No GPS? Fail for runners

[Ayr]

I go out walking a lot as we have a dog and i track a lot of them with Runkeeper. Will be handy with the watch to be able to glance at how far etc we've gone rather than having to take the phone out of a coat pocket, unlock it and get the Runkeeper app up on screen if required especially if the weather is wet\cold\both. Also in the same situations it will be useful if the phone goes off to be able to see who it is, what it is etc without having to dig around the coat pocket for the phone.

Aye, it's good for walkin' the dog.

 

[djedga]

If u just do some lifting and cardio indoors, then it's fine

I think there's other options out there (or about to be out there) for lifting and indoor cardio (not sure if the apple watch can do the same level of movement tracking as these appear to or not).

Atlas Fitness Tracker
https://www.atlaswearables.com/

moov
http://preorder.moov.cc/

Amiigo
https://amiigo.com/

There's still no GPS but these appear to have been designed for the specific purpose of multiple sports and recognizing the specific activity you're doing, we will have to see what the watch apps will compare functionality wise.

They are all cheaper than Apple Watch, but you don't get the IOS experience (or the Apple Watch OS experience whatever it will be called), or the possible multitude of apps.

If I can see apple watch delivering golf swing tracking, weight lifting and body weight exercise form tracking and correction, running form tracking plus a decent battery then it will be a tough decision!

If you were to throw in decent GPS with minimal battery drain and I would buy it right this second! I'll be waiting with interest to see how they all compare... I can wait

 

[Ayr]

I bought it with the next generation in mind.
I did buy the other watches for status and style but not a single soul notices my Patek when I wear one.

The history of the brand was important for me but not for status per se.
A white gold Calatrava is hardly something you buy for showing off (except on Instagram).

Regarding a $10 Casio, I'm not really into buying cheap things.

You're buying into unquantifiable ideals set down by the old money. Doesn't get much cheaper than that.

 

[cypriot]

No GPS? Fail for runners

I bought it with the next generation in mind.
I did buy the other watches for status and style but not a single soul notices my Patek when I wear one.

The history of the brand was important for me but not for status per se.
A white gold Calatrava is hardly something you buy for showing off (except on Instagram).

Regarding a $10 Casio, I'm not really into buying cheap things.

The status does not only mean to be for other people. It is definately a status symbol for your self. You dont buy cheap things is itself enough to register this idea.

Why do you even care about AW containing gps. You will probably buy the gold one and you can use other expensive great equipment dedicated to whatever sports that you are doing. A sports device mainly has a purpose of a function that it was built for. Than comes aesthetics and other small things. Apple seems to start to change that order and probably they will in the next versions.

 

[Julien]

I'm a sicko for monitoring personal health data. I have spreadsheets going back to 2004 on every single cardio workout. I track all kinds of metrics like calories, BP, body fat, weight,......

So I will get the Apple Watch and when running or biking I will add my Garmin 620 to my right arm. For me I can never have too much info or backup. Also interested in the all day fitness monitoring of the aWatch.

 

[dewthedru]

I'm a sicko for monitoring personal health data. I have spreadsheets going back to 2004 on every single cardio workout. I track all kinds of metrics like calories, BP, body fat, weight,......

So I will get the Apple Watch and when running or biking I will add my Garmin 620 to my right arm. For me I can never have too much info or backup. Also interested in the all day fitness monitoring of the aWatch.

lol. so you'll have a garmin, the apple watch, and your iphone with you? why not strap an ipad and monkey with a whip on your back as well?

----------

Which Garmin watch are you using that has GPS?

forerunner 610

 

[Julien]

lol. so you'll have a garmin, the apple watch, and your iphone with you? why not strap an ipad and monkey with a whip on your back as well?

I already use a Garmin 620 and have carried my iPhone since the original (music and GPS backup recording). I don't see how adding an aWatch will become excessive (especially in weight).

 

[dewthedru]

I already use a Garmin 620 and have carried my iPhone since the original (music and GPS backup recording). I don't see how adding an aWatch will become excessive (especially in weight).

it's excessive because you're carrying 3 devices to track 1 activity!!! it's absurd!


imho of course.

 

[spencers]

I'll stick with my Nike GPS watch and waterproof iPod Shuffle for my running.

Good job on the fail, Apple.

 

[Julien]

it's excessive because you're carrying 3 devices to track 1 activity!!! it's absurd!


imho of course.

You could look at it 2 other ways also.

1) You need the iPhone and Watch so that is ⅔ of it or
2) Garmin is actually 2 devices and you are carrying 2 devices to track your 1 activity.

 

[gorkt]

I am a runner and I am slightly disappointed that there is no GPS, but understanding the limitations on battery technology, I figured that would be the case and I can accept it. Right now I use my phone for music and Runkeeper along with a Fitbit and a Mio wristband heart rate monitor. With the watch, I can consolidate the Fitbit and the Mio, so at least I will be going from three devices to two.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Fenix 2 is regarded as the best looking sports watch on the market. From a man's POV it's incredible. All blacked out and mean looking. You can't even compare Apple's toywatch to something like it.



Image

That is horrendous looking. From a man PoV? Yeah right that is not even funny. To me it is a very old fashioned design concept, about 20 years ago that would have looked cool to a 9 year old boy. Functional, possibly, best looking? No way.

 

[millerj123]

Auto start/stop and volume on earphones..

We've had this for years, even with Apple products.

Run keeper auto starts/stops for me? Huh. I had no idea.

I also don't run with earphones, so I'm not sure how this helps me. You make many assumptions.

 

[SHNXX]

You're buying into unquantifiable ideals set down by the old money. Doesn't get much cheaper than that.

Thanks for telling me what you think how I think but I trust my own assessment's accuracy regarding how I think.
In other words, I don't need your psychoanalysis.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I want the watch for running but mainly as an iPod replacement. I hope to stream music to a Bluetooth headset. Couldn't care less about GPS as I know where I have been.

 

[AxoNeuron]

...is the iPhone too heavy to carry around when you run?

Honestly, I'm glad they didn't try to put GPS in it. It would eat through the battery life way too quickly. Not only that, but then you would need to download the maps to the device in advance. Waste of storage. No need to run GPS through the watch itself when you can just get location information sent to it from the phone using much less battery life.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

How about a form of inertial reference? The thing has accelerometers. The only thing the watch needs to know is the starting location and from there on calculate the route by measuring acceleration and turns, etc.

This is how airplanes navigate, they do not use GPS because the airplane has to be able to rely on internal systems in case of a GPS failure. The watch may not be as sophisticated or accurate but it may be adequate enough for running purposes.

 

[Julien]

How about a form of inertial reference? The thing has accelerometers. The only thing the watch needs to know is the starting location and from there on calculate the route by measuring acceleration and turns, etc...

Accelerometers require lots of calculations and are manly good for a point A to point B (straight) navigation. Going from point A to Point B has only a certain amount of accuracy (example 95%). Then when it makes its next point to point calculation the starting error will be added to the ending error. Unlike GPS the accelerometer has no way to correct it's errors and they keep building up. This means after a lot of point to point measurements it will be WAY off. This also means speed and distance will be way off too.

Here is an example that would never work. When making turns the point to point calculations would cause enormous errors to build up. This run could NOT be tracked be an accelerometer and all distance/pace/speed calculations wound be WAY off because of all the turns.

 

[Schnort]

...is the iPhone too heavy to carry around when you run?

More like inconvenient. My running shorts have one tiny pocket in the back, and I'd prefer not to wear an armband. They barely fit the 4s. I'm sad that I'll have to find some other way to carry my phone if/when I move to the 6.

So a watch w/gps would have been a nice addition. But, alas...

 

[AxoNeuron]

Accelerometers require lots of calculations and are manly good for a point A to point B (straight) navigation. Going from point A to Point B has only a certain amount of accuracy (example 95%). Then when it makes its next point to point calculation the starting error will be added to the ending error. Unlike GPS the accelerometer has no way to correct it's errors and they keep building up. This means after a lot of point to point measurements it will be WAY off. This also means speed and distance will be way off too.

Here is an example that would never work. When making turns the point to point calculations would cause enormous errors to build up. This run could NOT be tracked be an accelerometer and all distance/pace/speed calculations wound be WAY off because of all the turns.


Image

The biggest problem is that the tiny accelerometer is not really accurate enough to detect very minor/gradual changes in direction.

 

[alex0002]

I am a keen runner and have been for a number of years. Why do people feel the need to carry around all this equipment on a run? reality is all you need is a sports watch that has a stop watch feature. I sometimes listen to music but an iPod shuffle is far better fit for this activity than carrying around a phone, especially so when you consider the size of the iPhone 6 and 6 plus.

Believe it or not, a hell of a lot of pro runners eschew heart rate monitors, GPS and all the rest of that rubbish. Sure, their coaches might ask them to strap on a heart rate monitor once or twice a week to monitor progress on a set workout or in the morning to gauge if they are overtrained but thats about it.

I could tell you with a reasonable degree of accuracy what my HR was at any point on my run just be perceived effort and my rate of breathing. Most other experienced runners could do the same.

Time and distance are the most important metrics and you don't need a lot of equipment to measure them - that 400m track and 10km tempo route is not going to change day to day.

All this technology and equipment can really hamper peoples efforts to get in shape because it adds so much unneeded complexity. People get to the point where they won't go for a workout unless they have a fully charged phone, network access, ear buds, arms strap, fanny bag, salt tablets, pre-workout supplement, gel sachets, gps watch, 2 water bottles, sweat band, friction free socks, sorbothane insoles, motion control shoes etc etc etc.

You're right, but you're talking about real runners. If you look at the Kenyan guys that run a marathon in 2:04, they don't use any of those things on a regular basis.

These smart watches are made for the people who "run" their local 5k in 30 minutes and then post the results on facebook within 5 minutes of race finish. Of course they'll need a selfie at the finish line, so they'll be carrying their iPhone anyway. Then they'll post about how the race organiser was an idiot and made the course too long, because their GPS watch told them they had run 5.2 km.

 

[katewes]

As a long time Mac user, my first iPhone was the iPhone 4. By then it was rather good. I think it'll take about 4 iterations to get the Apple Watch to that level of refinement. I'll sit it out on this one for a few years.

 

[cypriot]

I couldn't wait and bought a nike gps sportwatch. It's a great watch and amazing accuracy with the gps. I am very happy with my purchase. May be i can think AW 2 or 3 when it comes out.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

This also means speed and distance will be way off too.

This is my question. Because during the keynote Apple announced that the iPhone 6 has an updated fitness tracker that not only measures steps but also distance. I would presume (i.e. hope) that this is in the Watch as well.

I, too, like many here, was bummed by the lack of GPS to track my runs, however, I understand that Apple is bound by current technology. GPS is a huge battery drain (at least on the iPhone). The apple watch by the very size will have a small battery. I'm could see the battery being drained after running only a few miles. And, thinking about it, I'm realizing that I, personally, don't really care that much about tracking my GPS. Every once in a while I'll look at the neat visual displays, but it's not a deal breaker.

If the Apple Watch alone can measure distance accurately (say plus/minus 3%), then I would be perfectly happy with that solution. I would allow an error of up to, perhaps, 9 or 10% before this solution would be completely unusable for me. Anything more than that would just be unacceptable.

The thought of running with just a watch and bluetooth headphones is defintely exciting.

 

[dewthedru]

This is my question. Because during the keynote Apple announced that the iPhone 6 has an updated fitness tracker that not only measures steps but also distance. I would presume (i.e. hope) that this is in the Watch as well.

I, too, like many here, was bummed by the lack of GPS to track my runs, however, I understand that Apple is bound by current technology. GPS is a huge battery drain (at least on the iPhone). The apple watch by the very size will have a small battery. I'm could see the battery being drained after running only a few miles. And, thinking about it, I'm realizing that I, personally, don't really care that much about tracking my GPS. Every once in a while I'll look at the neat visual displays, but it's not a deal breaker.

If the Apple Watch alone can measure distance accurately (say plus/minus 3%), then I would be perfectly happy with that solution. I would allow an error of up to, perhaps, 9 or 10% before this solution would be completely unusable for me. Anything more than that would just be unacceptable.

The thought of running with just a watch and bluetooth headphones is defintely exciting.

so if you go out for a 10 mile run you'd be good if you actually ended up running 9 or 11 instead?