[HN Gopher] Analysis of Apple Watch running data ___________________________________________________________________ Analysis of Apple Watch running data Author : maarten3 Score : 265 points Date : 2022-09-25 13:23 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (applewatchrunner.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (applewatchrunner.substack.com) | nmlt wrote: | The author still seems to be on an Apple Watch 4, if I read | correctly. So this seems like a case of Apple shipping a bad | update to an older device and not caring. Or OP has a bad device. | matsemann wrote: | Related: DC Rainmaker just released his walk through of the new | ultra https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in- | dep... | | Dc is the gold standard in fitness guides. My interpretation is | that if you (like me) want a sports watch, buy a sports watch and | not a smart watch with sports features. At least too many deal | breakers for me. But they're getting better. | scorpios77 wrote: | zorlack wrote: | OP should run their route backwards for a week. To see if the | effect is symmetrical. | 12ian34 wrote: | I'm delighted with my Fitbit Charge 5. Costs a fraction of the | Apple Watch, don't need to buy into the Apple Ecosystem to make | it useful. Tracks my sleep and fitness shockingly well. The | official app is surprisingly good, and there's an API that works | pretty well and has endpoints for most if not all the data. | | That said, I'm a casual exerciser, not a proper hardcore | sportsperson. For those I'd say avoid a lifestyle device like the | Apple watch or Fitbit watches - it feels like Garmin supports | that niche better. | [deleted] | tr33house wrote: | Just got this too and I love it so far | SSLy wrote: | > Fitbit | | I'd rather not excercise than have my health data feed the | GOOGL advertising engine, thank you. | https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/google-will-start-as... | Because I do not trust them to uphold the EU rules. | asutekku wrote: | Honestly, it doesn't matter for the vast population using these | devices. I understand the issue, but for a normal runner, most | they care about is how did their pace / heart rate compare to | their past runs. | samastur wrote: | According to my Apple Watch I must be the slowest swimmer in the | world. I've just spent 3 weeks on the Adriatic coast, swimming an | hour twice a day and I lost count of times my watch reported | swimming distance of less than 100m (with an absolute low of 4m). | | Luckily for me I use it mainly to see how long I've been swimming | and don't care about other data because it is obviously useless. | xani_ wrote: | Reminds me how Sports Tracker (and really most apps) got wonky | every time my phone battery got below 15% and got into aggressive | power savings (and no amount of convincing would convince Android | to fuck off). | | Kinda smells like something similar, some aggressive power | savings cutting on GPS accuracy or how much app is allowed to run | in background. | comment_ran wrote: | Assuming it is an aerboic work out, what's the difference if the | watch tells you that it's 9.6k, 9.7k, or 9.8k? | | The only thing that I need to know the accurate distance is to | train a specific event, e.g. mile run, 5k, or 10k. | | If I train to run a mile within four minutes, all I need to know | is to run 60s for each 400m on track. | pjot wrote: | Many runners are racing themselves. To them, seconds matter. | moonchrome wrote: | >Assuming it is an aerboic work out, what's the difference if | the watch tells you that it's 9.6k, 9.7k, or 9.8k? | | If you're tracking incremental progress than such variability | makes the data less useful. But that's why I prefer to use | natural landmarks and a stopwatch - the smart watches I've used | so far are off to the point where I don't trust them. | macNchz wrote: | Accurate real time pacing information can be useful during | races, when it's easy to get caught up in the pace of the crowd | and lose track of the muscle memory for your race pace. | | It's also nice when you want to do any sort of interval | training without actually going to a track. | | Having accurate overall distances is less important, but is | useful if you're training for a specific distance and want to | run some time trials without using a track or measured course. | verst wrote: | I pace many half marathon and marathon races. Usually what I | need for that is: instantaneous pace, average pace, and lap | distance. | | I tend to plan my pacing for equal effort, so each lap pace | is adjusted for elevation such that in the end the overall | pace is just slightly faster than what is needed for goal | pace. | | Needless to say, I use my Garmin Forerunner 945 for this. | | If anyone is running the Seattle Marathon, I'll be there | pacing :) | parker_mountain wrote: | > Disabling wifi on the Apple Watch, Bluetooth on iPhone and | combinations of those, to disconnect the watch from iPhone before | starting the run | | Unfortunately, disabling wifi will absolutely wreck havok with | getting a quick, precise lock on GPS. Also, the author didn't | specify if they have a cellular model or not, which is also a | factor. | | More importantly, this really is an issue for Apple to fix - let | people know what the GPS status is! | | IMHO: the apple watch is the BEST casual fitness device. But, if | you compete or are training in any serious way, it falls flat | almost immediately. | oezi wrote: | Did OP mention if the scripts are published somewhere? | s3p wrote: | no :/ | smoldesu wrote: | It's okay, they're just mimicing Apple's development | philosophy. | [deleted] | balderdash wrote: | A friend has both a whoop and an Apple Watch. One or both of them | are wrong. He almost never get consistent results between the | two, Apple is almost always higher than whoop (avg. heart rate | for a given period) it's a bit depressing. | s3p wrote: | On the flip side, Apple has FDA clearance to use their device | for single-lead ECGs, so I would trust their heart rate reading | over a hacky tech startup's. | michaelje wrote: | I've just completed a 6 month self comparison of the Whoop v4 | and Watch S6 for cycling. I found for long endurance efforts | they were surprisingly accurate to each other - but during | intervals of intense exertion (eg a KOM/hill climb) often the | Whoop would read my HR as ~40-60BPM lower while the watch would | reflect an expected reading (160-180bpm). Sometimes after 1-2 | mins the whoop would "catch up" but it would leave a giant drop | in HR graphing for that interval. | | This also lowered the avg HR for the workout on the whoop, as | you noted. Happy to share an example comparison graph if you're | interested, just reach out. | | For what it's worth, I ended up cancelling the Whoop this month | after trying twice to engage with their data team. | kmonsen wrote: | dcrainmaker had an article where he reviewed the whoop, he | liked most things about it, except the accuracy. Without that | the rest was meaningless. | notafraudster wrote: | The use of "small multiples" here in the visualization is | excellent, and the layout of the first visual is provocative and | eye-catching -- love the vertical line! Great job, author! | formerly_proven wrote: | This sounds like it could all be due to a GPS issue. | jupp0r wrote: | I used the Strava App to track my runs on my Apple Watch 2. At | some point it started crashing and I tried out the built in app. | It's really not for me, the data is somewhat locked in, graphs | are non zoomable, etc. Most notably I couldn't send friends a url | to the run. | | I ended up switching to a Garmin Fenix 7 recently and I'm | genuinely happy with it so far. Battery lasts more than 2 weeks | and it does 90% of what I was using my Apple Watch for. | FridayoLeary wrote: | >Because the watch performed better on earlier versions of | watchOS, and even my iPhone 4S was better at tracking, I think | the issue is software. | | >The measurement errors are so bad, that they overshadow | performance differences between runs, and during runs. At the | same time Apple keeps adding more and more incorrect stats and | graphs, building on top of a shaky foundation. The kilometer | splits measured in seconds imply more accuracy than is delivered. | | This. | nilsbunger wrote: | The trouble acquiring a gps lock could be due to 5G towers | (remembering all the controversy with the FAA), or a new | building, or something else that changed in the built | environment. | jquery wrote: | "Pausing always fixes erratic mode" makes me suspect they don't | have a GPS lock for some reason. | fuzzy2 wrote: | I wonder if cycling is also affected. Theoretically, the watch | should be in an almost ideal position on flat handlebars, if less | so on drop bars. | jerlam wrote: | You move a lot faster cycling, so GPS errors are less | significant because there is a longer distance between | readings. | | But also, cyclists are less concerned about specific speeds. | jeffbee wrote: | Cycling computers blend calibrated wheel sensors with GPS | data to give the most accurate distance, too. I believe Apple | Watch refuses to use bike wheel and crank rotation sensors, | but Garmin does use them. | fuzzy2 wrote: | Well, maybe not specific speeds, but... :-D | | What you're saying makes sense, of course. I found some | hundreds of meters of discrepancies in some rides (Apple | Watch 4 vs. Karoo 2). Less than 1% of the total distance, of | course. | Ensorceled wrote: | My Series 3 was dead on until this spring; there is a 5k run I do | 2-3 times a week where the Strava would tell me I had hit 5km | within a few meters of the same tree. Then it started | misbehaving, usually 100-300m short of the tree, a couple of | times 50-100m beyond the tree. The path in Strava was all over | the place. | | I tried rebooting, reinstalling the Strava app. Cleaned up some | Watch apps. Didn't get better. | | Finally I deleted _all_ the watch apps except Strava: apple | store, audible, three authenicator apps (why does Authy have a | watch app?), my Bank 's app (wtf?) etc. etc. etc. Turned off or | configured for minimal sync anything I couldn't delete. | | Things started tracking again. | oezi wrote: | From a discussion on Garmin nav accuracy: | | > Russia (GLONASS) may intentionally give wrong results in your | area. Try switching to just GPS, or GPS & Galileo. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/vo9w0l/comment/ied5... | Godel_unicode wrote: | If you read down in that thread it turns out it was nothing so | mysterious; the ephemeris file for Sony gps chips was expired | and had to be updated. | kodisha wrote: | Semi related iWatch Rant - if you think running data is bad, try | tracking your sleep. | | It just doesn't work. | | - Sleep for 3h - wake up for 1, sleep for 5 more: records 3h | only. | | - (being a parent of a small baby) do not sleep at all during the | night, sleep 4+3 hours during the day: 0 hours recorded | | - sleep trough the night but wake up every 90-100 minutes (baby | again): 0 hours recorded | | Damn, this is a $500+ device, and it cant even get basic sleep | data correctly. Also, it takes anywhere from 1min to couple of | hours for data to appear in the Health app. | | OTOH my wife has ~3 year old Huawei Fit watch, which was about | $120, and that thing records every 10-15min or longer nap. | Without a mistake. | feross wrote: | Ditch the built-in sleep tracking and use Autosleep. | icebergonfire wrote: | As someone who went through the same process, including using a | Huawei watch previously, I encourage you to try Autosleep. It | has much better sleep detection magic and exposes a few knobs | that enable you to fine-tune the autodetection and also | manually correct the sleep records in sensible ways. | | It integrates with Health, so it has the bonus of tidying up | the sleep data all across the board. | | Not related to the developer in any way, just a very happy | user. | rubicon33 wrote: | Autosleep is great. I've had none of the issues the OP | mentions and I've used Autosleep since I first got my watch. | ValentineC wrote: | +1 for AutoSleep. | | I've been using it since before WatchOS 7 introduced sleep | tracking, and it's scarily accurate even at tracking when I | doze off for a short while in bed. | kodisha wrote: | OMG thanks! | | Installing it right away! | jupp0r wrote: | Regarding sleep: the most important reason why these devices | suck for tracking sleep is that you have to recharge them every | 24h. That's either not being able to use them during the day | for some period or do overnight charging. | sebasvisser wrote: | It might be hard to imagine, but your charging habits will | change. | | I wear my watch 23/7. It charges in the morning when I'm in | the shower. | | Only after an extra sporty day with a lot of sports tracking | will I need to let it charge an extra 30 minutes or so extra | during that day. | organsnyder wrote: | I recharged my Pebbles while I was in the shower, since | they usually took less than 15 minutes to top up after ~24 | hours of usage. I've found my Apple Watch (it is an older | model, though) to need too much time to recharge, however, | so rather than building a different habit around it I | recharge it overnight. | jupp0r wrote: | I tried for years, didn't work for me (Apple Watch 2). I | mow have a Garmin Fenix 7 which lasts 18 days without | recharge, buy has much more limited features (which is fine | for me). | Tagbert wrote: | You probably want to checkout Sleep++ or Autosleep for sleep | tracking. The third-party apps go beyond the basic, built-in | feature. | mmh0000 wrote: | As the other poster suggested, AutoSleep is amazing. | | I've found if my watch is too loose it won't record sleep well. | | It's also a known problem that Apple watches "backup" bugs | (which I've experienced twice now). If the problem still | continues, I'd recommend you fully unpair/reset your watch and | setup it up as a new watch (do not restore from backup). | m1gu3l wrote: | Sleep tracking always seemed like nonsense to me. You either | know you are getting restful sleep or know you are not, and if | you are not time is probably better spent taking a proactive | approach to establishing healthier lifestyle habits that will | lead to more restful sleep. How much is it worth really, to | wake up and know exactly how much time you were tossing around | not getting rest? I'd imagine you would feel it, statistics or | not. | bastawhiz wrote: | I had an Oura ring for a while and found it to be quite | accurate. Using it, I found myself adjusting my routine to | prioritize sleep. | | > You either know you are getting restful sleep or know you | are not...I'd imagine you would feel it, statistics or not. | | How I _feel_ doesn 't always correlate with good sleep. It's | just one variable. Knowing whether my sleep is good lets me | know that I should be looking at other problems. | | Or, in some cases, I am in bed for eight hours, but the | quality of my sleep by the numbers is bad. It's not that I'm | not getting enough sleep, it's that something is affecting my | sleep. Spicy food too late in the evening? Too much caffeine? | Not enough hydration throughout the day? It's hard to be | mindful of the things that make my sleep worse unless I | actually know when my sleep wasn't great. | derefr wrote: | > You either know you are getting restful sleep or know you | are not | | Not true. A lot of people with chronic sleep problems (e.g. | sleep apnea) feel tired during the day but have no idea why, | and don't wake up during the night or have any other direct | symptoms that would lead them to have a strong hypothesis for | "bad sleep" being the root cause. | adepressedthrow wrote: | It's very useful information when you are never rested and | constantly are trying to tweak variables to observe the | impacts to your sleep. I've long since stopped relying on | trackers, however, as nothing seemed to display any accuracy | whatsoever. I manually record my perception of sleep every | night. | ip26 wrote: | Datapoints for each night can help you isolate the causes of | poor sleep in your life. An objective measure, even a flawed | one, can help a lot in that process. | selsta wrote: | The Huawei Fit performed significantly worse compared to the | Apple Watch in this sleep test: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU | zx10rse wrote: | For anyone interested in heart rate accuracy and sleep tracking | accuracy I will recommend to check The Quantified Scientist | reviews _. | | From his latest reviews of the new apple watches, heart rate is | pretty much on par with chest strap and sleep tracking is also | far better than anything he tested. | | _ Apple Watch : Scientific Sleep Test - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU | Oras wrote: | I used Garmin Fenix 5 for sleep tracking and it has similar | issues. In fact, if I sleep during the day, it doesn't | recognise it as a sleep! I checked the garmin support forums | and some other users reported the same thing but garmin didn't | care to fix. | jerlam wrote: | Most sleep trackers have similar issues. For example, most | won't detect biphasic or polyphasic sleep correctly - it's | assumed that sleep happens in one unbroken period once per | day. If you get up in the middle of the night for a snack and | then go back to sleep, it's a coin flip whether it will be | detected as the "end" of sleep, or as a long "awake" period | in the middle. | | When I hit the snooze button on my phone and go back to sleep | for another hour, both my Garmin and Oura are inconsistent | whether that extra hour counts as sleep or not. | | Garmin's even weirder than most as it asks you for your | normal sleep hours when setting up the watch, which suggests | that it's not as smart as it should be. | | Garmin, to its credit, is slowly moving away from pure sleep | tracking and using other metrics like HRV, stress, and | yesterday's activity levels to calculate readiness for | today's workout. | tluyben2 wrote: | Since the watchOS 9 update, I am the most unhealthy person ever. | I saw on Reddit people have the same results but it really went | mental; I walked into the local clinic for a vo2max as the watch | keeps warning me; it (the watch) was 15 points off on the | negative side, and so was my blood oxygen; 10% off on the wrong | side. It's pretty scary for a software update... | odysseus wrote: | As a counterpoint, I saw something similar happen after | upgrading to watchOS 8 for 7 months, but then I somehow got my | vo2max to go back up by losing 5 pounds in 1 month and eating | healthier. | marban wrote: | I've clocked thousands of ~20km runs across all Watch generations | and have never seen a significant discrepancy when measured | against something like Google Maps. Urban area without | skyscrapers or the like. | zsolt224 wrote: | When I was running a half marathon with my Apple Watch 6 ( | without a phone) I was getting a 1km notifications within 5-15 | meters of the km signs. I was super impressed with the accuracy | cianmm wrote: | I'm part of a running group with a mix of Garmin and Apple | Watches and the Apple Watches always have pretty different | distant readings according to Strava, maybe 2%-5%. The Garmin | devices are generally much closer together. | | I wonder if the dual-band GPS on the Apple Watch Ultra is an | attempt to fix these problems? I would guess that it's software, | with the author, if for no other reason than I'd be surprised if | Garmin were all that much better at putting GPS in a tiny housing | than Apple. | mtts wrote: | > I'd be surprised if Garmin were all that much better at | putting GPS in a tiny housing than Apple. | | Given Garmin's long, long history as a manufacturer of (often | very small) GPS devices, I personally wouldn't be. | | (I also know for a fact they do mapping better. This summer I | was in the South of Italy and only Garmin accurately | distinguished between small public roads and long private | driveways while both Google and Apple royally messed this up.) | wslh wrote: | I used to use a FitBit Ionic (GPS enabled watch) and now use | a Garmin watch and fortunately it shows a more accurate and | better exercise results. In terms of running I saw a | difference of ~10-20% in the distance measured in some | terrains. I have not precisely compared everything. | | BTW the Fitbit Ionic GPS stopped working and now (if it | didn't expire) I will go for the health (battery) recall: | https://help.fitbit.com/en_US/ionic.htm and give them to | another person. This will be the second replacement since | this model stopped working after 1 yr of use and Fitbit sent | me a new one. | [deleted] | oezi wrote: | I wonder if author really got a GPS fix before starting to run. | I have clocked 100 runs on watch os 8 exactely along one | identical path and usually it is within 3-5 meters where I get | the 1km announcement. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > I wonder if the dual-band GPS on the Apple Watch Ultra is an | attempt to fix these problems? | | The author said their watch worked fine in the past. It also | works fine after a warm up period, which suggests it's not | getting a GPS lock at the start of the workout. | | It's a new issue of either a software regression, hardware | degradation, or RF interference near their start point. | pmuk wrote: | I have just started using an Apple Watch Ultra for running | and it does seem more accurate to me. My old Series 6 would | underreport distance, e.g. a 5k park run would be measured as | 4.9km. I also noticed with the Series 6 that if I did a | u-turn that my pace would drop considerably as the watch was | presumably missing some of the distance I had travelled | whereas the Ultra seems much better in this regard. | stefan_ wrote: | I thought this was a well known issue with the Apple watches? | They only start looking for a GPS fix once you start the | workout, which is the worst time since, well, you already | started the workout and are running, making getting that fix | that much harder. | | I think the Ultra watches now have an option to wait for a | fix before starting (which is what always happens on the | Garmin's). | 8ytecoder wrote: | Apple Watch uses the iPhone's gps when the phone is close | by. | ldrndll wrote: | This is no longer true for Series 8 and Ultra watches. | What I've not found out is whether this true of any Apple | Watch running watchOS 9 or just the latest models. | mpweiher wrote: | The point of the watch is not needing to bring you | phone... | kadoban wrote: | > I would guess that it's software, with the author, if for no | other reason than I'd be surprised if Garmin were all that much | better at putting GPS in a tiny housing than Apple. | | After "you're holding it wrong", anything seems possible. But | yeah that does seem more likely to be software, it's a | surprisingly difficult and fuzzily-defined problem. | AmericanChopper wrote: | My Apple Watch seems to get things wrong differently | depending on the shape of my route. I often train on a track | that I exactly know the lap distance for, and if I do a 10 | mile run the watch will usually tell me that I've run about | 9.5 miles. Which I kinda presume is due to the location | sampling rate cutting distance off the oval shaped track. But | every marathon I've run with the watch, it puts the full | distance about .5 to .25 miles before the finish line. | Clent wrote: | Weird hill to die on with Apple. That's a 10 year old issue | with an iPhone 4, said by a CEO that is long dead. | | They gave everyone free bumpers, because sweaty fingers would | close the antenna gaps. The statement was true, the gaps were | placed where they were expected to least affect the grip. | | What exactly would you expect in this case? | | The messaging worked. If your iPhone 4 was having signal | issue, consider readjusting your hand. | | Apple sent out free cases to compensate for the issue. | | This is not the nightmare scenario that non-iPhone users made | it out to be. Apple haters, like any group of haters are a | silly bunch. | smoldesu wrote: | The problem is that it exposes exactly the rhetoric that | people hate from Apple. They're genuinely incapable of | admitting when they're wrong, which is unfortunate since | they make so many opinionated decisions. It's about as | asinine as when Nintendo shipped Mario Party owners a free | pair of gloves instead of admitting that their minigames | encouraged skin irritation. It's pure posturing, and hardly | a solution. | | You're welcome to patronize whoever you want as a customer, | but from a business perspective this is the sort of | behavior that will be heavily scrutinized during antitrust | hearings. | Someone wrote: | > The problem is that it exposes exactly the rhetoric | that people hate from Apple. [...] It's about as asinine | as when Nintendo | | So, you admin Apple isn't the only one. I think you can | find examples from any company, especially the publicly | traded ones. | | Similarly, you'll never hear a CEO say their new product | is decent while the previous one was so-so. The new one | always is better, and the old one doesn't get mentioned, | but is implied to be good. | | > this is the sort of behavior that will be heavily | scrutinized during antitrust hearings. | | I doubt it. Even if Apple were exceptional in making this | kind of statements, what's anti-competitive in making | them, or in making bad products? | xani_ wrote: | Ah yes, the issue only Apple had somehow couldn't be | avoided, and yet fanboys like you defend | | > What exactly would you expect in this case? | | Not pretending it's the user's fault they built the phone | wrong. That's just extreme arrogance on their side. | kadoban wrote: | It was a bizarre-ass thing to go with from a serious | company. They'll be getting shit for that for decades. | Sorry, I guess? | | > This is not the nightmare scenario that non-iPhone users | made it out to be. Apple haters, like any group of haters | are a silly bunch. | | What nightmare scenario did I imply? I think you're being a | little overenthusiastic here. It was just a funny example | to show that Apple isn't above screwing up hardware | stuff/radios from time to time. | Maursault wrote: | > They'll be getting shit for that for decades. | | I saw the original video the user that reported it | created. That guy was a deceptive idiot. It was obvious | that he used trial and error to find a strange, finger- | spread death grip that duplicated the issue in the most | severe way. What is bazaar is someone that was obsessive | enough to develop a grip that produced the issue with the | most effect, and used it for personal benefit to gain | notoriety. | | Not being an antenna engineer, I had also noticed the | exact same issue on my Motorola v551 years before, but | not that it had anything to do with the grip, _merely | touching the device_ anywhere on it caused signal | degradation. Apparently, _this was a known issue that | existed for decades_ , long before cell phones became | ordinary, and the issue can be reproduced on _every cell | phone from every manufacturer_ , as well as ordinary | radios, and _anything that uses an antenna._ But I didn | 't remotely think to try to attack Motorola for personal | benefit. I just set the phone down when signal was weak | and used bluetooth for data or calls, eliminating the | issue, which wasn't Apple's fault and is apparently due | to the limitations of antennas. | | Singling out Apple was ignorant and deceptive, and | fundamentally, Steve Jobs was correct about what that guy | was doing, intentionally holding it in an unnatural way | in order to produce the effect. That entire affair was | nothing but a hatchet job that had nothing to do with | user satisfaction and everything to do with negative and | toxic personalities that irrationally believe they can | gain personal satisfaction by causing misery. The most | insidious types of mental illness are those where the | mentally ill individual themselves do not suffer, instead | they are compelled to make others suffer, which is how | narcissism is generationally sustained. | kadoban wrote: | > I saw the original video the user that reported it | created. That guy was a deceptive idiot. It was obvious | that he used trial and error to find a strange, finger- | spread death grip that duplicated the issue in the most | severe way. What is bazaar is someone that was obsessive | enough to develop a grip that produced the issue with the | most effect, and used it for personal benefit to gain | notoriety. | | That'd be compelling, except it started as wide-spread | intemittent reports that the signal strength was just | awful, but only for some people. This came up before | anyone had any explanation yet, so couldn't possibly have | been caused by a youtube video with a particular grip. | | Turns out you just have to bridge a gap in the exposed | antenna, there's no insane death grip required. It | happens way more for left-handed people. | | If it happens for every phone and every manufacturer | equally, why/how did Apple fix it with a case? | Maursault wrote: | Blocking or bridging the embedded antenna on any cell | phone will produce the same results. Apple is high | profile, so they got the business, so to speak. Materials | that do not conduct electricity like wood, drywall, | plastics, and glass will impede a cellular signal, but | not block it. | | But I really think the problem had to do with bridging | that space in the antenna with a conductive material, | such as the skin on fingers. The case merely provided a | few mm of room for the signal to be able to squeeze | through, plus it insulated conductive skin to prevent | electrical bridging and deattenuation of the antenna. | | Having owned an iPhone 4, I personally never experienced | the problem beyond _the same exact issue_ I experienced | with a Motorola v551, which is that when placed on a | table untouched, the signal strength increased, but then | touching or holding it, the signal strength decreased. | This can be reliably reproduced over and over again with | any cell phone in an area of weak signal. Something about | the conductivity of human skin interferes with | attenuation of embedded antennas, and this has been true | from the first cell phones with embedded antennas and is | true of all modern cell phones, that in an area of weak | cell signal, any skin contact will reduce signal strength | and show one or more fewer bars of signal strength until | skin contact is removed. | | Apple conceded to a flaw in the design and settled a | class action lawsuit, but apparently a few are still | needy enough to require Apple be punished forever. The | complainers had nothing to compare it to, so they were | all, all of them, merely mistaken, the flaw exists in all | cell phones with embedded antenna. Instead of proving | them all wrong, which would have been academic, Apple | laid down. What more would you like them to do? | kadoban wrote: | > Apple conceded to a flaw in the design and settled a | class action lawsuit, but apparently a few are still | needy enough to require Apple be punished forever. | | So, in summary: they fucked up and had a really stupid | response, right? I'm failing to see what part of that | isn't fair. | | > What more would you like them to do? | | Nothing. It's just funny. They should probably avoid | being ridiculous if they don't want memes about them to | exist? | Maursault wrote: | > So, in summary: they fucked up and had a really stupid | response, right? | | Straw man fallacy. Not everything is so simple. Even | though all cell embedded antenna suffer from the same or | similar flaw of deattenuating signal when held as opposed | to being placed on a grounded surface in conditions of | poor cell signal, perhaps the tactic applied was to avoid | consumer resentment. Perhaps the legal costs of proving | innocence and the common flaw among all similar devices | was vastly more than paying the settlement. In fact, I am | sure that was the case. Apple took the more equitable | high road. | | >> What more would you like them to do? | | > Nothing. It's just funny. They should probably avoid | being ridiculous if they don't want memes about them to | exist? | | This is merely schadenfreude. Do not believe that it is | so that you will find happiness in the misery of others. | To do so denies that Karma is never broken, or if you | prefer, denies the validity of Newton's 3rd Law of | Motion. | | _Self-esteem has a negative relationship with the | frequency and intensity of schadenfreude experienced by | an individual; individuals with less self-esteem tend to | experience schadenfreude more frequently and intensely._ | [1] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude | sjkelly wrote: | Dual band GPS on my Garmin is certainly amazing. It is mind | blowing seeing accuracy down to which side of the street I was | on during a run. | minton wrote: | > For me an average pace of 3:52 is great, while 4:12 is very | bad. | | Um, that's very fast. At my pace (8:45 or 5:26 in km), I barely | notice the discrepancies on my Apple Watch 7. | kelp wrote: | I think the op is talking in kilometers and you're talking | miles. | ntonozzi wrote: | A 40 minute 10k is very fast, especially for a training run | that is done many times a week. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > After about a kilometer I have to cross a busy street, I need | to pause there regularly. Pausing always fixes erratic mode. | | Given that the "erratic mode" only impacts the beginning of the | run and disappears suddenly at known locations, this sounds like | an issue of delayed GPS lock. | | And given that the problem didn't exist in the past, it could be | a software issue due to upgrades. Or it could be a hardware issue | that developed over time, such as something impacting GPS receive | sensitivity. Or it could even be a new source of RF interference | in the GPS range near the author's start point, which impacts GPS | lock until they get far enough away from it. | | Interesting issue, but note that this issue appears to be | specific to this one specific person, not a general issue with | all Apple Watches as some in this thread are speculating. I | certainly have not noticed this behavior on my Watch even with | the latest updates. | matsemann wrote: | It's a common issue with how the Apple Watch forces you to | start the activity before it attempts acquiring gps lock. For | many that may work fine, but also for many that gives erratic | behavior in the start where they live. All other brands behave | the opposite. | | Based on this article they've fixed it for Ultra, at least | https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep... | | > Assuming you're ready to go, then you've got two choices with | Apple Watch Ultra. You could go the 'normal' route for all | Apple Watches up till now, and wait for the 3-second countdown. | Once that countdown completes, it's at that point that the | watch goes off and gets GPS signal and HR acquisition - not | before. However, the Ultra edition includes a new 'Precision | Start' feature, that lets you first open the workout up, then | see the signal status before you begin | icehawk wrote: | Sadly, the guy didn't publish the tools they used to produce | this. I would have been interested in seeing if I see a similar | erratic mode in my own data. | qwertox wrote: | Couldn't the watch request the list of satellites locked to the | phone and pretend to be locked to them as well, instead of | building the list by itself? | shp0ngle wrote: | The issue seems definitely related to GPS. | cogogo wrote: | I have never seen and cannot find the pace graph the author shows | as a screenshot from the fitness app. Would love that data. Just | spent 10 min googling and gave up. Reminds me of this thread from | yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32965288 | nmlt wrote: | In iOS 16 it's tap on the workout, then anywhere under Workout | details and scroll a bit. That is really no discoverability | issue, because there is even a show more button next to it, | that has the same function. | | But maybe it changed on iOS 16? | cogogo wrote: | Really weird. The only things I can tap into are the splits | and the route map. I can scroll the heart rate over to | recovery as well. I'm on ios 15. I wonder if it's the workout | type? Outdoor Run, Open Goal is what I've used for years now. | cogogo wrote: | I also don't include current pace on the watch face but I | always assumed it collects that data regardless. I'll start | experimenting because i had no idea this feature existed. | Maursault wrote: | I question the validity of the application. Apple seems to be | promoting physical health while simultaneously leveraging mental | illness to increase revenue. | | I grant that this is an actual business space, accessorizing and | promoting fitness, but these computerized accessories | fundamentally distract from the individual's primary goal of | getting in shape, leading to reliance on computerized devices | that are unnecessary to meeting fitness goals. Isn't there such a | thing as tuning one's ability to know one's own limitations | naturally? Run. Run hard. Run fast. Run until you can't run any | longer, and discover and accept physical limitations and push | against them if your drive is unsatisfied. | | Is this kind of data gathering really necessary to fitness? I'm | nearly certain these applications actually fall under the | category of play and entertainment. Maybe watch Rocky (1976) | and/or Chariots of Fire (1981) for inspiration. Note the lack of | any cybernetics. I'll take a mechanical stopwatch over an Apple | Watch running fitness application any day of the week and twice | on Sundays. Feel free to use an Apple Watch if it makes you | happy, but to accept nothing less than perfection is really quite | something else, so maybe there is a different kind of fitness | that is immediately more pressing than physical fitness. | dtf wrote: | Bannister's use of a mechanical stopwatch on a 440 yard track | is as much a case of cybernetics as a modern GPS or a heart | rate monitor. He obviously didn't just turn up on the day and | run 3:59.4. He trained for months with a stopwatch: | | _" Several days [per week] consisted of 10x440 in 66 seconds | with a 2 minute rest. During the following months they were | gradually speeded up ... to 59 seconds per 440."_ [1]. | | So aside from accuracy, what's the difference between training | with the feedback of timed laps on a track (be it Bannister's | mechanical stopwatch and cinder track measured in imperial | units), or a modern athlete running kilometer repeats on the | road via their fancy Apple or Garmin smartwatch? | | If one is that much of a running purist, why measure time or | distance at all? | | [1] https://twitter.com/jmarpdx/status/1465431668206944256 | Maursault wrote: | > So aside from accuracy, what's the difference between | training with the feedback of timed laps on a track (be it | Bannister's mechanical stopwatch and cinder track measured in | imperial units), or a modern athlete running kilometer | repeats on the road via their fancy Apple or Garmin | smartwatch? | | One gives useful feedback at a scale that is practical and | sufficient and does so at a small cost, the other tracks | information at scales beyond what is practical, the true | purpose of which is obsession with self or vanity, at a | comparatively exponential cost. | | Consider that car odometers work on the scale of tenths of | miles or kilometers. Exactly what purpose would it serve if | they instead displayed distances in micrometers? They would | be far more accurate, but that more accurate information is | not any more useful than measurements in tenths of miles. | | I already stipulated to go ahead and get your Apple Watch, or | Garmin or what have you, if it makes you happy. But | accumulating data on such absurd scales is not going to | improve performance beyond that of using a conventional | timer. The problem, as I see it, occurs when nothing less | than perfection is acceptable, the entitlement that is | exhibited simply because one was foolish enough to pay so | much for an unnecessary sports accessory. | dtf wrote: | First, there's really nothing small cost about Bannister's | stopwatch: | | https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-omega-bannister- | stopwa... | | Sure, I can pick up the awesome Casio F-91W today for PS10 | and it would do much the same job. But for the modern day | money equivalent of that gorgeous Omega piece I'm going to | be able to afford a high-end GPS watch. There's nothing | comparatively exponential about it. | | Accuracy requirements will depend on training context - if | you're running 60 second laps on a track and trying to | shave 1 second of your mile PR like Bannister was, then | you'll be wanting a certified track and decisecond accurate | clock. If you're training for the marathon and running 5K | repeats on the road, a few 10s of meters or seconds here or | there doesn't really matter. | | I can understand why some people don't want to run with a | smartwatch, measure themselves, broadcast their progress to | all on social media, judge themselves against others, and | so on. (I also don't generally judge those who do, unless | they're truly awful!) | | I can also understand why some people would rather not run | with any measure of time or distance at all. They feel it | gets in the way, they'd rather just run free, they'd rather | just run for fun, or they'd rather just race others for | places in the spirit of pure competition. | | I just can't get my head around the concept (and this isn't | the first time I've heard it), that somehow old-school | watches are acceptable but modern watches are bad. It | smacks of neo-luddism (or sometimes hipsterism). | sirsinsalot wrote: | I don't often say this, but you're wrong and what you're saying | shows a massive misunderstanding of fitness, metabolic process | and goes in the face of everything we know about our physical | makeup: | | "Run. Run hard. Run fast. Run until you can't run any longer, | and discover and accept physical limitations and push against | them if your drive is unsatisfied" | | This is just daft. Eliud Kipchoge, and most other runners very | rarely hit their absolute physical limit (during training) and | usually only hit it during a race if they did something wrong. | | Your VO2 limit is not something you want to slam up against | very often and doesn't represent anything other than how fast | you can process oxygen directly (at the max point). Much more | important to fitness is glycogen use efficiency and cell | respiration. You don't improve these elements of your fitness | (and they're the ones that count) by "Running fast until you | can't run any longer". The opposite infact, you train them by | doing long-duration low HR/VO2 activities. | | In short, you don't know what you're banging on about, so are | hardly in a position to be critical of how other people use | digital devices when you don't know the first thing about human | physiology in exercise. | Maursault wrote: | You're missing the forest for the tree. I wasn't giving | instruction for exercise, I was making the miniscule point | that all running requires _is to run_. You have entirely | ignored the major point I was making to construct your straw | man. All I was arguing was merely that exercise, getting fit | and keeping fit, _does not require_ wearable computing | accessories to gather data second by second, the true purpose | for which is stroking vanity. At these scales, the | measurement is too refined to be useful. The odometer on your | car does not display millimeters for a reason. Human memory | and geographical awareness does the same work _for free_ and | apparently is more accurate. | 988747 wrote: | Accessories aren't strictly required, but they can be a | massive help. Being aware of your heart rate and your pace | helps you get the best results from your exercise. Also, | accurately measuring your times, and seeing even few | seconds improvement since the last week's training helps | keep you motivated. There are many reasons to use such | accessories, other than "stroking vanity". | Maursault wrote: | > Being aware of your heart rate and your pace helps you | get the best results from your exercise. | | This is widely believed but scientifically unproven. The | understanding of the significance of awareness of heart | rate to workout performance is ongoing. Basically, | tracking heart rate shows what is already known, that | improving cardiac performance will improve resting heart | rate. The stated purpose of doing so is to increase self- | esteem. For the same reasons there are large mirrors | installed at most gyms. | | > Also, accurately measuring your times, and seeing even | few seconds improvement since the last week's training | helps keep you motivated. | | A $5 stopwatch is accurate to hundredths of seconds. | | > There are many reasons to use such accessories, other | than "stroking vanity". | | This is an appeal to common sense, aka the fallacy of | axiomatic thinking, or unsupported assertion. Claims | which can be asserted without evidence may also be | dismissed without evidence. | mrosett wrote: | What you're describing is a fantastic way to injure yourself. | Maursault wrote: | Comment is vague, but apparently what you are suggesting is | that physical fitness isn't safe without using a computer. | Our bodies evolved to run, and it is, actually, possible to | recognize and react to what the body reports to the brain | through sensation without any intermediary electronic device | gathering and reporting false data. Many are capable of | sensing injury or illness before overt symptoms appear, and | react accordingly, reducing or eliminating negative impact. | The more computerized devices are relied on for ordinary | activity, the more they become a crutch, and the more | difficult it becomes to operate without them. Obsession is | unmistakably unhealthy. | sirsinsalot wrote: | No, what they're saying is that exercise as you've | described, will lead to injury and goes against ALL the | traning advice of seasoned long-distance runners. | | But hey, go ahead. | Maursault wrote: | Then they, as you, have entirely missed the point of my | comment, _which had nothing whatsoever to do with any | exercise plan._ I was instead cautioning against | unnecessary reliance on affectation. | thebigspacefuck wrote: | It's not necessary, but being able to measure improvement is | highly motivating. Part of the fun of the sport for some of us | is being able to experiment with variables like nutrition, | heart rate zones, pacing , etc and measuring the impact on | performance. I've had a Garmin watch since 2009 and I have | always enjoyed being able to know I hit a new pace or distance. | It also makes it easy to run on a new trail for X miles and | turn around instead of having to map out a run on an existing | course and time the laps with a watch. Probably the greatest | addition to the sport since music imo. | Maursault wrote: | Whatever it takes to get you moving, but it is a little self- | deceptive to ignore or replace natural incentives for fitness | with artificial incentives of mere shadows on a cave wall. | Perhaps the real world is a little boring, but it has the | distinct advantage of being authentic. | macintux wrote: | I make absolutely zero apologies for the fact that the | rings on my Watch helped me lose 40 pounds last year. Sure, | I'm gaming myself, but good grief. | Maursault wrote: | Good for you and congratulations, but it was most likely | due to your own hard work along with dietary adjustment, | so you need not diminish your accomplishment by giving a | device as much credit as you give yourself. The Watch | really didn't do anything but keep time; you yourself did | everything and filled the time. | sirsinsalot wrote: | That guy who is really organised, isn't degrading his | organisational skills by using a calendar. | | Get a grip jeez. | Maursault wrote: | Comparing egotistical obsession to neatness and an Apple | Watch gathering absurdly detailed metrics in a running | application to a calendar is both false analogy and | oversimplification. The last part is ad hominem attack. | jalla wrote: | The watch needs updated GPS ephemeris data to accurately | calculate the position, received by an aGPS (Assisted GPS) server | (over IP) or by satellite. This takes at least 30 seconds by | satellite. | | Solution: Tether with IPhone before leaving until fix is | achieved, otherwise keep watch outside or near a window for 10-15 | minutes before running so that it can update its almanac from | overhead satellites and get a fix. | | There is no software solution. Buy a newer watch with cellular | connectivity and aGPS-support. | xani_ wrote: | Why it would need such common updates tho ? | | And why it couldn't load that data for say month ahead ? | ciex wrote: | Do you have an explanation for this being a new issue? | jalla wrote: | OP could have changed exercise habits, leading to more | frequently outdated GPS almanac data. | | Otherwise, newer OS versions could have degraded the fix | algorithm for older Watch-models. | | If newer hardware comes with cellular connectivity, newer OS | version could assume that by default and not prioritise (or | test) backward compatibility with older Watch-models. | xt00 wrote: | I wonder if at some point Apple reduced the sampling frequency of | the gps position to save power? Since this sounds pretty | important to the guy, I would buy a Garmin watch or similar to | compare to and run with both. I also suspect one of the | challenges here is that taking a lot of corners like in an urban | environment might result in rounded paths -- like if you ran | around a rectangular city block it ends up being logged as a | square with rounded corners. Whereas if the sampling frequency | was higher it would capture those corners much better, or if the | authors runs were more of a straight line. | loufe wrote: | It would explain his shortened distances, as low sampling would | round out corners, "shortening" the total distance. | rvba wrote: | Apple showing more than people actually run to make them feel | better? | | Seems like a lawsuit incoming due to "ruined health" by | overstating measured activities. | s3p wrote: | Does anyone know how OP exported this data? I want to see if my | watch has the same data quality issues | nmlt wrote: | Open health app and press on your profile picture in the upper | right corner (scroll to the top). Then scroll down and press | export all health data. Also OP mentioned the exported XML has | some errors in iOS 16, so beware of that. | lifeinthevoid wrote: | aside: My girlfriend tracks her runs with Strava through her | Iphone 12 mini. Upon zooming in, the "straight" parts never look | straight and look a lot more like a triangle wave. She | consistently tracks around 10% larger distance than my Garmin | watch. I've checked on the map, and the Garmin distance is the | accurate one of the 2. | jerlam wrote: | This would also depend on how she's carrying the iPhone. While | putting the GPS receiver on your wrist isn't optimal, putting | the iPhone in a pocket or somewhere closer and lower on the | body where it sees even less of the sky is worse. | brippalcharrid wrote: | My experience of using Strava on a mid-range Android phone | several years ago was that readings were splayed horizontally | across (road-side) paths by five or ten meters in many cases. | Now that I have a Garmin watch, I am gradually closing in on | my former Estimated Best Efforts with readings that appear to | be much more accurate in terms of how they correspond to the | paths that I've been running on. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | What % inaccurate is the Apple Watch and what % inaccurate is | the Garmin compared to what the map says? | mwidell wrote: | Only way to get accurate real time data when running is to use a | good foot pod like Stryd. GPS just isn't as accurate as people | think, no matter if you use Apple Watch or Garmin. | rajman187 wrote: | That's right, GPS error can be on the order of 10s of meters, | worse in urban environments. Google (and presumably Apple) use | WPS to enhance location data, meaning a triangulation | (simplification here) or location based on known WiFi router | and bluetooth beacon positions. They also have a team dedicated | to more complex geometric calculations of how the GPS signal | may be reflected given the known positions of buildings. | | But if you have a clear line of sight that's a different issue. | I went cycling on a path next to a river and the GPS trace was | buttery smooth. | mtts wrote: | This used to be true, but in 2000 (!)the US government | enabled the full range of GPS features for civilian use, | vastly improving the accuracy of GPS receivers. | | GPS.gov says single band receivers should be able to get less | than 2m accuracy. Dual band units, like the latest Garmin | Forerunner watches, can do much, much better. | sroussey wrote: | Wi-Fi is stilled used for cold start -- gives you a radius | before GPS lock. As far as I know at least | scott_w wrote: | This sounds like my experience of the Apple Watch Series 3-- | absolute garbage for exercise. I think the problem is the GPS | hasn't locked on when you start the run but there's no way to | know this in the UI. The only solution I've found is to "start" | early, immediately pause, then wait a bit for GPS to locate you | before unpausing. | | Most sports watches solve this problem by explicitly telling you | your GPS status when you are getting ready to track your | exercise. | sanderjd wrote: | What's the best gps exercise watch you've used? | notesinthefield wrote: | I have similar thoughts as OP (though I now use a Series 7 | and have few to no issues with GPS now) - the Garmin Fenix 5 | or Coros Pace 2 are pretty great. Ive done trail ultra's, | road halfs, mixed bike races, city to city tours and | everything in between with both. Coros doesnt integrate with | as many things as I would like. | robcorn wrote: | Great writeup. I've noticed the same thing by recording | simultaneously with the watch workout app and strava on my | iphone. The watch always says pace is slower. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-25 23:00 UTC)