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

What kind of other possible health sensors could the newer Apple Watch 2 have?

Benz63amg

Benz63amg

macrumors 601
Original poster
Oct 17, 2010
4,593
1,099
What kind of other possible health sensors could the newer Apple Watch 2 have? I mean, the heart rate sensor in our apple watches works with a light sensor on the bottom of the watch, my question is, what other health tests can be performed using such technology which will give apple the ability to add to the new Apple Watch 2?
 
I'd guess they will try to match the Microsoft Band 2:

Sensors
Optical heart rate sensor
3-axis accelerometer/gyro
Gyrometer
GPS
Ambient light sensor
Skin temperature sensor
UV sensor
Capacitive sensor
Galvanic skin response
Microphone
Barometer

Maybe no GPS or barometer, but everything else should most likely be included.
 
handsome pete said:
People like the idea of being able to go out for a run without their phone.
Click to expand...

well the watch works perfectly fine without the iphone for going out for a run as it counts your heart rate and steps, where does going out for a run REQUIRE GPS?
 
lamonsas said:
well the watch works perfectly fine without the iphone for going out for a run as it counts your heart rate and steps, where does going out for a run REQUIRE GPS?
Click to expand...

People "need" mapping nowadays.

I was thinking about this. With some fine tuning, couldn't something similar be calculated by a compass, the accelerometer readings and Apple maps? Perhaps you pick the starting point afterwards on your phone (drop a pin) and it could surely work out where you ran, at a lot lower energy use than gps...
 
nicho said:
People "need" mapping nowadays.

I was thinking about this. With some fine tuning, couldn't something similar be calculated by a compass, the accelerometer readings and Apple maps? Perhaps you pick the starting point afterwards on your phone (drop a pin) and it could surely work out where you ran, at a lot lower energy use than gps...
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, going out for a run certainly doesn't require GPS or the iPhone and the watch does an excellent job at tracking a run using the built in running setting under the built in workout app, I guess the only thing different with Gps on the watch would be that perhaps the watch would map the run route without you taking the iPhone with you on the run? I really don't think it's a big deal to take the iPhone with me for a run if mapping my run route is so important but I guess the watch having a separate gps chip would be good to have but it certainly isn't a necessity. I'm sure having a gps chip on the watch will impact battery life for the worse as well
 
Armen said:
So do serial killers. no phone, no way to contact anyone in an emergency. but hey, they can use the GPS to locate your corpse in the forest. :p
Click to expand...

so, don't run in a forest?

you make it sound like you couldn't move for corpses in the 70s ;)
 
lamonsas said:
well the watch works perfectly fine without the iphone for going out for a run as it counts your heart rate and steps, where does going out for a run REQUIRE GPS?
Click to expand...

Maybe because people WANT IT!

Just because Apple does not have it is not reason to defend them. My Surge and MS Band 2 have GPS and it works great! It is nice to see the trails I visit and paths taken and no iPhone is needed. Can not see the AW2 having GPS due to the power is takes unless Apple can come up with a very low power GPS module.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFC
Newtons Apple said:
Maybe because people WANT IT!

Just because Apple does not have it is not reason to defend them. My Surge and MS Band 2 have GPS and it works great! It is nice to see the trails I visit and paths taken and no iPhone is needed. Can not see the AW2 having GPS due to the power is takes unless Apple can come up with a very low power GPS module.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Apple. I'm just saying I would not be comfortable hiking or running somewhere without a phone.
 
Armen said:
I'm not defending Apple. I'm just saying I would not be comfortable hiking or running somewhere without a phone.
Click to expand...

I definitely see the value in the option. For hiking I'd probably like to keep the phone on me, but for simply going on a run it's a nuisance.
 
Armen said:
I'm not defending Apple. I'm just saying I would not be comfortable hiking or running somewhere without a phone.
Click to expand...


Prior to the 2000s, no one carried a phone when they ran .. the world hasn't changed that much since then.

But to each their own I guess.

Personally, I don't need .. nor want to be that connected all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling
Bob190 said:
Personally, I don't need .. nor want to be that connected all the time.
Click to expand...

This is all you had to say. The rest was unnecessary. What if you fell on a hike and hurt yourself and couldn't move. Are you supposed to wait for Lassie or take your phone out and make a call?
 
Armen said:
This is all you had to say. The rest was unnecessary. What if you fell on a hike and hurt yourself and couldn't move. Are you supposed to wait for Lassie or take your phone out and make a call?
Click to expand...

His point was valid. Before cell phones became ubiquitous people were running/hiking all of the time cut off from the outside world. Unless I'm going to be in some remote area, I'd rather not have to lug the phone around.
 
handsome pete said:
His point was valid. Before cell phones became ubiquitous people were running/hiking all of the time cut off from the outside world. Unless I'm going to be in some remote area, I'd rather not have to lug the phone around.
Click to expand...

I get that. We were also driving without ABS brakes and Airbags at one point. All I'm saying is it would be safer to take a phone with you if you were out in some remote area. That's all.
 
Armen said:
I get that. We were also driving without ABS brakes and Airbags at one point. All I'm saying is it would be safer to take a phone with you if you were out in some remote area. That's all.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree ... just a personal choice that's all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armen
Before we all had phones many people would run with a walkman or mp3 player (running with a cd player was useless) and a fact missing is that you simply do not have the space on these watches for a lot of music nor would wifi help me for streaming if I were out for a run. So most likely the need to tether will not be a deterrent for me.
 
Virtually every competing watch on the market has a gps so whether you want it, see a need for it, or not, it's a competitive disadvantage for the AW not to have it.

I run almost every day, and yeah, I have a flip belt that allows me to carry my phone with me if I need it or am using my AW, but it's sure nice to have the flexibility to go for a run and get full tracking, elevation profiles, etc with just the watch.
 
kcellup said:
Before we all had phones many people would run with a walkman or mp3 player (running with a cd player was useless) and a fact missing is that you simply do not have the space on these watches for a lot of music nor would wifi help me for streaming if I were out for a run. So most likely the need to tether will not be a deterrent for me.
Click to expand...

You can store up to 250 songs.

That's (slightly) more than the largest of the first iPod shuffles (1GB, officially 240 songs).

The longest tape cassette ever available stored 180 minutes of songs.

I'm not sure why it's a deterrent for you.
 
not a deterrent. I like to use pandora and spotify and i know that unless i had to pay extra monthly for cellular data (which I wouldn't do) than I am ok with keeping an apple watch tethered to an iPhone
 
The GPS uses a good deal of battery. The average user for Apple may not like the trade off. What Apple needs to do is have a Sports watch, current one more of an urban watch. The sports watch would have all the sensors, more waterproof, tougher casing, and software to support running and other sports activities. The current sports watch needs a new name.
 
The GPS doesn't have to use any battery if it's not in active use. My Garmin watch goes about 10 hours during an activity that uses the GPS constantly, and I've seen it go as long as 2 weeks when I'm not using it at all.
 
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