[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)