Update to Watch OS 1.0.1?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Jigga, Jul 9, 2015.

  1. Jigga macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #1
    Received a new watch today with OS 1.0, should I upgrade to 1.0.1?
    For those who have been using 1.0.1 since it's been released, other than the heart rate "issue", would you suggest the update?

    Thank you
     
  2. Suckfest 9001 macrumors 6502a

    Suckfest 9001

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    The heart rate thing isn't an issue. It's done on purpose because it's supposed to be an indicator of resting heart rate. It also has the side effect of massive battery life savings.

    Update.
     
  3. Smurphy Gherkin macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #3
    Update. The Heart rate thing is a non issue.

    1.0 is so laggy to be barely usable. (1.01 is merely crap. But so much better than 1.0)
     
  4. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #4
    I would update. But I do not know that either of these statements are true. It is not resting HR, for certain. And I don't think Apple has said anything about battery. I think that 9to5Mac started the speculation that it was for battery, but that was just their guess.
     
  5. Jigga thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #5
    Ok thanks for the advice all.
    Since we're on the software topic, any idea why after I reboot my iPhone it takes hours to receive notifications on the watch again?
     
  6. Suckfest 9001 macrumors 6502a

    Suckfest 9001

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #6
    It only measures your heart rate when your wrist is sitting still. This is done for two reasons: 1) to avoid inaccurate readings due to flailing wrists and 2) to provide a resting heart rate. Apple themselves stated that it's designed to measure heart rate when the wrist is still so it's not just me speculating.

    As for the battery, of course it'd be better on battery. The heart rate sensor uses quite a lot of power and measuring less frequently would save battery life. Pretty sure most people who did the update noticed it as well.
     
  7. exxxviii, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015

    exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #7
    Apple only said that the reading methodology was intentional. Apple did not say that it was to obtain more accurate or resting HR. If it was for resting HR, it would need wait until the wearer was totally inactive for a significant period of time prior to the reading, not just the exact moment of the reading. Although they did not state it, it does not make sense that they did it for accuracy, because that would mean that the readings are all inaccurate when exercising. And, many posts on the forum affirm the accuracy while working out.

    Battery could be a reason. But again, that only started as 9to5Mac's speculation. And to the the contrary, multiple forum posts here do not observe a material difference in battery performance. Finally, other devices on the market with continuous optical HR reading have multiple days of battery life; therefore it might not be the major power drain the speculators posit.
     
  8. Suckfest 9001, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015

    Suckfest 9001 macrumors 6502a

    Suckfest 9001

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    It's kind of common sense that the reason measurements are done when you're still is to provide more accurate readings when you're not in the middle of an activity. Apple doesn't have to state the obvious for it to be obvious.

    And yet many posts confirm the battery life improved dramatically as well. Some people noticed, others didn't. What's your point? Less readings mean a better battery life. Those HR monitors you're talking about do not have to perform the many duties of the Apple Watch. The HR monitor, in the context of the Watch (reading, storing, syncing to phone, all while performing other duties) does draw enough power that it'd make a difference in the long run (100 scans per day instead of 500 for example).

    The scans retrieved when flailing wrists are in no way always accurate. When the arms are moving with momentum, the blood flow to them may be altered in a way that might throw off the HR sensor. That's why you'd notice the occasional dips in the reading (suddenly 50-70bpm in the middle of a 150-170bpm workout). Presumably, the Watch either ignores the dips in bpm or accounts for them anyway considering they're not too frequent.

    Furthermore, a quote from Apple about HR accuracy: "Motion is another factor that can affect the heart rate sensor. Rhythmic movements, such as running or cycling, give better results compared to irregular movements, like tennis or boxing."

    If you're not exercising, you're less likely to be moving in a rhythmic fashion, and that might throw off the accuracy. No point in measuring your heart rate if it's going to be in the middle of a random movement.

    Source for that article: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT204666

    Source for heart rate measuring accuracy when flailing arms statements: family's all doctors with masters degrees.

    Source for everything else: Common Sense 2015 Enterprise Edition
     
  9. exxxviii, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015

    exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #9
    My point is that all those comments are 100% speculation. (Not the external references, but the opinions and application of external references to Apple's intent.) They should not be treated as fact.

    Folks who use optical HR sensors while exercising and flailing their arms, rhythmically or otherwise, know that they are accurate. Maybe they are more accurate when stationary, and I believe that to be likely, but I do not think it is materially different, to the point that it is worth degrading the function of the watch. And people who have owned competing fitness trackers with optical HR sensors may not be complaining of accuracy issues. (I have not read them all, so this is just speculation.)

    Regarding battery, let's say that 100% of the power goes to the HR sensor. And let's assume that the 1.0.1 change eliminates 20% of a day's readings. Then, that would extend the life of the battery by 216 minutes. But, it is unlikely that the HR sensor requires that much power, especially if it is only active 15 seconds every 10 minutes. Most of the power goes to the screen, apps, and housekeeping. So, what seems reasonable-- maybe 5% or 10% of the power goes to the sensor? So best case, they added another 20 minutes of battery life for the sake of the degraded function relative to every other fitness tracking device with a continuous HR measurement? Does that even make sense? Realistically, the HR sensor power demand is probably well under 5% of the watch' demands. So the battery savings is more likely on the order of 5 minutes per day.

    My personal opinion is that Apple did do this for the sake of battery, but that the design team overstated the benefits while overlooking the impact the perceived degradation. I think it was a mistake that they codified as an intended behavior. Be that is just my opinion.
     
  10. Suckfest 9001 macrumors 6502a

    Suckfest 9001

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    Yeah ok speaking of speculation...
     
  11. Jigga thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
  12. Suckfest 9001 macrumors 6502a

    Suckfest 9001

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    I say they've improved. I remember they used to take a minute to pop up on the Watch but now it's more like a 5 second delay at the most.
     
  13. Jigga thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #13
    Isn't the point that the watch receives the notifications first?
     
  14. Suckfest 9001 macrumors 6502a

    Suckfest 9001

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    Well they go through the phone. I measured the delay between the devices.
     
  15. FellaMeLad macrumors member

    FellaMeLad

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    #15
    If you're actively using the phone, then notifications will pop up on the phone first. If your phone is sleeping/locked, then notifications should appear on your Watch first.

    Fella.
     
  16. Jigga thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #16
    Correct, but I'm saying that if the phone is restarted, it no longer works like this.
     
  17. FellaMeLad macrumors member

    FellaMeLad

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    #17
    As others in this thread have said, your best bet is to update to 1.0.1.

    WatchOS 1.0 was very laggy and had numerous bugs and issues with it - probably including the one you're seeing. This is why Apple took us by surprise and rolled out 1.0.1 so soon after the release of the Watch.

    I'm not saying 1.0.1 is bug-free - far from it. But it's a much nicer experience that 1.0.

    Fella.
     
  18. Jigga thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #18
    Yes, thank you. I've already updated. Just inquiring about these issues that I'm still experiencing.
     
  19. FellaMeLad macrumors member

    FellaMeLad

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    #19
    Ahhh - OK. Apologies - I didn't see in the thread that you'd updated. First thing I would suggest - which seems to fix a lot of funky issues - is to unpair your Watch from your phone and then pair it again.

    Out of interest, is this every type of notification that's delayed - or just some? For example, do notifications for the core Apple apps (such as iMessage) work fine, but third party apps (Whatsapp, etc.) have the issue?

    But anyway - unpair and re-pair. See if that does the trick.

    Fella.
     

Share This Page