All the sensors + apparently a very lightweight OS + small form factor = I like it.
The killing feature is the integrated GPS. As mentionned on the website, you can go without your phone. That alone could make it a buy if it supports wireless charging (I don't want to bother with wires in 2014)
Also, it is multiplatform, which is a big plus. I do not want an android watch or an iwatch, but something that will work regardless of the cellphone I chose.
I wonder if there's a devkit to read the data. If some HN is from Microsoft, I'd love some links to the devkit page (simple stuff, like retreiving GPS log, heartrate log, etc)
Hey, I'm an Open Source Engineer with MSFT (and the msft dude for YC) - there isn't anything out yet, but we have always released SDKs for pretty much anything we build.
Looks like it supports data relay to MapMyFitness Suite of Apps, which I would think could then relay it to HealthKit if there is not already a direct export from MS's iOS App.
Companies like AWS, Google, and MSFT have representatives that consult with YC founders to help them with engineering goals. I suppose to up-sell them on scaling with their platform.
> Person scaling with Azure here. It's pretty awesome and easy.
And it's pretty expensive.
Now, if your competitor is on an open stack and on real computers they will eventually run rings around you because they get more control and lower costs. The initial boost you're experiencing will turn into a straightjacket with a hefty pricetag over the longer term.
I think there is a case for an open stack, but I think unless you pick a real dog of a platform good people can make it work well. It comes down to a "can I get good people for stack X?" as much as "Does stack X work or cost too much?"
Just like in the case of Trello if you already have the experience you can probably save money if you use what you already know how to use. In almost all other cases open source stacks are cheaper.
Stackoverflow and Trello are always held up as the shining examples of how the Microsoft stack is able to hold its own. That's great, I even know people that insist on running their web servers on Apple hardware. Whatever floats your boat. But if you're running a competitive business, if you're going to be using a lot of CPUs and if you will eventually (or already) be faced with lean and mean competition then you are probably better off on an open stack.
Try to imagine Google, Amazon, Ebay, DropBox or AirBnB on the Microsoft platform. And note that two of the above are re-selling their linux based platforms to other users at a profit.
Btw stackoverflow uses plenty of CentOS, I guess licensing from RedHat was too expensive?
Big names mean nothing. You are not Google, they have very different requirements to you and their scale is much larger than your startup will ever be.
Microsoft aren't stupid - the costs they charge for Azure are largely competitive, and the benefits it provides are tangible.
Picking what technology will run your business is something that really needs to be done on a case by case basis, based on your knowledge and your business. Certainly I don't think it's desirable to make a permanent choice when you are still a startup.
Of course you'd use CentOS, unless you had need of the specific features that licensing it gave you.
> Picking what technology will run your business is something that really needs to be done on a case by case basis, based on your knowledge and your business.
We're definitely in agreement there. The main criterium is: use what you know how to use. So if you're comfortable using the MS stack then go for it, otherwise, probably better to avoid it.
> The main criterium is: use what you know how to use. So if you're comfortable using the MS stack then go for it, otherwise, probably better to avoid it.
So, would it be fair to say "So if you're comfortable using the Linux stack then go for it, otherwise, probably better to avoid it", or was that your parting jab against MS?
Yes, it is possible (and common) to run Linux or one of the BSDs for free. But at large scale, a lot of people opt to pay one of Red Hat/Oracle/SuSE/Canonical/etc. for their free Linux ANYWAY. Buying Windows also means buying support. How much of this cost advantage goes away if you're paying Red Hat et al support fees?
The fact that you guys are even talking about "buying windows" and "buying support" when talking about buying into the Windows Azure stack shows that you most likely haven't used it much, if at all, and aren't quite sure what you're talking about.
I haven't used it much; I have used AWS a bit more, and there I recall you had to pay more if you wanted an instance on Windows or on RHEL proper rather than using CentOS or Debian. Those costs probably do add up to a lot more as you scale up (although it's silly to look at that in isolation). But he's comparing using Azure to self-hosting on your own hardware, I think.
Yeah, you don't pay extra for Windows itself on Azure, costs the same for a 2012 R2 DataCenter VM as it does for a small 2008 worker role, as it does for a Linux VM. You would have to pay for software like Oracle or SQL Server though, obviously.
Also, we don't have to worry about managing VMs at all so we don't generally think about those sorts of things except for a couple of very niche uses like our chat bot or QA testing VMs.
This will factor in, but you can't make such sweeping statements - many parts of different stacks have their own intrinsic advantages.
Certainly, a silicon valley company of 10-20 employees will likely have costs of over $1000 a day - any software or hardware licensing will pale in comparison to this until the product is big.
I read it as saying that the benefits of not basing your business on a proprietary platform are lower than the benefits of going with a stack that you already have some expertise at. You may read differently.
Trello is based on Node and Mongo on Ubuntu; there's no Windows in it. Kiln and FogBugz are based on C# and SQL Server on Windows and Java and Python Debian. Stack is based on C# and SQL Server on Windows and Redis and infrastructure on CentOS. This isn't about saving money or not; its about using the right tool for the right job, factoring in cost of tooling and cost of development. I think you're oversimplifying in your analysis
Even Apple was running iCloud off AWS and Azure before they ramped up their own data centers. I don't think you can get any more competitive than Apple in the tech world.
eBay's frontend is mostly Java on Windows. Many thousands of servers running Windows. Their search grid was on Solaris but has migrated to Linux in the last year or so (2013?).
StackOverflow isn't running on Azure: if anything, that article should make it obvious how much they're saving by not using cloud, with OS being unrelated.
You do realize that Azure has about as much to do with windows as AWS, right? I use Azure to run a completely open source stack based on node, postgres, and python. I also have a long term windows server in AWS. Azure is every bit as open as any other "cloud" based stack
Because I have fairly extensive insight into a very large number of companies and can see their license bills as well as their cloud bills if those are applicable. Compared to that doing a startup on an open source stack using dedicated machines eventually turns out much cheaper. It's like getting hooked on drugs.
The most cost effective way as far as I can see is to hire a sysadmin on a freelance basis until you need one full time, own your own hardware (or lease it by the month until you can afford your own hardware) and pay flat rate for bandwidth. Anything else will sooner or later come to haunt you and then you will need to migrate to some new platform. At that point in time you will learn the true value of the words 'lock-in'.
The biggest problem for a startup is getting out there, and getting transaction and revenue. Not penny pinching over what servers your going to use. You want to use as much pre-made stuff to give you the biggest head start as possible.
When you take off, you can raise money to pay people to move you over anyway.
Choosing your tech stack with care is one of the more important choices. You're locking yourself in for years to come and mistakes can be very costly to fix.
Getting transactions and revenues are obviously also important, the whole trouble with doing a start-up is that you have to do so many things right.
If YC has shown us anything, it's that companies can successfully pivot at nearly any point of their lifecycle and still be successful. It's also shown us that they can fail at pivoting and have it be nothing to do with the stack they chose.
If you're worried about lock-in then design for portability. Portability means using open standards rather than open source. The neat thing is that with a well-designed site or service you can switch vendors easily. Cloud is a commodity - who cares who the provider is?
Now, if your competitor is on an open stack and on real computers they will eventually run rings around you because they get more control and lower costs.
Obviously it depends on what you're actually doing, but for a straightforward SaaS app (a few servers, a db server, a queue and a load balancer in a few datacentres around the world) one good sysadmin/devops guy costs far more than a set of AWS instances that essentially scale themselves.
Having dedicated people necessary for that 'control' is beyond the budget of the majority of startups.
Exactly plus at scale AWS doesn't do everything either, a sysadmin or at least consultants are still needed to navigate the gotchas and help with how to better provision the stack. AWS instances don't just scale themselves.
There is one specific case when I recommend AWS instead of dedicated servers and it's for customers who have widely varying traffic with predictable peaks. In that case having the flexibility afforded by cloud providers to increase the number of instances temporarily to deal with the peak makes sense.
The only good use-case I know for AWS and it's ilk is if you need a 10,000 node cluster for a few hours to do some heavily compute intensive work which does not require a very large amount of data to be imported and exported afterwards. This is a pretty limited number of use cases but for those situations it absolutely rocks. Anything else I'd run the numbers very carefully.
I don't think that is correct. There are thousands of startups on AWS (an IAAS cloud) that don't run 10K node clusters. While they cost may be high, it is pay as you go. I have a rack full of computers at home and I still have some things served by AWS. The PAAS model (e.g. Heroku, Bluemix) is becoming popular today but those are often hosted in IAAS clouds.
>Now, if your competitor is on an open stack and on real computers they will eventually run rings around you because they get more control and lower costs. The initial boost you're experiencing will turn into a straightjacket with a hefty pricetag over the longer term.
From another post by you:
>Because I have fairly extensive insight into a very large number of companies and can see their license bills as well as their cloud bills if those are applicable.
Since you claim to have a lot of info on this can you give any, even one, real world example of you just said happening?
Otherwise I am going to call BS on it.
Perhaps you're starting something that is going to take down NewEgg.com ? You're clearly missing the forest for trees here. At work we run a large mix of Windows Servers, SQL servers, Linux, Drupal, MySQL, Moodle etc. running fairly traffic heavy and top ranking public health sites and all said our licensing and hosting costs are about 2% of our annual budget.
Are you actually asking me to disclose customer information and taking my (obvious) refusal to do so as calling BS? Interesting. Look, I have no skin in the game, if you're happy forking over tons of money for stuff you don't strictly speaking need then more power to you.
All I note is that MS thinks YC is important enough to designate a person to sway them to the MS stack and SAAS products, this is a tried and true strategy (get them while they're young) and it will likely cost you dearly in the long term if you aren't able to oversee the long term disadvantages of such a move. If you have a long history of using microsoft products and switching to open operating systems and stack components would mean lost time due to re-training then by all means stick to what you know.
It's funny how in one subthread here people are arguing that hosting and bandwidth are the major expenses for any start-up and now it's hosting and costs are 2%. In the end every situation is different and every situation has a different cost analysis for the workload envisioned. Seeing the guts of many companies has shown me that if you're doing something that requires large numbers of expensive licenses or metered bandwidth / cycles / storage then you're probably going to regret that choice at a later point.
Except you're not forced into using Microsoft SOFTWARE when using Azure. Like many others have pointed out, you are free to use Linux variants as well.
It means: try to get companies that otherwise would not go for Microsoft products to give it a try through free product samples, and talking down companies not microsoft.
I really wished that companies like Microsoft, Google and so on would not have a 'HN guy' (and would not have non-disclosed HN guys either, Felix is at least above board on that), it can make it a lot harder to figure out what is a genuine user experience and what is product placement.
Unless the Microsoft stack is something you already have experience with you're much better off using non-proprietary stack software. Anything coming out of Microsoft will sooner or later cause a bunch of licenses to be sold somewhere down the line or monthly invoices for metered usage to appear so make sure you know exactly what you're getting into. $50K in freebies will have to translate into $50K more profit somewhere along the line.
Great job on completely derailing the topic here with unrelated flamebait by confusing HN with YC.
Hint: HN is a message board, YC is a startup accelerator. They are NOT the same. And yes, there are plenty of startups that do quite okay on the MS stack and for many it may not be a good fit. Your post adds nothing new to the discussion.
>It means: try to get companies that otherwise would not go for Microsoft products to give it a try through free product samples, and talking down companies not microsoft.
But luckily we have you to talk down Microsoft.
>$50K in freebies will have to translate into $50K more profit somewhere along the line.
And paying $50K for hosting when you have no money can just shutdown a startup instead of increasing its costs by 1% down the line. Hosting is the biggest cost for a startup most of the time, it can't be "free" like founders time.
Every third or so link you posted has 'microsoft' in it.
As for me confusing HN and YC, I'm quite aware of the difference between the two and as far as I know I didn't confuse them in the least. Lots of start-up people frequent HN, YC related founder or not they are better off using what is most cost effective for them. This will rarely translate to 'microsoft'.
Hosting is almost never the biggest cost for a start-up, but it can be the biggest cost for a larger company, which is what most start-up aim to become.
$50K for hosting through 'Azure' or some other cloud company typically translates into a few grand from a dedicated hosting provider, by far the most cost effective hosting solution available to start-ups and successful companies alike.
>As for me confusing HN and YC, I'm quite aware of the difference between the two and as far as I know I didn't confuse them in the least. Lots of start-up people frequent HN
Felix said he's the MS person for YC. You misrepresented it as HN a couple of times. Please read your post again.
>Every third or so link you posted has 'microsoft' in it.
But we do have you to counterbalance me.
>Hosting is almost never the biggest cost for a start-up, but it can be the biggest cost for a larger company, which is what most start-up aim to become.
What? What is the biggest cost for a startup in the initial phase when founders are not taking salaries? Rent for sleeping? Ramen noodles?
Which large company has the biggest cost as hosting? Even 50k/yr is like 1/3rd of a Silicon level salary. It's like you got it completely backwards.
Anyway, all this unrelated to the topic at hand and does not belong here. There were numerous HN threads with this discussion and please write your thoughts as a blog post and you'll have my upvote.
Again, got any thoughts on the Microsoft Band? If not, /thread, I am out.
I assume that these days MS is mostly pitching Azure which pretty happily runs Linux VMs. It feels like any YC team (the guy said he's the "the msft dude for YC" not HN) worth their salt will need to learn how to navigate evaluating vendor promises sooner rather than later anyway (not to mention the mentoring/advice they should be getting from YC if they're not so experienced, or the fact that $50K is what, only 25% of a fully-loaded FTE cost anyway?).
The "much" better off is an assumption. If I remember correctly, Fogcreek primarily uses a Microsoft stack; so did lot of people who used to hang around in the Business of Software forum run by Joel Spolsky. Most of them had bootstrapped companies rather than use a lot of VC money to buy expensive tools. Most of them did quite well making money with their business. Using open tools is not a criterion for both technical or business success.
Joel Spolsky - former Microsoft Product Manager? Yes, it's not particularly surprising that they would use Microsoft Products - their incredible familiarity with the product would offset any downstream licensing costs.
Small business usually get everything for free (or nobody bothers to check in on their licensing status, at the very least, they run on a massive discount using "developer editions").
Very large businesses have so much bureaucratic overhead, that unless their core business is Software/service (I.E. Amazon, Facebook, Google, Dropbox, etc...) - the cost of software licenses is minor, and anything they can save by going with something "Standard and Supported" is worth the offset.
But, anybody interested in trying to run their small-medium business on something like Oracle Enterprise edition on their 16 Core Server will quickly start taking a second look at Postgress/MariaDB once they see what the annual licensing costs for Oracle are. Partitioning and Optimizer are only worth so much...
Fogcreek is run by ex microsoft people that had extensive experience with the stack before starting fogcreek, it made excellent sense for them to use what they already knew how to use.
I'm not talking about their consumer arm at all. No idea where the Zune came from, I was talking about their $50K credits for using their cloud platform.
Is there any way to make iOS integration work better? I know that Apple Jails things and limits the BT. I am just hoping that a tweak will allow iPhones to use Siri with the cortana integration, and allow canned responses for SMS.
Also, my notifications have been spotty, but I may reset and start over, because my friend with a band is not having that issue.
It's a shame there's no way to communicate feedback to the Band team that I can see on the website! I picked one up and like it so far, but it'll be a real disappointment if I can't ever use the mic for Google Now. Not expecting Cortana-level integration, it would just be silly for the mic to go to waste.
Ugly? For me it's one of the best designs for a smartwatch (I think Samsung or Sony also have this "band" design), not the big clunky watches that were released this year.
And they embraced their difference. It's not a luxury e-watch. Very little to no skeumorphism. And the vertical layout fitting the tiles list... very very nice derivation of the Metro language. Felt right at first sight.
I actually see this as a great fitness tracker (that is why I might buy it) but I don't see it as a smart watch (and I'm not complaining about that).
In order to be a smart watch it would need to do more "smart" things such as showing notifications, interacting with third-party apps, etc. If you have a Windows Phone you can talk to cortana so it's the closest thing to a smart phone you can get on that OS, but still it's clearly not as powerful as what Android Wear and probably Apple Watch can do.
Neither does MS. I read an interview with one of the product leads on The Verge and he said it is not a smart watch. He envisions you continue wearing your watch on one are and this primarily as a fitness tracker and productivity device on the other.
The thing is that this seems to have all of the most useful features of nearly all current smartwatches. If it can deliver text, Hangouts, email, and calendar notifications to your wrist as claimed, then that alone accounts for the majority of smartwatch usage. The Cortana integration accounts for nearly the rest, though unfortunately that's only available with a Windows Phone. Here's to hoping that it will be possible to add Google Now support for Android phones.
> but still it's clearly not as powerful as what Android Wear and probably Apple Watch can do.
What do you mean? What is it that they do that this will not do? I think Microsoft should have just marketed it as a watch. To me it seems to have everything I will need in a smartwatch.
I think trying not to fall into the category of "smartwatch" is the point, marketing tactic if you will. The smartwatch is the new wave, and the companies you would expect are jumping on board. By not marketing as a smartwatch they set themselves apart, yet have some of the key functionality people are looking for
Based on this interview/article on the verge [0], it sounds like there are plans to open up to devs eventually (not surprised, considering microsoft's current trends), sounds like they are just taking this one step at a time.
Several Android and Windows phones support wireless charging or can be modified to do so. (E.g., the Nexus 6 supports it and with the Note line you can just swap out the back panel for a special one). Devices like the Moto 360 also support wireless charging.
I've been using wireless charging for nearly two years on my Lumia 920. And for the past year, my wife's Lumia Icon has been doing the same. I picked up a couple more charging plates when she switched to Windows Phone.
Now that I've used wireless charging, I'll never go back. Connecting wires to charge is so 2012. I want my Surface Pro to charge wirelessly. And my Tesla Model S (well, that is, if I had one).
One benefit of old-school wired charging is that I can still use the device in a normal orientation whilst it is charging, so long as the cable is long enough.
Do you find that wireless charging prevents that? I assume the fevice has to lie flat on the plate somewhere near a power outlet.
Seriously, I hate everyone who bought an Android phone instead of a Palm Pre in 2009-2010, because if they did, we would still have the incredible things they came up with. Not only did they have C++/Javascript/HTML as their programming stack and not only did they provide directions on their site on how to root their devices and boot custom kernels over USB, they had wireless charging built in and had a great wireless charging stand that I used on my HP Touchpad for years until it finally gave out. You can have the tablet standing at any angle you want, working on it (boot into Ubuntu with a wireless keyboard, why not? It's a Palm) while it's wirelessly charging.
But no, Google was cool and Palm was old hat, so now they're gone and we are using Java to make apps and charging by laying our phones flat and plugging our tablets into the wall.
I have a Qi charger for my Nexus 5 and I run into this issue sometimes, because eg. I come home and my phone is almost dead but I still want to use it. The solution is pretty easy though, I just unplug the micro USB from my charging pad and plug it directly into my phone if I want to do that. At least when I'm at home I just leave it on the charger most of the time so I don't have to worry about charge.
It does prevent that but it also prevents my device from ever being dead because whenever I'm at my desk I just put it on the charger. With the wired chargers in the past it was a paint to plug and unplug so my phone was always low but with the wireless stuff my device is naturally juicy all the time.
"True memory effect is specific to sintered-plate nickel-cadmium cells, and is exceedingly difficult to reproduce, especially in lower ampere-hour cells. In one particular test program designed to induce the effect, none was found after more than 700 precisely-controlled charge/discharge cycles"
Almost all Li(Ion|Poly|FePO) batteries currently don't have “memory effect” when you charge them repeatedly. The only problem happens when you drain the battery below minimum voltage, then it will lose its capacity.
LiIon batteries do suffer from wear from normal usage. The more change/discharge cycles, the lower the capacity. If it is exposed to heat, that damages it. I'm told that leaving it fully charged a lot is also bad for it, because that allegedly puts more stress on the battery than when it is at 90% full.
There is a lot to be desired from current battery technology.
I have a couple flat charging plates and on my desk, I use the angled plate [1]. That said, I don't actually use my phone all that much while it's on a charging plate.
But as others have pointed out, when you have wireless charging plates at your home and office, you'll routinely just drop your phone on a plate just as peers will drop theirs on a their desk. You'll find your phone is more often at full charge. I've only fully-drained the battery a handful of times (much use while away from any charging, wires included) and observed it in battery-saver mode another handful.
I would say a wireless-charging device with ample charging plates (say, 3 or 4) gives you a blissful ignorance of battery life. It's analogous to the bliss I had when I drove an electric car—contrary to conventional wisdom I found that electric cars create range bliss rather than range anxiety. Every time you leave your home for the day, the car is at full capacity. You never have to plan a visit to a refilling station. With a wirelessly-charged phone, I scarcely look at my phone's battery indicator; it's just not an issue.
And just to be as clear as possible, you can still connect a traditional micro USB cord to charge these phones if that's all you have handy.
The charger I have props the phone up at an angle. You can interact with it in a limited sense, but of course if you pick it up you'll take it out of range of the charger. So good for things like swiping to see how many messages you have and so forth, but not for making calls, playing games, etc. But if you do, you just set it back down on the charger when you're done -- no need to fool with a cord, or stay within cord-length.
Although battery swapping has obvious disadvantages such as requiring a power cycle and fumbling with the battery and a battery cover (as well as your external charger), it certainly beats wired/wireless charging in this aspect in that it provides immediate usage, not tethered to a wire or a charging plate.
The one thing I dislike a bit is that the phone seems to heat up a bit more than via normal charging, so if I have to take a call after it's been sitting on the charger it's a bit uncomfortable. Otherwise, it's pretty slick.
Depends on the method, but you can be sure that you're losing at least 10% to inductive/RF losses, and more typically 20%.
Reasonable for a phone, batshit insane for EV charging, which is why Magne Charge never took off. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magne_Charge) 20% of 6 kW for every car, times millions of cars...
When I had a L920, I noticed the charging plate and phone would get really hot, even after the phone is charged to 100%. Through the wire, the heat is minimal like every other phone. So, base on heat dissipation, I would say yes.
It works exactly as I expected it too though. I don't look at it every day and think "wow, this is amazing"; it just works and I don't really think about it at all, which is how it should be. I'm not sure that I would buy a phone without wireless charging now.
Apple and microsoft have a permanent patent deal since the 90's. They can use each other's patents for free as long as they don't make direct competitors. Hence why this is a fitness band and not a smartwatch ;)
I wonder if you can ping the MS Band's GPS similar to Apple's Find My Friends feature? If so this would be an awesome feature. My parents, who are older, don't like carrying phones. This would be really convenient safety wise.
well invested in the apple ecosystem but this seems very good. I am very intrigued and may well end up with a few of these in my family. If the reality matches the marketing, I'm in. For a fitness accessory the on device GPS is the killer app.
My only beef with these "fitness bands" is their lack of being able to tell you how accurately you sleep at night. Without a heart rate monitor, there's really no way to be accurate other than to say you were restless versus laying still.
AFAIK the only product that does this is Polar's fitness band. And only because you can link their heart rate monitor to it to give you additional fitness information. I could be wrong to think they're the only one combining the two.
Barometer can be useful to accelerate a GPS fix or to have some sort of weather forecast. But for altitude, once GPS is fixed, you have reliable enough altitude, hence it wouldn't be that useful.
While everyone is trying to make a watch that looks as traditional as possible, Microsoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes. That's some guts.
At $200 this looks like great device with built-in sensors including GPS and UV that also talks to whatever phone you own. I also like the fact that heart rate monitor is always on. Addition of barometer could have been nicer, however.
Other tidbits:
-Screen looks too small to do much of an interaction so I'm guessing type of apps would be mostly notification types.
-I seriously hate all these stock photos and videos. Marketing seems to be out of ideas and creativity yet again. Show the f*ing product, not random faces.
-48 hr battery life
-Cortana works only for Windows Phone
-It's supposedly made for the right hand which is very weird.
-Sleep quality monitoring seems pretty cool
-The whole thing is projected as health device and makes me feel that it's designed for fitness nuts. This is going to severely limit the audience and very bad marketing strategy. Apple's watch is much more human/teens oriented that anyone wearing watches wouldn't mind to wear regardless of its health related features and probably mostly just for fun (send my heartbeat!).
I think they're going after correct audience. They're going after people who probably already record these things. For eg I use a heart rate monitor, cycling computer that records GPS coordinates and speed/cadence/altitude changes when I cycle. If this thing had ANT+ connectivity and worked with extra sensors I would buy it to replace my cycling gear.
I can't see anyone spending $200 for this if they're not at least somewhat serious about their exercise. Counting steps and taking my heart rate twice a day is just a gimmick to me.
I'm not serious about exercise but I'll buy one. I work with data and I'm curious about what my measurements look like. i tried other apps but they required too much effort, so the cost/benefit wasn't right for me.
They claim a battery life of 48 hours under "normal usage" (read: no GPS), with a charging time of 1.5 hours. Though if it's supposed to be used as a sleep tracker, I kinda wonder when we're supposed to charge it.
It would be great if it had wireless charger antenna in the strap and the charging surface would double as mouse pad. Then the right hand would make sense.
If you compare it more closely to a Garmin than to a Fitbit, this is reasonable/comparable battery life. A Garmin GPS watch will track 8-15 hours of activity, if you're lucky ... but without GPS and in pure watch mode will last a couple of weeks.
I'd buy this to replace a Fitbit any day of the week.
The design is rectangular, like Gear Fit, so giving credit for trying something different doesn't seem right.
Also, most pictures on the site have people wearing it on their left hand, so it seems perfectly capable of being on either wrist.
Finally, you're calling it a watch, while this is clearly not what Microsoft intended it to be. So it seems their marketing strategy is pretty on point for what they're trying to sell. The words 'watch', 'time', or 'clock' aren't mentioned anywhere on the page. You should be judging the product for what it is, not what you want it to be.
Rather than being gutsy, I think it looks like it belongs in the Fitbit ecosystem (which maintains 69% of wearables marketshare, according to NPD Group).
It doesn't appear to be hand-specific. Most fitness trackers suggest you should wear on your non-dominant hands, because they give a more accurate step count.
I actually appreciate the fact that its not marketing as an entire smart phone on my wrist. I don't want to browse my photo albums on it or wait 2 seconds for my watch screen to wake up before checking the time. I'm glad its just fitness sensors and simple clock/calender/email/notifications.
This is more or less exactly what I hoped the Apple Watch would be: a sensor platform with simple notifications. Too bad it doesn't look as nice as a Fitbit, though; that screen is way too long.
It looks as thick as my Fitbit Flex; which has no screen. The Fitbit Force which has a screen is a much thicker device in order to accommodate a LED screen that will tell you details.
>-The whole thing is projected as health device and makes me feel that it's designed for fitness nuts. This is going to severely limit the audience and very bad marketing strategy.
Yeah, designing product to specific target audience didn't work out so well for GoPro I'm sure.
I am a bit shocked there are no color variations shown, this just begs for them. I really do appreciate they didn't hamper themselves by boxing themselves in with a typical watch face.
Now if they could figure out how to monitor blood sugar easily we would be all set. I am curious if with the built in GPS I could use it to monitor my bicycling? I know it can get my heart rate but I am also curious how well that performs while I sweat because I can get soaked on some rides.
I like your reasoning. Worth mentioning the Apple Watch starts at $349.
> feel that it's designed for fitness nuts
This product is quite a leap for Microsoft already. The watch market is young and probably led by fitness nuts.
It's probably a good strategy for Microsoft to nail this market first, learn about the marketing and triggers, secure a position and a revenue, then extend to a larger watch market when it is more structured.
> The watch market is young and probably led by fitness nuts.
Nope, not the feeling I'm getting. Most people around me do not have a smart-watch. I own a pebble which has extremely limited functionality compared to Apple Watch, etc.
The fact that I don't have to watch my phone to get input (read notifications, who's calling, runkeeper data, etc.) + the fact that I can keep my iPhone volume off and still not miss a single call, is a huge plus to me! Having Siri on your wrist could be extremely important for free lancers or generally speaking people who don't have a secretary to call at all times.
> While everyone is trying to make a watch that looks as traditional as possible, Microsoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes. That's some guts
>> "While everyone is trying to make a watch that looks as traditional as possible, Microsoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes. That's some guts."
It will be interesting to see which approach consumers prefer. Techies were going nuts of the Moto 360 because it looked like a real watch and to me it seems the most likely for a normal person to wear.
Finally a Microsoft product that isn't stupidly handcuffed to their ecosystem. Microsoft has amazing engineers still, and they must be frustrated that they aren't allowed to produce the best device they can, regardless of os. I hope for their sake this thing does well.
So I guess I can finally talk about building the iOS version of this app back during the prototype phase. The team that built this was totally skunkworks and honestly seemed to care little about the OS it runs on. What they do care is that this device+app works as a good showcase for the Azure platform. they want part of the story to be that the data generated by this device is completely accessible to anyone who wants it, and their app is just the reference implementation.
COM is horrible to write code for (although not THAT bad), and is tricky to troubleshoot (hurray for TLBs and massive hex registry strings) but it is a very handy feature of the system!
Does anything exist on other platforms like Mac OSX and Linux? CORBA was written all over the place GNOME1 / 2 time as I recall but I don't actually know if anything like COM exists anywhere?
Gecko uses XPCOM extensively (though less than it used to). XPCOM is basically a cross-platform implementation of the same principles as Microsoft COM.
In particular, XPCOM allows easy binding with the Spidermonkey JS runtime so you can expose things to scripts.
But then again I use OneDrive to back up my photos natively on iOS, Android, and Windows Phone. I use OneNote on all platforms. I use Microsoft Office on all platforms (including the web). I play Wordament on all platforms. I use Xbox Live Music (formerly Zune Pass) on all platforms.
How many Windows Phone apps does Google have? Zero. What about Apple? Zero. In fact, Google has even refused to allow Windows Phone to access Youtube and Maps on the web. They specifically blocked the user agent for their website.
But no, that one example from Microsoft is totally relevant. Their competitors are much more open.
> If you're using Windows Phone 8.1, ask Cortana to take notes or set reminders with your voice. She'll give you driving directions and keep you on top of traffic, sports, stocks, weather, and more. She is ready to help whenever you need it.
It sounds like Cortana only works with a Windows Phone though. However, it seems like this is mainly a fitness tracker with light smartwatch features on the side, so I'm not sure if I'd consider this a dealbreaker or anything.
I agree to the extend, that it sounds like Microsoft is in any way special here. Actually, for some time it's opening up pretty much. Apple is even worse, Google will certainly not support MS products in any way if they don't benefit massively.
It's important to understand that all companies are big machine-like systems that have only one purpose: Make as much money as possible. Microsoft have been (and Apple is still ... or is the Apple watch usable with Android?) trying to lock vendors in. Totally OK. Those tech companies are no better than Kellog's who is selling sweets to our kids as cereal. As we all love tech so much, we tend to forget :-)
I certainly would not want a bracelet that tracks so much information from a corporation that is known to cooperate with the NSA. The bracelets they force repeat sex offenders to wear track less information about them. The only way I would consider using such a device was if both the hardware and software were available for public review.
Of course not. I own a phone, whose battery lasts a month, I can call people and receive text messages. And its common knowledge that its not a good idea to bring any mobile device to demonstrations for example. In Germany they've been known to indiscriminately monitor all mobile communications at demonstrations and put the numbers on file.
Your communications can still be tapped, your location can still be tracked through cell towers, and remote malware can still turn your phone into a persistent bug.
I don't think there's much of an advantage to using a dumb phone. At least with a smartphone you can run apps that encrypt your communications.
I'll be happy to share my data with Microsoft or NSA for that matter, I'm pretty sure nobody there cares how I spend my days, and I don't think they're interested in your days either...
Well western governments are experts in keeping their population docile and politically disinterested. So I'm not surprised a growing percentage of their population is fine with being monitored and spied on. The majority of the population might not really need protection from the state, but the few that do, dissidents, political activists definitely do.
By establishing a culture, where people are happy to share their data with the government anyone who isn't will automatically be a suspect. For example people who use TOR are put on a list. I don't know what live you lived, but some of my friends were under police surveillance (some police officer lived as a student for several years before his cover was blown by an acquaintance) because the government thought they had to keep taps on far left student organisations. Considering how much effort they went through to do that, I'm sure they monitor much more benign activity electronically.
I agree but there are different ways of going about it. In the particular case I know of, a police officer infiltrated all left leaning student organisations in order to get access to the more radical ones. By infiltrated I mean that he went to their meetings, was invited to parties and reported all their personal information. In any case, I just wanted to defuse the argument that the government is probably not that interested in your data. Its far easier to turn devices such as this against you, I mentioned the case where they recorded the phone numbers of every mobile device at a largely peaceful demonstration. Since there is no reason to ever delete this data, you not only have to trust that the current government is benevolent and reasonable, but also that this form of government is stable, does not crumble and you don't end up on a kill list 20 years later. This might not be an issue in the West, but there are countless cases around the world, where based on much less information political activists / dissidents were murdered.
I went and picked one of these up at lunch from local Microsoft Store/Kiosk. No line, walked right up. Sales person was very informative, helped with wrist sizing. Came with some small swag (Starbucks gift card, water bottle, etc). There were two other people at the store - one looking at Surface another started looking at Band as I was leaving, I noticed they were looking at mine as I tried it on. Not hard to purchase one, no line.
I walked by the Apple Store on the way out and there were people queued up outside to get in, probably about 10-12 deep.
It was a sign of the times, as someone who purchases products from (and develops for) both camps, I am really happy to see the competition. Happy to see MS embrace iOS devices with their new tech and happy to see Apple allow MS apps in the app store. Its not all pats on the backs between Apple and MS, but the competition benefits all us and is great to see. Plus, some cool gear is coming out of it.
Been wearing it since lunch, don't really notice it all that much however I usually wear a watch. I didn't opt for the opposite hand. It has time as a large numerical on the initial UI display, so felt it could take place of my watch. I do use it with the screen on the inside of my wrist, so when I want to look at device I hold up my arm, palm towards me. Feels a lot more natural than wearing it and viewing the UI "as a watch".
Went for a run, tracked the run well. I forgot to set the device to record for a run, but it did track my steps, mileage, etc pretty well (compared it to Moves App on iOS).
Getting texts and phone call alerts on it is pretty nice, actually. I have phone off to side charging and this is a good alert system (I'm using iOS as phone).
I wish they had a button press configuration that allowed for a "flashlight" like app to display all white-light on LCD. Would almost feel magical/wizardry when taking the dog out to pee.
Will try sleep (one the main reason I bought) tonight. I use "Sleep Cycle" app on iOS (I sometimes have problems sleeping) so will be interesting to compare Band vs that app's morning results.
- Comfortable.
- Looks nice, I like wearing it. Doesn't feel flashy.
- Does what it says it will. No buggy surprises.
- Scroll performance isn't very good.
- UI feels right otherwise. Nothing annoyed me.
- Complementary iPhone app is well done.
- Doesn't feel flimsy. Feels sturdy without feeling bulky.
- Setup is simple.
No complaints so far. If you desire the features it offers I'd say it's definitely worth buying.
I was pretty underwhelmed by Apple's watch and have actively disliked the Android watches that I've seen so far. I use a Fitbit One every day currently, so the new Fitbit Charge bands with some phone integration kind of piqued my interest, but seemed very feature poor.
After seeing the functionality this thing offers and that it will work with my iPhone instead of requiring a particular phone OS, take my money.
If it really does as much and works half as well as the promo video suggests, MS may have a big winner here.
The only thing that's a bit of a bummer is the battery life (the Peak Basis claims 4 days and the Fitbit Surge claims 5 days) and the MS Band is only "Dust- and splash-resistant" while those other devices are waterproof to 5ATM (usable for swimming), but the sheer number of sensors is really impressive and I'm much more confident about software/data access. At the very least it looks like MS Health pipes data into HealthVault, which is API accessible), but I'm most looking forward to getting access to the raw data stream (considering it's my biometric data they're collecting).
"... Strikingly, one-third of users discard their devices after six months, according to research by Endeavour Partners, a consultancy. Some industry insiders speculate that the true number may be much higher than that. ...The novelty of being able to track your steps, calories or other metrics is appealing at first, but swiftly wears off. ..."
To compare Microsoft Band to a FitBit doesn't do the Band justice. FitBit is a toy - counting footsteps isn't "fitness" and a few LEDs isn't feedback. With GPS and an actual display, the Band actually has the ability to compete against Garmin and Suunto and actual fitness watches.
My Garmin is bulky, can't lock a signal in a neighborhood with tall buildings and has software reminiscent of an Atari. And it was more expensive than this.
I'm very excited about this. (Though, disclaimer, I work for Microsoft.)
All the 'newer' Fitbit models have displays including the Fitbit Force; the Charge (which appears to have replaced the Force), and the Surge (Which also has a GPS).
The big benefit I see to the MS product is that it is available before the Surge, and is a little cheaper.
I double-checked just to make sure, but even via the API, you don't get your minute-level data, only consolidated information. Fitbit of course collects and stores this information, and makes it available as a "partner feature", they just don't make accessible to you - apparently you don't have any claim to your biometric data in their view of the world. Honestly, that's rather galling and makes me hope they burn in a fire.
Thank you. I thought I was the only one who cared about getting the raw data out or was just missing something obvious. Why is it that hard to get the minute-by-minute data?
Battery life still is an issue and will remain so for the next while. Daily charging means it isn't really 24 hours and it also puts a hurdle on for use. My ipad is often dead in a backpack someplace because it's not as essential (to me) as my phone or laptop. Daily charging is like a daily price and a value hurdle this band needs to jump.
But I think this makes it more difficult for the device to succeed. The market for simple fitbit-style pedometers is fairly small, so the market for more expensive devices must be even smaller?
Presumably this would be able to play in both markets. That said, I can't comprehend this market around wanting to wear an ugly piece of plastic on your wrist all day, every day, just to convince oneself that they're getting more exercise than they actually are.
I think that once a person reaches puberty they should be forced to give up watches with cartoon characters or LCD screens.
Hey, you seem to know to be an enthusiast about fitness tracking, can you give me a quick advice?
I want a fitness tracker, but I don't want the display. I want it to be lightweight and comfortable to wear, ideally wrapping around my wrist. Sweat-proof. Pedometer, accelerometer, and have decent sleep tracking. A killer feature for me for me would be measuring jumps, as in rope jumps.
I think the Jawbone Up might fit that description; I know Fitbit Flex does (the Fitbit tracker ethompson must be referring to as a "Fitbit"; the other 3 shipping Fitbit trackers all have displays, as do the 2 that aren't shipping yet). I just did 20 jumps as if jumping rope and my Fitbit Charge counted 20 steps, so I bet there's a way to get your killer feature.
I work for Fitbit in site engineering; I don't speak for Fitbit -- this is my opinion, not necessarily my employer's.
I own and use Argus (on the Iphone), FitBit and a Garmin Forerunner and in that order. The way I "teach" Argus is to first create a sample set of data and add it as an "new" exercise. In your case, I would count the number of jumps you do in a minute, obtain the calories burned online, and feed both into Argus. With Garmin afaik you cannot do that. FitBit has a funky "Steps climbed". I don't know what to make of the number it shows.
Is this too hard to make? Shouldn't 3 axis accelerometer be able to do it out of the box, if you program it?
If somebody from these companies is reading... this is a killer feature! Lots of people jump and would throw money at you if you can integrate it into a fitness app.
Suunto supports third party "apps" and has a "rope skipping" app[1]. Can't vouch for its accuracy (I'm personally more interested in hiking/climbing features), but it exists.
In theory the Amiigo does what you want. In practice... well the device and software is pretty rough at the moment. I'd send you mine but I lost the shoe clip part already and I'm not sure if it works w/o it (it complained every time I loaded the app about it being missing).
Really no different than any other form of fitness tracking (i.e. the ol' pen-and-paper). I don't think this is a device problem, this is a people-being-lazy-unmotivated-sacks-of-crap problem.
Wow, this actually looks fantastic. Microsoft has always killed it in the hardware department. Looks like it connects to their cloud service as well. Will probably consider getting one.
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
While MS has built a reputation for solid build quality on its peripherals, they are not immune to the race to the bottom. If you liked your old MS Intellimouse, for instance, it would be wise to check the date of manufacture before buying another.
This affects more than just Microsoft. Other brands have changed ownership, or changed manufacturing facilities, but kept the same trademarks. Or items with the same advertised model number could now be manufactured in multiple facilities, to the same nominal minimum standard, but widely varying actual performance. I'll leave it to you to do your own research, but LCD display panels and SD cards are a particularly obvious example of this.
If Microsoft wants me to trust its hardware like I once did, it doesn't need to actually open a new manufacturing facility in Washington under the burning eye of its QC employees, but it would at least have to be embarrassingly open about it manufacturing process. I simply don't trust anyone to build quality for the mass market any more.
I'm not saying companies don't build quality anymore, but you can't just trust a brand. You have to do your research on each new model, every time.
There's an old Microsoft joystick (the Sidewinder 3D Pro) that hasn't been made in at least a decade, but several friends of mine still use them (with custom gameport-to-USB converters specifically designed for that stick.) Yet another quality piece of Microsoft hardware.
With my RMBP, I use a Microsoft wired mouse that would be about 15 years old. I want to get a wireless mouse, but I don't want to lose the feeling of this one!
One of the bestselling game platforms ever with a library rivaling the PS2?
Yes, the RROD was a huge debacle and too many lost money on broken Xboxes. That doesn't change the fact that people bought 70 million of the things, and generally seemed to love them.
You're absolutely right if the discussion was about the business success of the game console, but it's not. It's about Microsoft always having 'hardware that's killing it', which is made pretty untrue by the consoles' faulty reliability in the past.
A whole cottage industry of aftermarket console cooling apparatus was spawned due to the first Xbox's history, and it didn't help whatsoever in staying the problems that the second one had.
It was a business success regardless, but that's not the topic at hand.
Seconding this. I used one for a few years and while I loved the device itself and everything about its interface, it was hampered by the poor software (a reskinned version of Windows Media Player, basically) required to sync anything to it, and the fact that no one cared enough about Zunes to reverse them like they did with the iPods :( I might still be using it if it had drag and drop file management.
If you had actually used one as a real phone, I doubt you would be saying that the "hardware" isn't good. The core components are as good as the competition. The amount of sensors available to developers is ludicrous. Not only that, if the build (phone body) forms part of what you would call "hardware" - it truly lives up to the Nokia reputation.
I still use my Zune-hd, kinda amazed the battery has lasted as long as it has. It is still a beautiful piece of kit. Fits in the hand so well. No updates to the OS, but the music player was so good it isn't necessary.
My only wish was that it didn't have a proprietary charging port.
For Surface, Microsoft made $908m in sales, but spent $839m to make the devices. Compare that to last year, when they sold $2.13b worth of Surface devices but spent $2.87b to make them.[1]
I wouldn't say it's a key profit area for them yet, and we also can't call it a success yet (as they haven't reported the total retail purchases).
So, Surface won't be replacing Windows/Office any time soon, but nearly a billion in revenue for what a lot of people try to frame as a failed product is not too shabby.
While so many competitors are scrambling to make smartwatches that can't competently track your fitness and can't competently replace your phone, this Band has all the sensors necessary to be a legitimate fitness tracker, the form factor will ensure it's more accurate, and it also can function as a useful proxy to your phone. While it may not have all the features of the Apple Watch, it seems to have all of the most useful ones, like delivering important notifications straight to your wrist. And it's cross-platform!
It seems to me that Microsoft has found the two areas where wearables really excel -- quantified self and notifications -- and focused on these features above all else. It's not high fashion, although the band form factor is hard to be offended by, especially if you have the screen facing down. It doesn't take photos, but why would you take photos with your watch?
This is not unlike the iPod, which focused on storage space and an extremely simple interface above all else.
Jesus! it's perfect. and because MS got it right. compared to apple or pebble. in short, 'band form factor' is the one I was hoping, when apple introduced its watch. I was bit shocked when it was actually rounded-square shape. with this form, you get more with less.
Besides the landscape content not being oriented to your eyes when your forearm is across your body, a la Samsung Gear Fit, this looks very nice. The orientation obviously depends on how you wear it (the screen on the top or bottom of your wrist), as others have pointed out.
I don't know how big of an issue that is with limited content, but it drives me nuts when a touch device isn't oriented the way I want (in bed primarily). They could give the user options to lock the orientation one way or another or detect how the user is wearing it somehow, but my money would be Microsoft to figure that out much faster than Samsung.
As a Pebble owner, and potential Apple Watch buyer, this seems to have the best of all smart-watch worlds technology-wise. Cross-platform is huge. Battery-life, reliable software, comfort and style (in order of importance) will make or break this.
What is the software running on this? Interestingly, MS is mum on it. What a change.
Also, can the microphone connect to Siri, Google Now? I know Cortana is running on it.
Well, I took the person saying "MS is mum on it" as "they are keeping it secret." If they are keeping it secret, that's interesting. But I'm possibly reading into this something that isn't there.
We are using a single threaded lightweight runtime based around call backs. We are completely non-blocking on all IO (including all sensors), and our CPU spends the majority of its time in a very low power mode. Every microsecond of CPU time is accounted for and justified!
I cannot wait until people look at our battery size in mAh.
That sounds cool! Can you disclose/admit what language it was written in? I'm very tempted to try this out instead of getting a fitbit (not at all impressed with the Apple or Android watches so far).
> single threaded lightweight runtime based around call backs
Sounds like Javascript to me, or maybe something like Erlang. I wonder if we'll be able to install apps on the device or just build external apps for cell phones. What about hooking it up to your desktop/laptop for notifications and stuff? I'm thinking there could be some cool features there.
Our software was completely written from the ground up. We started with an empty main.c file. :)
A number of us lead software engineers are on hacker news and we all love the latest programming languages. We got a bunch of really super cool stuff in here, but all in straight C and running in very little memory space. We're dying to start an engineering blog, we believe some of the lessons we learned about applying modern software engineering techniques to an embedded device are very valuable. (Fun fact! Embedded Engineers have been avoiding dynamic allocation well before it was cool!)
We're hoping to get proper continuations in sometime soon. :) Our main problem is saving/restoring the stack without losing too much performance! (Cycles equal battery life, I cannot justify pushing for a move to continuations if the battery life hit is noticeable to the user!)
Must have been very cool to be bit-saving and over-optimizing in our "era of plenty". Almost nobody cares about a couple extra MB nowadays. And starting from a blank main.c? Gutsy.
I looked several times for the battery life but couldn't find it. Actually, for me, the 2 day battery life is the killer feature - it means I'm almost certain to get a full 16 hours out of it - which is pretty damn hard to believe given it has a GPS radio in it. That's something the Apple Watch won't have - which means if you are going out for a run - Microsoft Band will be there for you, but you won't be able to track with the Apple Watch.
The specs on the main page say "48 hours of normal use; advanced functionality like GPS use will impact battery performance." There's also a in the support section talking about extending battery life: http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-band/en-us/support/hardwa...
The battery life is obviously dependent upon what services are enabled. For such a versatile device, MSFT should have a table for battery life for different usage cases.
For example, for Joe the jogger who wants to use it a purely health gadget companion, he may not want the microphone, UV sensor and ambient light sensor on, but for Jane the office worker who wants to take her steps around the office and have some office notification, the GPS and gyro is turned off. These two use cases could have vastly different battery life.
As much as I agree with you the same thing is often said about weather apps. However the really accurate ones (e.g. Dark Sky) that can predict to the minute and give intensity are really useful. For example I was able to plan my lunch break using it yesterday so I was out of the office in the 30 mins of dry weather between rain showers. The the UV sensor you could probably work out what strength suncream you need and if people apply the correct strength maybe in the long term skin cancer rates will fall. Small change in behaviour due to better information, big improvement for society.
(Thanks for highlighting Dark Sky, that looks like an interesting app!)
Don't your arguments (and app recommendations) point against a UV measure as being useful? If you want to know whether or not to put on sunscreen now, for a day out, knowing the current UV strength is no use since the conditions will be different later. That's where weather prediction comes in and makes your one little watchband UV datapoint useless. Looking up at the sky and observing weather conditions will always be better than that, and better weather prediction will beat looking up at the sky.
Ah, very good point I didn't think of that. I suppose it could function as a warning system. You're go out in the morning and it's cloudy and suncream isn't required. As the day goes on the UV levels increase and your fitness band can warn you that you should think about applying suncream as the UV levels have increased.
In an area that reaches extreme UV indexes I would find it useful to know for a for a given start time in the morning and the afternoon how much time I have before burning for the conditions on the day.
UV forecast graphs take some of the guesswork out of location and time, but I find that it hard to judge how much cloud cover is needed to drop from a high to a low index range. Sunscreen is great but it's not much fun to have to be covered in goop every day. Getting burnt when it's cloudy isn't much fun either. Knowing your exposure would limit the amount of cream.
Maybe. If they were already including a photocell, it might have been more or less free to use one that enabled this feature.
UV levels can also be counter-intuitive, where the type/amount of cloud plays into how much is blocked, or where a partly cloudy sky actually increases UV levels. Or where, using my dumb experience as an example, you forget to consider that the spring sun in Florida is more powerful than the summer sun in the north.
This was the first MS product that I ever wanted to buy. Seems to have everything I want in a fitness tracker/smart watch, except the barometer and water resistance. I'll hold on to my Suunto watch for a while longer.
I was wondering if anyone had information about this.
It looks like it ties to Microsoft HealthVault. That is not available in Canada. It appears (from the outside) that MS sold the "rights" to HealthVault to Telus, whom did absolute nothing with it. Does anyone know, is that the right read of the situation? Can MS ever offer HealthVault to Canada or will we have to hope that Telus will?
Also, to the people below. As far as I can see, even a service to forward the hardware from the US to Canada, this probably will not work. If you register your live account in Canada (which you probably would, so you can put a CC on it) then you will not be able to active HealthVault on your live account - it will send you to a Telus page.
Sorry. Fitbit Charge (black) is available for pre-order in Canada, ships in 3-4 weeks. I know this is 1-2 weeks longer than for the U.S. But it will still be shiny and new.
(I don't actually speak for Fitbit; I'm in site engineering)
- the 'forwarding' service (that I need to trust first..)
- the shipping to my actual location
- import taxes, VAT etc.
and smile? This product is intentionally not available to most of the world, jumping through hoops on my side seems weird. Like camping in front of random stores, waiting for some device coming out in 3 days from now or other similar random acts of insanity.
I'd have bought it (and sure, payed more than $200 for it due to taxes etc), but I'm not prepared to circumvent arbitrary regional limitations by throwing my time and money around.
Right. If you click that you're allowed to select your US state to ship to.
Did you check that? It's entirely possible that I miss some hidden 'enable international shipping' incantation here, but I doubt that at this point. The checkout form doesn't seem to include any of that and the very MS store front page lists the band as 'US only', just as I stated above.
Why? I .. fail to come up with an answer for that. I was prepared to hand over $200 right away, now I'm disgruntled and couldn't care less about another thing that might be available here in 3 month from now, maybe.
I guess even the online purchase is restricted to US. Did not check that. My bad. On the bright side, I'm sure it will be internationally available in a few months.
I spent about 8 hours using this today. Some notes.
+ It does feel heavy at first, but I got used to it pretty quickly.
+ I plugged it in to charge and it seemed to be stuck at 80%. This may be because of the port I was using so I can't lay blame on Band.
+ The charging mechanism is solid and feels great.
+ I keep wanting to swipe the screen to turn it on (you need to press the "home" button).
+ I went for a 1.5 mi run. It took *4 minutes* to lock in GPS. This is in a fairly populated area, but the I was kind of in the woods. My iPhone has zero issues locking into GPS.
+ It mirrors all my notifications from my iPhone which I love.
+ After running, I went straight to Starbucks and tried to pay with the band but failed because the screen does not respond to sweaty fingers. This is partly my fault.
+ Haven't detected any UV yet.
+ HR locking is quick.
Your phone can't lock to GPS faster because it can use cell towers to narrow down your position first. The Band should lock more quickly now that it has a general idea of where you are. I have a Garmin GPS watch, and the initial lock does take a long time.
Thanks, you are correct. I tried again a few hours later from home (about 50 miles away from my initial test) and it locked within 30 seconds.
Edit: I've had it plugged into my MBP to charge for about 35 minutes and it still said 80%. After turning it completely off and back on fixed this (now says 100%).
Edit2: I really wish I could play music via bluetooth with this.
The very first GPS lock for a device in a new area takes a while because it has to download the satellite positions first. After that (if you haven't moved too far away in the meantime) subsequent GPS fixes should be much faster.
(Quoting Wikipedia: »in order to obtain an accurate satellite location from this transmitted message the receiver must demodulate the message from each satellite it includes in its solution for 18 to 30 seconds. In order to collect all the transmitted almanacs the receiver must demodulate the message for 732 to 750 seconds or 12 1/2 minutes.«)
>I really wish I could play music via bluetooth with this.
I was really hoping for that when reading through everything it could do. I know it can't do everything but most of the power at that point would be on the headphones right? I'd be surprised if that doesn't show up at some point.
They are chasing after slightly (but not completely) different markets. This is a (very capable) fitbit competitor. Apple is definitely targeting fashion. Microsoft is marketing a < $200 band. Apple will be selling a $5K+ Gold Watch amongst its offerings.
In some ways, the Microsoft watch is actually much more capable than the Apple Watch (Hello, untethered GPS!) - but nobody is going to put it on the front page of vogue.
At first, the $199 pricepoint seemed high, but it seems to be a cross platform high end fitness tracker with basic smartwatch functionality. Incidentally, this puts the price point right in-between FitBits and Android Wear watches (and also the iWatch).
Furthermore, 2 day battery life is a very welcome addition. I wouldn't mind putting one of these on my wrist.
The price actually seems low to me. The built in GPS and HRM make it compete with higher end endurance watches that cost $300+. I'm considering dumping my TomTom Multi-Sport Cardio for this if the real time stats during running are good enough.
Not surprising with all its features, but for wearables, that's a killer. My Fitbit can do 5-6 days, and I would consider that on the shorter end of decent battery life.
The overall quality of the fitbit (both as a band and a clip) is complete crap. My wife, hardly a heavy user of such, has had the clip die within two months, the band (a replacement) started acting up within about 3 months. Bought at two separate times from two different places. Friends have similar stories.
I haven't delved into wearables yet. I mostly have used my iPhone 5s (now 6) for the motion tracking, but it certainly doesn't catch everything (let alone doesn't catch vitals) since I don't carry it everywhere.
I haven't had any issues, but my wife's Fitbit battery wouldn't stay charged for more than 2 days, within a month of getting it. Since her replacement came in, we've had no issues.
My biggest complaint with the Fitbit is the lack of any battery meter on the device itself. Unless you sync frequently, you wouldn't know when your battery is running low.
That's very impressive - my iPhone 5, with "GPS Tracks" (my favorite waypoint tracking device), with the screen off for most of the time, gets a little over 4 hours before the battery dies out.
Awkward, cliché, and yet still effective advertisement video. The work-out and skydiving bits were neat, but the graduation text message bit and the "keep your head up" catchphrase (you look down to see the watch) made me feel stubbornly aware and annoyed at the problems that this device still causes; the disconnect with reality.
Also, I don't know that anyone looks back at the time they got a Facebook message while holding their newborn ("the small moments you never forget").
I'm not sure of the problems to these alleged solutions, but I suppose time will tell.
To me, MSFT's efforts to become a centralized hub for fitness& health data, is the more exciting bit of news. [0]
With machine learning & cloud pieces in place, MS health could potentially be HUGE !
Health care data is all over the place, & if msft can become a central repository for all/a significant portion of fitness/health data, it will be really valuable.
from [1],
"There's just one problem. "Most of these things are individual islands," Mehdi says — there are a million options, but they're all siloed to a single platform, app, or gadget. "You'll use device X or Y, some stuff is in the cloud, but we think that there's kind of a next step that's coming, which is the ability to unify all that data and democratize it, and then add some real value on top. And that's where we see the ability to kind of get to that next level.""
Look pretty slick. It's interesting that it's marketed as a fitness device but is actually a smart watch. I own a Garmin Forerunner 305 which can last 6-8 hours of active use. I know that the recent Garmin devices last close to a day. The Microsoft Band doesn't tell us how well it does on battery with the GPS -- without the GPS it claims 48 hours.
If you're using gps to track running and such, you aren't running 24 hours a day, so you can save battery by turning it on and off. I think that's a great feature. But it would have been nice to say 'GPS' time, like phones describe 'talk-time'.
There are times I wish I could leave GPS tracking on all the time, with a simple way to add markers either now or later, and with the ability to share the data with any app I want. There are times I just want to hop on my bike and ride without doing some dance with a finicky GPS app that I have to remember to stop at the end (and hope it doesn't crash during my ride).
For what it's worth, any Android phone with Google Now already can track you (albeit without super high resolution) 24/7. It's actually kind of cool; it looks at where you are and how fast you're going to infer walking vs biking vs driving.
>If you're using gps to track running and such, you aren't running 24 hours a day
I run and cycle. I and many people I know do cycle ~ 12 hours in a day, while training. Right now the choice among road bikers I know, is the Garmin 810 which lasts that long with continuous use.
This looks intriguing. Much more so than Apple Watch. However, the thickness of the band has me concerned. I stopped using UP because the band was thick enough it made my hand fall asleep when typing. (Having to take it off negated one of its main purposes alarm.)
in general, I'm a pretty big MS fanboy (win phones since 7, surface 2, etc). And I am suspect of the category as a whole, but the orientation of the screen just seems so dumb.
Also, people keep saying it is so small, it certainly doesn't look like it to me, especially on the sides it looks relatively thick.
I'm going to be out in Redmond soon, hope to see some in the wild.
> but the orientation of the screen just seems so dumb.
I thought this at first but after thinking about it I think it's really intuitive! When you use a watch you have to turn your arm in a non-natural way but when you turn your palm up it's actually easier because of the way the mussels are laid out. Also that's how you always look at your phone.
I'm really impressed, I was set on getting an apple watch until now, but this may change my mind - great form factor and style, has the sensors I'm looking for, and cross platform. I'm eagerly waiting a review.
This looks like the perfect form-factor for a more powerful wearable swim watch. Most of the other options are bulkier or too limited in their feature set. Unfortunately it looks like it's only splash resistant.
Am I the only one who thinks the screen orientation is totally off? When you have it on your wrist, you cannot look at it without having your arm in a totally awkward position.
It's an interesting time. People are incredibly interested and open to technology and that is an opportunity.
HN probably has a thousand joking references to calculator watches of the 90s, how goofy they looked and how they marked you as chronically uncool. There's something to that. Sensibilities have changed and there is an expectation that gadgets will evolve and unlock all sorts of cool magic. People are so open to this stuff today.
My reading of these bands/watches/wearables is that they're still exploring. They're not getting enough data passively and they aren't really working to the point where they're a permanent addition our lives. Basically, not good enough yet. Maybe they need 10X better battery life. Maybe they need better sensors or somesuch. Maybe it's a killer app they need. I just see around me people buying one, playing with it for weeks or months and then not using it anymore.
Either way, device makers are being tossed a soft ball by consumers. They're willing to buy and try them and help explore. I hope this means they'll get someplace useful. But, people are ultimately fickle and these need to start delivering fast. I hope this isn't a misfire, too early to really achieve something.
Is it just me or the advertised pictures look as something that I wouldn't want to put on my hands even if I had bought it?
I.e., visibly bigger than the wrists of those models and hanging loose, which is uncomfortable, and a rather long (much longer than most watches) flat segment in a spot where any comfortable wristband should be with a curved inside.
OK, seeing isn't touching, we'll have to wait for the wearer reviews for that.
Somewhat tangental to the actual story here, but is there some way to make something like Microsoft Band, Fitbit, Jawbone Up, or Nike+ FuelBand self-contained to your own server?
I'd love to use one of these devices, but I abhor the idea of my very personal movement/biometric data to be in the hands of a third party. If this data could be contained to my own server, I'd be all over it.
Even though I'm not much of a fitness buff, the sensor array that this has is something that I view as more or less necessary in any smart wrist wearable. This sort of quantified self tracking is something that a smartphone simply cannot do in any reliable and persistent way.
So I think this is a huge step in the right direction. So much so that it'd be a nearly guaranteed buy if I were more assured that it'll be fully functional with an Android phone. The lack of Cortana support for non-Windows phones, though, is not reassuring. I can live without that, but will I still be able to get notifications with an Android phone? If I wanted only a fitness tracker, there are other options out there.
It'd also be awfully nice if it supported wireless charging. I'd really like to see the sort of charging dock for this that the Moto 360 has (transforming it into a snazzy desk clock). I think this could look even better on such a stand, since it wouldn't have the watch strap hanging off the sides.
This is probably said pretty rarely on the internet as a whole (and even more rarely here), but way to go microsoft for knocking it out of the park and creating a great product.
Bravo for committing to cross-platform support also, thanks for putting user value above locking people in (in hopes they'll buy other MS things)
It's got a microphone and bluetooth so it might just be a software limitation. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple actually locked third parties out from using Siri like this though.
Are you saying that you want Cortana even if you're using Android or iOS? I don't think that's going to be possible.
If this thing catches on they will end up with a literal treasure trove of useful data that can be mined for some pretty mind bogglingly accurate stats on some aspects of our health.
I like this sort of thing but I can also understand why some people might feel a bit uneasy about so much data gathering.
Those are all pretty much data that are available already to whoever is accessing your smartphone. Google has been tracking activity and location for years now https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0
It looks like the display is meant to be facing outward from the bottom side of your wrist (i.e., down, if you put out your arms straight in front of you). A lot of the videos show people just flipping their wrist around to correctly orient the display. It's a little unusual but doesn't really seem like it'd be any sort of issue to me.
I want a device with the band form factor that actually has real phone calling and receiving functions. There is at least one smart band or smart watch out there that does that. This doesn't.
The smart watches out there are big and flashy, like most watches for men. I am a heterosexual male, but I find the large watch faces to be immodest. I certainly do want to show off with a watch, but in a more subtle way. And I am not a really big person so the large watch faces don't fit my anatomy that well.
So I actually want my smart watch to look like a smart band and act like a real smart phone (to the degree that is possible).
Something I can't quite tell from the site: how big are the characters on the display?
This kind of device might get a good reception among, say, men in their 50s. But presbyopia[1] presents some challenges that younger engineers & designers might not think about. If a guy has reading glasses, but (as is likely) doesn't wear them while exercising, then a Band with small characters is pretty much a non-starter for him, even though it looks perfectly readable to a 30-year-old.
Just ordered three of them. Happy to see Microsoft put out something like this and, to some extent one-up Apple. While the i-everything world is interesting, not sure I want to shackle myself to a single company like that.
It's weird though, isn't it? I would expect it to be waterproof. If not swimming, then just not having to worry about it when being in rain, washing hands, etc..
Agreed. Yet not one of my cellphones from iPhone and my old Blackberry back though various motorola's have been waterproof and that worked out OK for me.
On a watch form factor this is kind of strange. These are the kinds of things that make me wonder what designers might be thinking sometimes or perhaps question the design process itself. Do they wash their hands? Do they cook? Have they ever had to walk a few blocks in pouring rain? Or bike? Do they go fishing? Swimming? Surely the question had to come up. Who said "no" and why?
I still bought them. I want to support this and see where it goes.
While it is water resistant and can be submerged up to 10 meters, Flex is not designed to track swimming activities. If you want to better reflect your swimming activity and calories burned, we recommend logging the activity on the Activities page of your dashboard.
There are similar "About" pages for the other Fitbit trackers that you can get to easily from the page above. Most say something like this: Your Charge is water-resistant. It is rain and splash proof and can stand up to the sweatiest workout. Remove before showering or swimming.
Apple watch is, from what people say, also only water resistant.
It seems likely that it is a pretty straightforward case of making trade offs. It's got a touchscreen and a whole bunch of other stuff packed in there, even if you can do the work to keep the weight the same it's going to push your ship date.
There are GPS sport watches that are very waterproof at about the same weight (roughly 60 grams), but they have pretty different feature profiles (generally no touchscreen, no microphone, no bluetooth) and are 4th and 5th generation devices.
The video is actually pretty good. There's a lot of build-up but they do show the product working in a realistic manner to wrap it all up at the end, with, "Keep your phone in your pocket".
I wonder what considerations were taking for wearing this device while using a mouse. Most people are right handed, so this device on your right would certainly need to have a hearty outside surface I would think. It has been noted that "in front of computer" time may be "charging" time due to minor activity, but I have always thought (for me at least on the computer/mouse 5+ hours a day) an opposite hand device would be hard sell with people who use mice with that hand.
They do (right hand users), watch on left hand (opposite), use mouse with right hand. This device would be on the right hand for those people - the same that they move the mouse with. My question is, will it interfere with using a mouse?
Good question. The initial UI displays time. I picked one up today and have been wearing it on my normal "watch" hand. That being said I have been wearing it so that the UI is on the inside of my wrist. Definitely feels more natural when sing the UI.
I actually think it is a great idea because I don't want to stop wearing my stainless steel watch on the only premium part - wrist. Most right handed people wear their watch on their left hand and it is a hard habit to break. In that way, it is good that I can wear this band on my left hand.
Just tried the band. I wanted to want it but I wasn't into it. Wearables in general have some ways to go aesthetically. Every band/watch I've tried so far has fairly unflattering proportions (which is totally understandable given the hardware). Wearables would ideally disappear into the fabric of your life but so far they're mostly big plastic chunks you strap to your arm. I definitely like where things are going, but they haven't gotten there yet.
Looks interesting and good on Microsoft for finally getting in front of a new hardware trend. I kind of wonder if all these health trackers are just going to be a fad though. Do you really need to micromanage every calorie and heart beat with a $200 gadget? There's a ton of hand waving about combining all the data, synergies, etc. but what are the actual benefits of these devices over just regular checkups with a doctor?
Yep definitely a fad. I used up band religiously for a year couple of years when it came out. After a while I got sick of one more thing to keep track of, was just too overbearing.
I see a counter trend where technology becomes invisible, fades into background and still works for us instead of being in out faces all the time.
Smartphones, smart glasses, smart watches everything that wants a piece of our attention is going away soon.
I want to learn the routes around my neighborhood and not need a map in my eyeglasses. I want to talk( or not talk) to friends in real life not text message them. I just want to come home an play my piano not read a twitter battle on my phone. I want fall asleep talking to my partner/dreaming about future, not obsesses about my deep sleep rem cycles. I want wake up when I am done sleeping not by a smart alarm keeping track of my sleep cycles. I just want to eat eggs and toast for breakfast not powdered rice from a plastic bag.
I don't want any of this smart* shit. Please make it stop.
I completely agree with you, I like the concept of "disappearing technology" because just about anything I want to do is somehow stupidly tied to a device with a screen. It's annoying.
With that said, one of the main things I wish I could have during my workouts is something to track what I do without me having to manually input it. So, if it can count the number of reps I do, sweet. If it can count how many steps I took within my 3 mile treadmill run, awesome. If i can see my heartbeat at a glance, great! Because treadmills fucking suck at that.
HOWEVER, and one of the reasons why I'm not considering the band, I don't want tweets, or messages, or updates, or any of that shit even more in my face. I don't want another touchscreen vying for attention. The new Fitbits do that but (luckily) not with WIndows Phones. I have one, and I see this as a FEATURE rather than a detriment. Why the fuck do I need to see stupid notifications while I'm trying to run?
Then why would you complain about getting alerts if they can be disabled? Or are you complaining about the idea of other people being able to get alerts because you don't approve of the concept?
This is going to sound silly but here's my thing: the Band is built around receiving notifications, that means that even if you disable them, you'll still see text message icons, emails, etc. even if you can't use them.
I want to look at my watch and see "hey, you've walked 30,000 steps today", not "you know, you can check all this crap on here!".
It's the concept, and it's also that mental reminder that you MAY have notifications. I hope that makes sense!
Actually, I think the psychological weight of both notifications and infoglut in general is a very valid concern, but I think making crazy assumptions / rants is silly.
Case in point, what if I told you not only can you turn off the notifications completely (which we established earlier), and that no notification icons show up on the main screen (which is obvious from the video/screen shots - we're not talking about old-school LCD stencils, after all), but that you can further manage the tiles so even if you can't control yourself from actively swiping around you won't see anything?
Because now that I have the device on my wrist and the app on my phone, that's exactly what you can do.
I have very little skin in this game (it annoys me slightly to see rants w/o any basis necessarily in reality, but life's too short for arguing on the Internet), but maybe it can be better to be more reserved about a product critique until having seen how it actually works?
I totally get what you're saying and am happy to hear that it works that well but, I haven't seen anything like that in the shots. The only thing I've seen is the "do not disturb" mode which is probably what I'll do when I get it.
I'd love to hear more about what you like about it and how it is. My main concern was basically not having yet another phone-like device that will annoy the crap out of me. And the Band is begging for it.
very useful! So I saw that you said it's uncomfortable? That's a major concern for me. I spend the entire day typing. I wonder if my strangely-shaped wrists will alleviate that though.
As an engineer it's fun to work with data. Having data about my own life (heart, sleep, eating, etc) is fun to play with, learn from, and optimize. No, I don't need every calorie or heart beat, but it can be interesting to work with what i've got.
Yes, such a backslash is quite possible, and if one has lived through several decades of similar on/off stages in trends will know (those involved in the sixties culture wouldn't expected young people would turn into apolitical consumerists a mere decade later -- "Family Ties" style).
Unfortunately a lot of conceptually challenged people don't understand anything about social norms, peer pressure etc, and think that using or not using this technology is just "individual choice" ("noone is forcing you", etc). Then again some think that you can get out of a depression just by trying to think more positive...
When you're on an active weight loss plan these devices can help a lot. You don't even need it to be perfectly accurate in its calorie estimates as long as it is consistent.
The benefits over regular check-ins with a doctor are consistent daily feedback. Combined with tools like MyFitnessPal (which is mentioned on Microsoft's page) it simplifies the overall process of weight management.
I have Garmin devices, but I expect the process is similar to what Microsoft hopes to offer. The fitness tracking device keeps track of movement. My GPS watch and heart rate monitor estimate running and cycling effort. That all goes into Garmin's online system, and produces a relatively consistent and realistic estimate of calorie burn. That data is shared with MyFitnessPal, where I track my food intake. When I open MyFitnessPal's app I can see how things are going for the day, and adjust my behavior according to how active I have been.
It sound complex, but it's mostly automatic. And 45 pounds later I'm a believer in the potential of these tools.
Because Starbucks is packed with the sort of hipsters that syphon as much data as possible about their personal lives to the databases of multinational corps, obviously!
It really is easier than anyone could have imagined to get people to part with data. Smart phones provide a genuine quality of life improvement, but unless you are a professional athlete is the privacy cost really worth the gain of seeing your heart rate at the gym?
It seems for Hacker News it is a resounding yes...
This looks fantastic. I was really disappointed with all the possible directions Apple could go with their smartwatch, they just iterated on a design Samsung's been out with for a few years now. This is actually a good rethink, looks like a good v1 device, isn't overpriced, has basically the functionality you'd want and works cross platform.
"Only available in the US" - unless you arrange for a friend in the States to get one for you ship it to you.
However, it looks like the accompanying Windows Phone Microsoft Health app is not available if you're outside of the US. (not sure if this also applies to the Android and iPhone apps as well)
Found a workaround for Windows Phone: In settings, go to region and change Country/Region to United States. Restart phone, go to Store, and you'll see Microsoft Health in there. After installing you can change your regional settings back to your own country and the app is still available on your phone.
Better than Basis Peak... except it's missing the galvanic skin response sensor. I'm really happy about the UV sensor (although I already backed SunSprite, which is a disaster)! Best of all, Microsoft Band will have APIs unlike the data-stingy Basis!
Yes, I thought so, too, but they suck at material choices and ergonomics. Also, they don't have an API. Since Intel bought them, Basis Peak seems to look and feel better, but where's the API? Anyway, Microsoft just made a no brainer to decide - they offer everything that everybody else has (except pulse oximetry that Amiigo was supposed to have - not sure if they delivered it) and much more at the same price.
I've had a B1 for 1.5yrs. They've promised a public API since before that time, but it still doesn't exist. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of any features they've added this entire time (in fact it's terrible as a watch since you can't set the time/time zone except via the web and after a full data sync, making it often useless if you travel much).
I finally got the Amiigo a couple months ago - I didn't see SpO2 stats detailed. It was actually pretty underwhelming - the Amiigo doesn't have the promised API/SDK either. The MS Band's sensor suite is better (GSR, skin temp), it's just too bad it's not waterproof.
I ordered online but canceled and just swung by my local (West LA) store in the morning to pick one up. I called late last night to ask about stock and was told they couldn't tell me anything about future products (even though the website/online orders were up and a couple hours later they were advertising a "fitness launch event" in the store the next). When I dropped by the store, it was predictably empty (and it took some time to flag down someone to help me, which never happens at the Apple Store), but I got a chance to make sure on my sizing and picked up the device. I set my Band up in front of the store (took about 10 minutes) and have been wearing it all day. Everything seems to work pretty well so far, although I haven't stressed tested it...
I'm planning to do the same soon. There are three Microsoft stores here in the Atlanta area. I'd just rather do just about anything other than fight traffic to get to one.
I stopped by the local store after work: All three sizes were sold out. I was able to try on their demo units and pick my size -- on the online store medium was available in December, but small and large were still in stock (at that time).
I don't want to sound skeptical (I like the device and consider buying it), but how likely is it they gradually introduce "Windows (Phone) only" features for this device, up to the point it's not so useful in other platforms?
It also depends on how much the other platforms support deep integration. For example Apple tends to lock down things like Siri(perhaps this can connect as a bluetooth mic) and Google had scuffles over Youtube on Windows Phone so is likely to do everything in it's power to undermine this.
Can it (or could it be made to in future iterations) record the sort of data used to produce the output of an ECG (echocardiogram)? That would be quite the application for people with actual or high risk for hear disease, I think?
ECG (electro- — not echo- — cardiogram) records electric potential changes between various points on the torso, of which pulse rate is really only a very averaged metric, obtained via blood flow and pressure changes.
No chance you'll detect a QT interval change with this.
I wonder if some day someone would release a watch (or bracelet) that is able to have a sim-card and receive SMS. In a world of pin-code based authorizations and fast-dying-battery smartphones this looks like a thing I would own.
I wonder if integration with Xbox One is on the cards? It would seem to be natural given the fitness side of Kinect; if this has a HRM integrated perhaps that could be sent while you are doing your P90X workout or some such...
Would have bought this if it were fully functional with non-MS devices. It has all the sensors I want and looks unobtrusive. Even the Apple Watch looks like a Casio, so it's not like we're in top style here.
As a comparison, worth noting that the watch does not have GPS without the paired phone. So if you wanted to go out for a run and track the course, you would need to bring the phone.
That's a feature I like about my fitbit, but with the Band requiring a charge every two days could result in sporadic sleep data since most people will charge it as they sleep along with their cell phones. Granted, I charge my phone at work at my desk but taking off and putting on something that is supposed to track your activity could get annoying.
That does sound kinda messy. I think that I'll wait until the Fitbit Surge or Charge HR. Wish they'd gotten their act together well enough to get them out before holidays.
A big thing about sleep tracking for me is it being automatic. When I'm about to fall asleep, I'm often too sleepy to remember to press that button. It why I ditched my fitbit.
Other fitness trackers have automatic sleep tracking, even it's only heuristic based. For example misfit just has the formula of 'if not moving much for a large chunk of time in between these user configurable hours, mark that as sleep time'. That is a huge improvement.
The basis band seems to have a more advanced automatic sleep tracking algo. You guys would be probably interested looking into it.
I think most handheld navigation aids infer direction of travel from position information. An electronic compass gives the orientation of the device, who knows how it is being held.
I guess they use a compass when it's available, like for trying to display a map oriented to compass north, but I don't think it is dependable as algorithmic input.
Something mounted in a vehicle can directly factor the compass data into directions though (just saying that to emphasize that I'm talking about handheld stuff above).
I see a lot of stories about people in retirement homes running away without anyone being able to find them. This looks like a decent tool for the job.
Decent GPS trackers are hard to find and recommend.
more like a product question, but... UV sensor looks more like a gimmick, rather than something which could be somewhat useful. What's the reason for having this?
Take out the windows phone specific stuff and I'm fairly certain there isn't a device on the market with this feature set anywhere near this price point.
It's not as if MS started working on this after Apple announced the Apple Watch ... both products have been in development for quite a while prior to that.
More likely someone at Microsoft hit the wrong button, or failed to set something to private, or whatever. This even happened to Apple with some iPad Air 2 documentation not so long ago, so obviously this stuff happens.
I'm surprised so many are drawn to the industrial design of this. It seems quite clunky with the electronics distributed throughout the band. The flat portion is also too long.
Microsoft wants to sell you a gadget while Apple wants to sell you a watch.
I belong to a certain group of people that I'm guessing many smartwatch makers are targeting.
That is, I've not worn a watch for years, mostly because a) I've never needed time to be any more convenient than checking my phone, and b) watches tend to be more about style than function, and I care almost zero about the former and almost everything about the latter.
Now that the "watch" is becoming functional, it really is more of a gadget, and that's the only thing drawing me back to considering having something attached to my wrist again.
Of course, I also realize there is a group that does care more about style, and maybe these people aren't the target for the more "gadgety" type smartwatches.
One of the reasons I think the Apple Watch Edition is a joke is that it's trying to target both groups (the other reason being the ridiculous name). And I don't think there is that large of an audience that is willing to spend that much for style + functionality -- if they want to spend that much, they likely care more about style, and will stick to a traditional watch.
So if gadget = functionality, then I say "Finally. Sign me up."
"I also realize there is a group that does care more about style"
Amusing that you call the majority of the population a "group". People buy clothes, shoes, cars etc based on style not specs. And you only have to look at the LV, Prada etc of the world to know they are willing to spend huge amounts of money on it.
Gadget on your wrist ? Nice. But it's a niche market.
68% of people in the US are obese or overweight. The numbers in other countries aren't much better and are rising. The iWatch is a luxury watch that does fitness tracking and also allows you to view images. This is a fitness band that allows you to see the time.
Good point, but in some cases, function comes at the cost of style, and vice versa. For example, the larger screen, the more functional it is, but the more hideous it is too (as a watch). The MS Band's screen may be less stylish, but could potentially be more functional than the Apple Watch.
(Side note: I'm not an MS fanboy or Apple basher -- I have owned and loved iPhones since 3GS. I actually think MS has done a terrible job w/ gadgets, and that this is the first one I'm honestly interested in.)
I'd barely call the iWatch a watch. It fails at what makes a watch a watch -- being able to tell time immediately. The iWatch display is off most of the time to conserve battery.
How many mentions of the apple watch in this thread?
The moto 360 is already out, it's completely awesome, I use it every day, and as far as I can tell is already ahead of the apple watch in terms of functionality.
Crashed for me browsing that website with win 8.1. Thanks, microsoft. It actually rebooted my computer. Only microsoft can reboot your computer from their own website.
I am sure the Microsoft employees which will make up about 95% of the market share of this thing will be happy (until it goes the way of the Kin, Zune, etc).
The killing feature is the integrated GPS. As mentionned on the website, you can go without your phone. That alone could make it a buy if it supports wireless charging (I don't want to bother with wires in 2014)
Also, it is multiplatform, which is a big plus. I do not want an android watch or an iwatch, but something that will work regardless of the cellphone I chose.
I wonder if there's a devkit to read the data. If some HN is from Microsoft, I'd love some links to the devkit page (simple stuff, like retreiving GPS log, heartrate log, etc)