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

Microsoft Likely Discontinuing Microsoft Band Wearable Device

Arran said:
Functionally it seemed fine, but aesthetics was a big problem. Particularly the huge, clunky HR monitor on the back that faced outward so everyone could see it! Seriously, what on earth were they thinking?
Click to expand...
I owned the first generation, and so I'll confine my comments to that version, as I don't know if they corrected the issue, but I had to wear the band with the display on the inside. It just didn't fit right with the display on the outside as most people wear watches. That of course meant it got incredibly scuffed up with the display banging around on the desk as I worked.
 
maflynn said:
I owned the first generation, and so I'll confine my comments to that version, as I don't know if they corrected the issue, but I had to wear the band with the display on the inside. It just didn't fit right with the display on the outside as most people wear watches. That of course meant it got incredibly scuffed up with the display banging around on the desk as I worked.
Click to expand...

I thought it was meant to be worn with the display on the inside? So you could easily read text across the screen by holding your arm out at 90 degrees, palm upward, as if doing a bicep curl. That made sense functionally.
 
namenotfound said:
spazzcat, AW See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666

Found on another site: supposedly from MS.

Microsoft Band heart rate sampling frequency
  • Exercise modes (Run and Workout): Heart rate records every second
  • Sleep tracking : 2 minutes on, 8 minutes off. Repeats throughout duration
  • All other times : 1 minute on, 9 minutes off, and repeating the cycle
  • Manual: You can force-check your heart rate at any time by tapping the Me Tile

Band and AW are NOT the same when it comes to HR. When I am asleep, the Band is also tracking my heart rate, including when the Band detects sleep with no input on my part.

Also, I have found the heart rate on the Band to be fairly accurate when measured against medical devices (like when I was in the ER last month). To be fair, I was at rest and not running on a treadmill.

The AW tries to do everything, the Band is much more focused. The Band works with IOS and Android, while the AW is IOS bound.
Click to expand...
  • All other times : 1 minute on, 9 minutes off, and repeating the cycle
It checks your heart rate every ten minutes. I've own both MS band and AW, and several other trackers. MS band was good, but overall the AW is better. The only feature AW is lacking is sleep tracking. There are apps, but none of them impress me. Looking at my AW data right now, it looks like resting it checks my HR about every ten mins, just like the Band. I can't state for working out because I wear a strap, something you can't do with the band.
[doublepost=1475582351][/doublepost]
astrocramp said:
No. I have a Band, and it monitors HR all day and among other things does VO2 max, which AW doesn't. The problem with AW, at least series 1, is that HR monitor destroys the battery. The AW is not really a fitness tracker, it's more of a fashion accessory and I think they designed it more with apps in mind which never really took off. Now, Apple is attempting to pivot back to fitness with series 2, but it definitely falls short of fitbit. I bought Band 2 because it had more accurate and more sensors than anything else, and Microsoft positioned it as more an experiment with data than an aggressively launched consumer product.
Click to expand...


Checking every ten mins isn't any different the AW people.
 
maflynn said:
I was watching a podcast with Paul Thurrott and he was very dismayed at the prospect that MS is killing it off. What's odd, is they positioned the band as a health product, and Apple is transitioning the apple watch from a fashion statement to a health product. MS already had their foot in the door to compete with apple.

They missed the boat with the phones, and now they're purposely leaving a market that they got in on the ground floor.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I had an Apple Watch but returned it last year, this year I bought another and kept it because the health stuff was more refined. I hope that's where Apple go with it. Maybe with that health insurance company buying a load it's a sign that health is where they're going.

Last night I had an ECG and was watching the heartrate on the machine with all its probes on my chest, showing the same BPM as my watch. It'd be incredible if they put that much precision and detail into other health sensors.
 
I honestly think it looks better than the Apple Watch, but I didn't want a windows product so I own the Apple Watch. Maybe the series 3 will have a better design.
 
Stella said:
Which Garmin product is that?
Click to expand...

(vivosmart HR) Sorry, I actually meant perpendicular to the arm. At least all of the display material shows that orientation. It's not very 'user friendly', and the HR+ is parallel. I don't know if it's an option to turn the display or not.

When I'm bouncing around on a bike, I don't want to have to twist my arm to see what's going on. I know, whine whine whine...

Just read the manual. It's adjustable between portrait and landscape. Cool...

vivosmart hr.jpg
 
The vivosmart HR can have its content orientated either portrait or landscape.


PinkyMacGodess said:
(vivosmart HR) Sorry, I actually meant perpendicular to the arm. At least all of the display material shows that orientation. It's not very 'user friendly', and the HR+ is parallel. I don't know if it's an option to turn the display or not.

When I'm bouncing around on a bike, I don't want to have to twist my arm to see what's going on. I know, whine whine whine...

Just read the manual. It's adjustable between portrait and landscape. Cool...

View attachment 662744
Click to expand...
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
(vivosmart HR) Sorry, I actually meant perpendicular to the arm. At least all of the display material shows that orientation. It's not very 'user friendly', and the HR+ is parallel. I don't know if it's an option to turn the display or not.

When I'm bouncing around on a bike, I don't want to have to twist my arm to see what's going on. I know, whine whine whine...

Just read the manual. It's adjustable between portrait and landscape. Cool...

View attachment 662744
Click to expand...
That's nice looking, I wonder how that works in comparison to the apple watch
 
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, haven't read through all the comments, but this could be in preperation of them buying out a wearables company. There have been a fair few rumours lately.
 
truettray said:
What makes you say that? Not being antagonistic, I am actually curious.
Click to expand...
I think he's basing this on the assumption that without Halo being released on Xbox at the console's launch, it wouldn't have gotten enough traction to compete with the Playstation, and then tying that back to Apple because Apple funded some of the early development of Halo to bring some more press to their G4 line of Macs before Microsoft bought Bungie and ported the game to Xbox.

Which seems like thin logic, but the statement isn't founded on nothing.
 
GeneralChang said:
I think he's basing this on the assumption that without Halo being released on Xbox at the console's launch, it wouldn't have gotten enough traction to compete with the Playstation, and then tying that back to Apple because Apple funded some of the early development of Halo to bring some more press to their G4 line of Macs before Microsoft bought Bungie and ported the game to Xbox.

Which seems like thin logic, but the statement isn't founded on nothing.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing the game that was shown off at WWDC was a Halo RTS game, and the game ported to the Xbox was a FPS, that argument has so little ground to stand on when someone actually knows the history of Halo.

There are plenty of stories documenting how grueling that final year of development was because they literally had to rewrite everything (gameplay engine to FPS, graphics engine from OpenGL to DirectX), develop the game story and build the levels within a year because Bungie didn't actually have the product that Microsoft wanted to sell when they were bought.

Its why in Halo CE the levels are highly repetitive. They didn't have time to crank out complex levels, so they'd copy and paste large rooms and chain them together several times in a row while changing small things about each copy. Its also why Halo CE didn't have Xbox Live support. It was an extremely rushed development effort, and actually, pretty well done for how much they rushed it.

But in the end, that really means Halo is Halo because Microsoft made Halo what it was.
 
nadador said:
How can the Apple Watch offer sleep tracking when the battery can't last 24 hours? This is one of the main reasons I'm sticking to my trusty Pebble for now.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I need to charge it up when I go to bed. True, I've seen my watch be close to 40% of battery when going to bed, which should mean it might last, but then it would be virtually dead the next morning
 
apolloa said:
Please do tell, who else makes a smart band? One with all the features of the Surface Band... I'll be waiting...
[doublepost=1475528680][/doublepost]

According to Microsofts website it does have continuous heart rate monitoring.
Click to expand...

What a pity, this was on MS product where I actually like the design with the screen smoothly integrated in to band. AW and others in my opinion make the mistake that they model their smartwatches after the traditional wristwatch (quite unlike the original iPhone, which broke with the "established" interface of mobile phones at that time). To me the AW just looks and feels "clunky", lacking style & elegance. Probably wouldn't have made it past prototype on Steve's "watch" ...;)
 
dguisinger said:
Well, seeing the game that was shown off at WWDC was a Halo RTS game, and the game ported to the Xbox was a FPS, that argument has so little ground to stand on when someone actually knows the history of Halo.

There are plenty of stories documenting how grueling that final year of development was because they literally had to rewrite everything (gameplay engine to FPS, graphics engine from OpenGL to DirectX), develop the game story and build the levels within a year because Bungie didn't actually have the product that Microsoft wanted to sell when they were bought.

Its why in Halo CE the levels are highly repetitive. They didn't have time to crank out complex levels, so they'd copy and paste large rooms and chain them together several times in a row while changing small things about each copy. Its also why Halo CE didn't have Xbox Live support. It was an extremely rushed development effort, and actually, pretty well done for how much they rushed it.

But in the end, that really means Halo is Halo because Microsoft made Halo what it was.
Click to expand...
So, to be clear, the RTS version was NOT what Jobs announced at Macworld in 1999. By that point the RTS elements had been scrapped and the game was a full on third-person shooter. But the story wasn't even developed at that point, just the game engine and modeling. Microsoft then acquired Bungie not long afterward, and the bulk of the effort from that point went into making it compatible with Xbox and pushing to meet the suddenly sooner deadline of the launch of the Xbox.

So, actually, Microsoft probably would have wound up with a better game had they just let development go ahead as planned. Most of what made Halo really revolutionary was the fantastic gameplay, and aside from switching the camera angle, that was mostly in place when the game was revealed at Macworld in 1999.

I mean, obviously Microsoft's funding and advertising made the game as big as it became. I'm not saying this is great logic for the statement "The Xbox arguably wouldn't have succeeded without Apple." That was never my statement anyway. I'm just saying that it's not founded on nothing.
 
I have one and from feature perspective as a sports watch, it is better than Apple Watch. But when you factor in the price (although it was reduced to $180 from $250), it is overpriced compared to competition, bulky, and not as sleek as newer Fitbits and Apple Watch. Also, it seems to have quality issues, as I had to trade in my original one twice to get one that is stable (cross my fingers). The first unit failed to sync after a few months with my phone and the second arrived with bluetooth malfunctioning.
 
Hard to be successful with a wearable when your smartphone platform is so unpopular to begin with...
 
quite a few people come into work (REI) wearing the Apple Watch and are buying Garmin or Suunto watches.
 
Kaibelf said:
And yet people ask why users are so sticky with Apple and don't venture outside of the garden. This is why. Just like Nest products, Revolv, and Glass. Just like hundreds of phones that stopped receiving support after 6 months on the market. Just like the Kin. And Jawbone.
Click to expand...

Google and Microsoft have become notorious for leaving you flapping in the wind with their discontinued products.
 
wol said:
What a pity, this was on MS product where I actually like the design with the screen smoothly integrated in to band. AW and others in my opinion make the mistake that they model their smartwatches after the traditional wristwatch (quite unlike the original iPhone, which broke with the "established" interface of mobile phones at that time). To me the AW just looks and feels "clunky", lacking style & elegance. Probably wouldn't have made it past prototype on Steve's "watch" ...;)
Click to expand...

The Gearfit 2 is also a decent smart band, not as many features as the Surface Band mind but nice design. I think manufactures are missing out by not making Smart Bands. If it becomes cheap enough maybe I'll grab a Surface Band, i still think they will launch a new one next year too.
 
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