Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by protobiont, Sep 14, 2016.
The Verge. Passes.
Still hurt over that first review, hey? What a complete shock that Apple realized the watch is for fitness and not a luxury timepiece.
Not hurt. Never give a credit to them.
In fact never care to go the site at all.
5 hours of GPS usage, while short, I do think that's fairly impressive, given the small size. I was expecting less tnh
I am very curious about this. Other fitness devices have about 1/20 their general use battery life on GPS and 1/10 when it us using some lower sampling, battery-saving, GPS mode. So, Apple hitting 5 hours on a device advertised with an 18 hour general battery life is pretty miraculous. And, I did just under 5 hour workouts on my current AW, and that nearly killed the battery. Supposedly, this is extended to 8 hours on the S2. This makes sense, if the new battery is 30% bigger, because I think I a 5:30 workout would have killed the battery entirely.
If you haven't seen it yet this review focuses specifically on running, GPS, and battery life. If I remember correctly he figured he'd get at least 7 hours on GPS (w/ heart rate function disabled).
Reviews are good ... but I prefer benchmarks comparisons ! Hope someone will post some asap ...
There's no benchmark apps for watchOS though
Love or hate the verge this seemed to be a fair and decent review. They said basically the same things everyone else is saying about the device. Still a little bummed by lack of barometer but I'm thinking it will still be a nice first real smart watch for me.
Well, they still offer the Hermes and now the Ceramic Edition. They just aren't trying to sell $10,000 versions. My guess is the gold was a publicity stunt that let them get celebrity endorsements. I see more older adults (40s and 50s) with Apple Watches now, mostly the pricier stainless steel models. The $1250 ceramic might be popular, as well.
--- Post Merged, Sep 14, 2016 ---
At least it wasn't Nilay Patel complaining about the Milanese loop band.
--- Post Merged, Sep 14, 2016 ---
Heart rate monitor not very good
All that swiping bothered me for some reason... USE THE DIGITAL CROWN PLEASE! haha.
Joking aside, I have the first generation Apple Watch and even though built in GPS, the better water resistance, faster processor and better display is cool I'm going to wait this one out and see what happens with the next generation. watchOS 3 has made the experience using the Watch better so I feel skipping this one won't be a issue.
I know ... more than benchmarks, I'm interested in comparisons between last year's AW, AW1 and AW2.
ditto. i was only going to think about upgrading from the first gen if it had an always-on display.
I'd like to see a OS responsiveness/load speed comparison of a first-gen with OS 3 vs a Series 2 with OS 3. Basically I want to see if it's worth it for me to upgrade. I installed OS 3 last night, and so far it's MUCH faster, but not completely free of lag.
Seems like a fair review. IMO, gen 1 watch is like the iphone 3g, while gen 2 is the 3gs. Personally, I am going to wait for gen 3, and expect a big leap similar from the 3gs to the 4.
Works perfectly for me ..
Unfortunately, the accuracy of optical heart rate monitors varies greatly from person to person. Things like how tight you wear it, where you wear it on your wrist, the ambient temperature outside all can affect accuracy.
Here is a comparison I did of the AW heart rate optical monitor vs. a Wahoo Tickr chest strap recorded on my Garmin 520 on a recent 40-mile bike ride. Basically identical ... and this is the norm for me.
This was a nice review - the fuy seemed to know what he was talking about - things such as battery life: