I have been using GPS watches for years. It's probably more about size than Batt life. Also Apple wants to require an iPhone to....well sell more iPhones.
Also my Garmin 620 is a color display. Poor color but you can see a red bar in this pic.
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.
No GPS? Fail for runners
- Thread starter Pewpewpew
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have been using GPS watches for years. It's probably more about size than Batt life. Also Apple wants to require an iPhone to....well sell more iPhones.
Also my Garmin 620 is a color display. Poor color but you can see a red bar in this pic.
agreed. i do that as well. but what is the point of the watch if you have to track the run with your phone and look at the progress on your watch? it isn't solving any issues.
GPS would've been nice but definitely not a dealbreaker for me because I don't mind wearing an arm band when I run.
My biggest problem with using the armband though is changing the music/volume, and accurate start/stop on map my run due to having to reach over to the side of my arm. It really slows me down and is annoying so having the watch as a remote would be a huge help.
My biggest problem with using the armband though is changing the music/volume, and accurate start/stop on map my run due to having to reach over to the side of my arm. It really slows me down and is annoying so having the watch as a remote would be a huge help.
I have been using GPS watches for years. It's probably more about size than Batt life. Also Apple wants to require an iPhone to....well sell more iPhones.
Also my Garmin 620 is a color display. Poor color but you can see a red bar in this pic.
But the only thing it does is GPS. On the Apple Watch, the GPS would have to compete with 20 other services for battery life. I would love GPS, but most people would rather have a 3 day battery life instead.
I don't think there are any fitness trackers that have GPS because it can drain the battery. I think the apple watch is trying to be more of a fitness tracker than an outdoor running/cycling watch. Although the apple watch already has less battery life than any fitness tracker so honestly, I'd wait for apple watch 2 if that is the purpose.
If someone really wanted to carry their phone, they could use a spibelt.
If someone really wanted to carry their phone, they could use a spibelt.
Sort of true but it does have 4 radios with WiFi, BT LE (Watch only has this 1 radio), GPS and ANT+. Some GPS watches now have 3G too.
Not trying to directly compare and I didn't expect the Watch to have GPS. Especially since it's in the iPhone. Just was pointing out that GPS watches are common.
----------
Point????? I use my iPhone for music and as a backup recording to my Garmin 620. Will probably add the Watch and move the Garmin to my right when running and continue. As of now all Apps I have tried (and I have tried and uses dozens) don't produce as accurate GPS tracks when running (especially extreme trail running with lots of ups/downs/switchbacks) as a detected GPS running watch. Hopefully the algorithms will improve.
What did you do that needs 3 days of recovery? I once got shown 30 hours after an 8 hour run.
It was a (I think) a 12 mile with a Training Effect 5.0 and HR average over 92% (with 100% Max HR). I like to push it hard and hit TE 4.5 or higher at least once a week. I (almost) never take more than a day off so I just did a lighter cardio workout on my next one (probably machines).
A good thought! For example the Garmin GLO Portable GPS and GLONASS receiver is small, weighs 2.12 ounces and last 12 hours:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/oem/sensors-and-boards/glo-/prod109827.html
It may just work out-of-the-box. In any case, I expect third-parties will create solutions based on this idea. Perhaps that was Apple's solution all along
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/oem/sensors-and-boards/glo-/prod109827.html
It may just work out-of-the-box. In any case, I expect third-parties will create solutions based on this idea. Perhaps that was Apple's solution all along
That's not small. That's huge.
Look at what Arduino hobbyists can get now for GPS: https://tiny-circuits.com/tiny-shield-gps.html - about the size of a quarter. Someone will make a tiny shoe-pod sized unit that talks to an app on the Watch via BTLE.
That's what I be using sometime next year (even if I have to build my own and write my own WatchKit app...)
I agree! But at 3" long, light and available now it gives a worst-case scenario. I expect, as do you, that third-parties will take these quarter size units and make the Apple watch very serviceable for running when paired with them.
Look at what the first iPhone and iPad were missing. I'm sure this is all about battery life. And we know if Apple just released a FuelBand or Fitbit clone everyone would be saying "that's it?". Considering Apple created a new OS and watch specific SDK one would assume the ultimate goal is to have a device that can be independent from the phone and get acceptable battery life.
Today while running i realized why gps was missing. Say hello to gps shoes or ear buds or earrings or whatever. Nike and apple didnt cooperate for nothing. They want us buy more not less. Apple has enormous money and research resources to make it all in one. However that will happen way later when other brands are able to do it properly.
The problem isn't the size of the GPS receiver, it's size of the battery you need to run the darn things for a given length of time. GPS is fairly power hungry compared to other mobile components.
True. That's why it's not built into the current Apple Watch. But many other runner's watches can fit enough battery for a few hours of GPS tracking. So a battery for a even a marathon doesn't need to be very big.
Clearly, battery life is the issue here because GPS units use up much battery, and not much battery can fit into the Apple Watch's small size constraints.
The Apple Watch's biggest design problem is lack of battery life. The battery currently lasts one day, and Apple engineers are working hard to try to up that before the 2015 release. Engineers had to work within the size constraints of the Apple Watch, so they cannot enlarge the watch to increase the battery size. These size constraints are there in order to appeal to the fashion market.
Look for GPS capability arriving within a few iterations, as Apple engineers steadily increase the battery life of future Apple watches. Wifi and cellular capabilities are some other battery-consuming components held back by Apple engineers due to battery life constraints.
The Apple Watch's biggest design problem is lack of battery life. The battery currently lasts one day, and Apple engineers are working hard to try to up that before the 2015 release. Engineers had to work within the size constraints of the Apple Watch, so they cannot enlarge the watch to increase the battery size. These size constraints are there in order to appeal to the fashion market.
Look for GPS capability arriving within a few iterations, as Apple engineers steadily increase the battery life of future Apple watches. Wifi and cellular capabilities are some other battery-consuming components held back by Apple engineers due to battery life constraints.
I agree about the GPS part. Biggest disappointment for me, and what may ultimately keep me from getting one. Not trying to carry a 4.7" iPhone when I run or go outdoors.
I'm guessing Apple Watch v2 will have it but I'm guessing that's a couple years away.
Actually, do we know for certain there is no GPS in the Apple Watch? Or are people basing this off the fact Apple said you need the iPhone to run it?
I'm guessing Apple Watch v2 will have it but I'm guessing that's a couple years away.
Actually, do we know for certain there is no GPS in the Apple Watch? Or are people basing this off the fact Apple said you need the iPhone to run it?
When they advertise maps in the keynote i thought "yes it has gps!" However i cannot find anywhere. If available they would put it somewhere visible. I hope we are wrong though. But i can see apple watch 3g coming later.
Baloney. Not accurate enough for what? Professional runners, cyclists and mountaineers use standalone GPS watches now, but for you - not accurate enough, right.
GPS units have varying degrees of accuracy and some are great.
Apple's watch is a toy, and the 'sports' moniker they've donned on one model is a joke. Look at the functionality and performance of standalone sports watches and the Apple watch looks like a prop from a 1970s B movie. I was embarrassed for Apple when they said you can 'use the GPS and wifi.. from your iPhone'. 2014, and they release a tethered peripheral device for the iPhone. And that's what it is - an iPhone accessory for people who don't really need one.
People who take sport seriously will be sticking to Garmin, Suunto etc for a while yet it seems.
----------
What year/planet are you guys in. I can Ultra-trac for over 3 days on my GPS watch. It's the same with BT. BT LE can be running with GPS for around 12 hours on a watch now. That means you could be out doing an ultra listening to music (on your bluetooth earphones paired to watch) while having your route recorded - just on your watch. No need to carry the bulk of a phone.
That's not what Apple want. They want you tied into buying and upgrading a constant cycle of both iPhones and Apple watches. It's about conversion, not componentry.
I bet it's not final, and they just didn't want to say anything. It HAS to have GPS I think. That's like the biggest feature.
Did you watch the announcement or the watch the Fitness video (45 seconds)? Because Apple did say. It uses your iPhones GPS to track your runs. The Apple Watch will NOT have a GPS or WiFi radios, only a BT radio.