Would you buy Apple watch without Heart Rate sensor?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by edhchoe, Jan 6, 2019.

?

Would you buy Apple watch without HR sensor if it costs $100 less?

This poll will close on Aug 6, 2019 at 3:17 PM.
  1. I would buy it as a second AW.

    3 vote(s)
    4.8%
  2. I would buy it as my only AW.

    8 vote(s)
    12.9%
  3. I would not consider buying one without HR sensor.

    51 vote(s)
    82.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. edhchoe macrumors 6502a

    edhchoe

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #1
    Would you buy an Apple watch with no HR sensor for $100 less?

    I have been wearing Apple watch for about 1.5 years.
    At first, I used it for exercise and sleep monitoring. However, nowadays, I use it for mostly for other things and I hardly ever need the HR sensor function.
    If I had a choice on Apple watch 5, with or without and for cheaper price, I would choose to buy one without HR sensor.
    It will be not only cheaper but also slimmer.
    Especially, if I keep my AW4, I don't need two watches with HR sensor. It will give me a reason to buy and keep more than one Apple Watch, for different occasions.

    What do you think?
     
  2. tl01, Jan 6, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019

    tl01 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #3
    Nope. It is on of the primary reasons I want the watch. Don’t need more than one Apple Watch to wear to different occasions. I have different bands for that.
     
  3. mtneer macrumors 68030

    mtneer

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    #4
    For a $100 off, no way. Now, if it was priced at a $100 without the heart sensor, then it may mean something.
     
  4. mikzn macrumors 65816

    mikzn

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #5
    Would not be interested without the HR sensor - there are too many other watches to choose from - HR is the defining feature.
     
  5. iPhysicist macrumors 65816

    iPhysicist

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Location:
    Dresden
    #6
    You would kill off the whole fitness part which is 3/5 of the watch for most.
     
  6. sean000 macrumors 68000

    sean000

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2015
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA
    #7
    If, hypothetically speaking, the heart rate sensor tech didn’t exist in Watch form factors from any manufacturer, then yes I would still buy an Apple Watch just for the other features. Since it does exist, I’m willing to pay an extra $100 for it.
     
  7. SDColorado Contributor

    SDColorado

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2011
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    #8
    Perhaps if one without a HR sensor was a basic model selling at $199, I *might* be interested in it as a second watch. For $100 less? fuggedaboutit ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
     
  8. edhchoe thread starter macrumors 6502a

    edhchoe

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #9
    Now you understand what I am thinking.
    At $199, it would be a no brainer to upgrade alternating, with and without HR.
    So I have AW4 w/ HR. I can buy AW5 w/o, and when AW6 comes out I can buy with HR and sell AW4.
    And I can buy AW7 w/o and sell AW5. Keeping two watches at all times.
     
  9. StaceyMJ86 macrumors 68000

    StaceyMJ86

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    No. The HR sensor is one of the reasons I started buying Apple Watches 2 years ago. Without the HR sensor it would be a useless device.
     
  10. tl01 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #11
    What benefit is it to have two Apple watches...one being inferior?
     
  11. SDColorado Contributor

    SDColorado

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2011
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    #12
    $199 would have some appeal. $100 off though would be a $299 starting price, which for me would be a non-starter.

    I think if the option were available I might pick a SS version with HR sensor and a $199 aluminum for a work watch where I wouldn't be as worried about it getting beaten up a bit.
     
  12. Sill macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    #13
    Thats ridiculous. You mean without a heart sensor you can't tell the time, read messages and emails, check the weather, have two-way conversations without picking up your phone, or store boarding passes on your Watch?

    How odd.

    Myself, I would gladly pay $100 less for a Watch without a heart rate sensor. I didn't even know there was one on my first Watch (Series Original - or did it have one? See? I don't know), and I completely forgot there was one on my Watch 4 when I bought it. I'd really like it to not be there, along with anything else that gets biometric data off my person.

    I'd also like them to get rid of the GPS, enlarge the battery, and start working on making some different case designs. Without all the stuff thats not necessary, they could really make some slim designs, instead of the same "roundrect" footprint.
     
  13. MatthewUT44 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2015
    Location:
    Arizona
    #14
    With the accuracy issues and inconsistency I’m having I’ll surely buy one without the HR sensor !
     
  14. tarsins macrumors 6502a

    tarsins

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Location:
    Wales
    #15
    Nope. I like the fact that it's keeping an (electronic) eye on my heart rate and at my advancing age it's well worth a bit more money for that additional monitor.
     
  15. lah macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    I would actually buy a Apple heart rate sensor without the rest of the watch (fitness band). Love my regular watches, so I’m torn on getting a new series 4 Apple Watch for my activity tracking.
     
  16. StaceyMJ86 macrumors 68000

    StaceyMJ86

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    The heart rate sensor is one of the main reasons I started buying Apple Watches. That’s not ridiculous. That’s MY OPINION. I love the notifications and being able to track my health. I wouldn’t buy an Apple Watch if it didn’t have a HR sensor, GPS or any other thing that make it an Apple Watch. It has become so useful the past few months with the cellular feature.
     
  17. MisterSavage macrumors 6502a

    MisterSavage

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2018
  18. Akrapovic macrumors 6502

    Akrapovic

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2018
    Location:
    Scotland
    #19
    No.

    As has been pointed out over the years, when Apple released the AW Series 0, they didn't really know what they wanted the Watch to be. It did a bit of everything. But it quickly found it's niche with the fitness crowd, and those wanting to get into fitness. That is the core strength of the Apple Watch. Whilst it does do other things (and I certainly enjoy them), Apple has doubled down on the health aspects of the Watch.

    I don't see a Watch without a heart rate sensor selling that well. But it does mean is the complexity of manufacturing increases, as now there are more options to consider. It isn't 1 new product line - it's several, as you need the various finish versions.
     
  19. Nugget macrumors 68000

    Nugget

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Houston Texas USA
    #20
    Definitely not. I want Apple to add more health sensors, not remove the one we already have. I expect the AW5 to have pulse ox in addition to heart rate, and I’m optimistic blood sugar monitoring will be feasible someday as well.

    Health monitoring is clearly a large part of the Apple Watch’s marketing narrative and there’s virtually no chance that Apple will not continue to push the hardware and software in that direction with future devices.
     
  20. Azathoth123 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Location:
    Fountain City
    #21
    Not for me. I use it for exercise and hiking. But the heart rate/irregular rhythm monitor works all the time when you wear it, so you ARE using the function even if you don’t realize it.

    The heart rate monitoring also works, a friend of mine is a nurse and got a high rate notification and she had it verified at an emergency room. She wasn’t consciously taking her heart rate, the Watch was watching (see what I did there?) in the background.
     
  21. MisterSavage macrumors 6502a

    MisterSavage

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2018
    #22
    This. There's people who think they don't need it who could benefit from it.
     
  22. Sill, Apr 21, 2019
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2019

    Sill macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    #23
    Ease up there. I wasn't belittling you for saying you had to have the heart rate sensor, I was pointing out how ridiculous it was that you said "Without the HR sensor it would be a useless device." Those are your words not mine, and you made a ridiculous statement. The Watch is far from useless without the HR sensor, and I pointed out just a few of its many uses. For me, those are the reasons I wear the Watch. I personally don't need or want any biomeasurement devices, YMMV.
     
  23. StumpyBloke, Apr 21, 2019
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2019

    StumpyBloke Suspended

    StumpyBloke

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Location:
    England
    #24
    I’m assuming you are saying she made a ridiculous statement *in your opinion*?
     
  24. Sill macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    #25
    Nah. I meant it exactly as written. She said the Watch was useless without the heart rate sensor. In the face of everything else the Watch does - some of which I listed, some of which I really don't like but others find invaluable - I found her statement ridiculous, independently of my opinion.

    You're not being pedantic, are you? I hear thats a thing lately.
     

Share This Page

27 January 6, 2019