of one was to titrate their insulin based on that alone. I'm curious if current non-invasive techniques also would suffer from this flaw.
CGM is actually one of the only places I hope Apple uses the band for sensors. They can continue selling and upgrading their watches w/o FDA gridlock, and separately develope a band w/CGM which they could launch after trudging through all the FDA approval.
I sure hope Apple is working on this. Not only could they truly change the world for diabetics and especially type 1s like yourself, but just think of the market! There are tens of millions of diabetics in the US alone that would love this tech, and Apple would have the market cornered. I sure hope changing the world while earning tons of $$ is something Apple is still interested and able to do...
It's reading an heartbeat from a dead chicken, FFS!
I don't care about "excuses", and other people who aren't fanboys also don't, specially for the price tag. That's why they have been so unsuccessful.
All I know is the HR sensor on my Apple Watch is generally useless. I can be running and my heart about to explode out of my chest and the watch reports 80 bpm. Meanwhile on my other wrist, my Band2 is reporting 150+ bpm. The Apple Watch heart rate sensor is wildly inconsistent and bounces all over the place. So far, my band2 is used for fitness and my Apple Watch for just everyday wear and notifications.
It's the metro ! I laughed quite I bit when I saw that as your reference. How about you find a tech site or sports site for reference
All HR monitors can act erratic
As an owner of both, my MICROSOFT Band 2 is much better than my Apple Watch at measuring and tracking my heart rate. Furthermore, it is vastly superior at monitoring my health and providing useful feedback and guidance. The telemetry it collects and uploads to Azure for analysis is fantastic. Keeping all of my data on the phone and not having it analyzed and compared with larger populations is a failure on apples part IMO.
[doublepost=1471317181][/doublepost]
Who is unsuccessful? The Band2 has been successful. Sure it is a failure at getting you to spend hundreds for rainbow color bands to match your shoes....
It's possible that's something they are working on. What sensors besides heart rate are good enough for a mass market device and wouldn't require regulatory approval?
[doublepost=1471317557][/doublepost]
Ok but this isn't an issue with the Watch it's a broader issue with how Apple collects and analyzes data. That wouldn't change no matter what the Watch was collecting and how accurate it was.
That's not at all what was written as you seem to be "reading only what you want" (we call that "ironic"). Reading comprehension and objectivity are wonders in understanding and processing information (so are links with "pesky facts" and past and present research). I stated that many pharmaceutical companies and their subsidiaries are US based thus under jurisdictional law for R&D. More importantly they have control over global markets, test strips for meters being a massive factor in YoY profits that would be lost with non-invasive monitoring (hence why advancements in such have been stonewalled for a long time, again, see links). Thankfully that is changing (again, see links, you know, to validate my points). Also, are you a Type 1 Diabetic? No? Ok then.
Ok, you're going off the rails on people. Let's take a step back from the keyboard, breathe, and just relaaaaaaxxxxxxx... This might help:
F*ck That: An Honest Meditation
Last edited:
Huh that's odd. Mine seems to be fairly consistent. but I'll admit I don't check in much during the day.
This^ This is exactly what Apple was targeting. An audience that can dress the Watch up or down. I frequently change the Watch bands daily, which another forum member, @Chupa Chupa stated on a previous post "This is what a 17 year old high school girl does." Which not everyone feels the way he does.
I have Sport bands, nylon bands, and a black and stainless steel link. It really changes the whole look of the Apple Watch. And more to the point, it transforms the Watch into something that appeals to the one who owns the Watch and how they wear it.
Changing the Watch bands is easy and keeps the Watch from being 'Stagnant', with its dynamic ability to look different on demand.
At rest, it seems to do fairly well. It is when I am running or doing exercises it becomes more erratic.
I never charge my watch at night, I'm wearing it, it's running the Sleep++ app.
I take it off and put it on the charger when I get up in the morning, and put it back on – fully charged – when I leave for work.