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

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Benz63amg, Jan 12, 2016.

  1. Benz63amg macrumors 68000

    Benz63amg

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    #1
    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?
     
  2. IJBrekke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    #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.
     
  3. Bob190 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #3
    If it doesn't have GPS .. I won't be buying one.
     
  4. Benz63amg thread starter macrumors 68000

    Benz63amg

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    #4
    What's the big deal with it having gps so much? The current Apple Watch uses the gps from the iPhone just fine
     
  5. handsome pete macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    #5
    People like the idea of being able to go out for a run without their phone.
     
  6. Benz63amg thread starter macrumors 68000

    Benz63amg

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    #6
    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?
     
  7. nicho macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #7
    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...
     
  8. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #8
    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
     
  9. Benz63amg thread starter macrumors 68000

    Benz63amg

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    #9
    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
     
  10. nicho macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #11
    so, don't run in a forest?

    you make it sound like you couldn't move for corpses in the 70s ;)
     
  11. Newtons Apple Suspended

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #12
    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.
     
  12. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #13
    I'm not defending Apple. I'm just saying I would not be comfortable hiking or running somewhere without a phone.
     
  13. handsome pete macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    #14
    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.
     
  14. Bob190 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #15

    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.
     
  15. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #16
    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?
     
  16. handsome pete macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    #17
    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.
     
  17. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #18
    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.
     
  18. Bob190 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #19
    Don't disagree ... just a personal choice that's all.
     
  19. kcellup macrumors regular

    kcellup

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2015
    #20
    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.
     
  20. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #21
    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.
     
  21. nicho macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #22
    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.
     
  22. kcellup macrumors regular

    kcellup

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2015
    #23
    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
     
  23. npmacuser5 macrumors 6502a

    npmacuser5

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    #24
    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.
     
  24. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page