Apple Watch Series 4 Includes a Bigger Display, ECG Support, and 64-Bit S4 Chip (9to5mac.com) 172
Apple has unveiled its next-generation Apple Watch Series 4 smartwatch, featuring a larger display with smaller bezels, a 64-bit processor that's twice as fast as the previous generation, and electrocardiography (ECG) support. 9to5Mac reports: In terms of hardware, the Digital Crown has been completely reengineered with haptic feedback. For instance, as you flip through content in the Podcast application. The speaker is also over 50 percent louder, according to [Apple COO Jeff Williams]. As we reported earlier this week, the Apple Watch Series 4 uses a new 64-bit processor that offers performance up to two times faster performance. There's also a next-generation accelerometer gyroscope, which Williams says allows Apple Watch to detect a fall. When a fall is detected, Apple Watch will send an alert prompting you to call emergency services. If it senses you are immobile for more than 1 minute, the call will be started automatically.
As for heart features, Apple Watch is now capable of detecting a low rate. The device will also now screen your heart rhythm, allowing it to detect atrial fibrillation. As expected, Apple Watch Series 4 also now supports ECG -- which measures the electrical activity of the heart. With Apple Watch, you can take an ECG directly on the Apple Watch by putting your finger directly on the digital crown. The feature -- as well as irregular heart rate detection -- has received FDA clearance. Williams says that all health and fitness is encrypted on-device and in the cloud. Battery life on Apple Watch Series 4 is the same, 18-hours as before. Outdoor workout time is now 6 hours. In terms of pricing and colors, the Apple Watch Series 4 will start at $399 for the GPS model and $499 for the cellular model, with preorders starting September 14th. The aluminum model will feature space gray, silver, and black color configurations, while the stainless steel model will feature gold, polished black, and space black color configurations.
As for heart features, Apple Watch is now capable of detecting a low rate. The device will also now screen your heart rhythm, allowing it to detect atrial fibrillation. As expected, Apple Watch Series 4 also now supports ECG -- which measures the electrical activity of the heart. With Apple Watch, you can take an ECG directly on the Apple Watch by putting your finger directly on the digital crown. The feature -- as well as irregular heart rate detection -- has received FDA clearance. Williams says that all health and fitness is encrypted on-device and in the cloud. Battery life on Apple Watch Series 4 is the same, 18-hours as before. Outdoor workout time is now 6 hours. In terms of pricing and colors, the Apple Watch Series 4 will start at $399 for the GPS model and $499 for the cellular model, with preorders starting September 14th. The aluminum model will feature space gray, silver, and black color configurations, while the stainless steel model will feature gold, polished black, and space black color configurations.
Really nice to have an ECG onboard (Score:2)
Now instead of mere reaction videos people can include before and after ECG readings from the heart as well!
Re: (Score:2)
Tim Cock is using iWatch to lube a dildo in his stupid butthole.
What are you, like six years old?
Help! I've fallen and can't unlock my watch! (Score:2)
Network limits (Score:2)
Watch must be on the same cellular network as your iPhone, but only limited networks support Watch. Here in the U.K. it was only EE, but now Apple has added Vodafone â" officially the most complained about network provider. Those of us who have chosen good network providers other than EE are locked out of Watch.
You don't have to get a cellular model (Score:2)
Watch must be on the same cellular network as your iPhone
That's true but they still make watches without cell connections that can just piggy-back on your phone. Even without your phone they can still do most things the cellular watch can, they just can't make calls or do emergency notifications - they do include GPS.
18 hr battery OMG (Score:2)
Up to 18 hours battery life? [apple.com] WTF was Apple thinking. And exactly who is going to buy the spin that 64 bits is more energy efficient than 32. Just read Apple's own claims. Other manufactures aiming at more than 24 hours runtime = Apple will lose more market share.
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a break, this watch doesn't even last a day by Apple's own claim. What did Apple figure out again? Maybe how to spin a day as not a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably you don't wear it while you sleep.
Not this one, it doesn't give you that option.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably you don't wear it while you sleep.
Not this one, it doesn't give you that option.
I suggest you look into one of those whole-room wireless chargers.
Works great, Plus you'll get a nice tan!
Re: (Score:2)
18 hours would cover most people's awake day so if you put it on to charge while you sleep you'll be fine... but then they advertise sleep monitoring as a feature?
We need "one more thing..."
Introducing the iBed Mattress topper. Charge your Apple wearables while worn, as you sleep. It also doubles as an electric blanket and monitors your body movements as well.
Or the full iBedPlus Mattress with integrated smart speaker, lighting and full body massage... say "Goodnight Siri" and sleep well tonight before being woken by a gentle nudge at exactly the right temperature, lighting and point in your sleep cycle to start another great day.
Ooh, a Haptic Mattress-Topper!
Count me in!!!
Re: (Score:2)
They claim the same battery life as the previous model, which happily lasts 2-3 days.
Sure, in reserve mode, where you have to press the button to tell the time. In other words, it lasts 2-3 days when it is off. Apple's own guidelines [apple.com] say 45 minutes of app time on an 18 hour charge.
ECG only for USA? (Score:3)
A pity really.
It's real and it's spectacular (Score:5, Interesting)
64 bit on a watch? Does this thing access more than 2 GiB of addressable memory?
64 bit is not just about memory, but other things also - and it puts it in line with all the phones so the 32-bit path is closed down.
And ECG. There's no way in hell this thing is remotely certified
And yet, it is. The heart rate monitor itself has proven to be as good as a dedicated heart rate monitor... if you watch the video it'd not like it's taking an ECG all the time, the user triggers an ECG and you get a 30 second reading (which you can then examine or share a PDF of with your doctor or anyone else). I think that's part of how they are able to make it reliable enough to get certified.
I don't know if Apple originally planned on all this latent health monitoring when they first cooked up the watch, but I think they have a winning strategy here. If my mom will wear one I'd get it for her, to have the fall detection and early warning of heart issues... heck I am finally upgrading my original first gen Apple Watch because I really would like warnings about my own heart rate!
Re: (Score:2)
>64 bit is not just about memory, but other things also...
What things? That actually matter to a watch?
Re: (Score:2)
Address space virtualization and security.
Frankly, everyone is doing 64 bit SOCs just to piss you off. It's a giant conspiracy. I bet that you can't name one modern chip design firm designing new 32 bit SOCs.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that you can't name one modern chip design firm designing new 32 bit SOCs.
You lose. [androidauthority.com] Qualcomm's latest smartwatch SoC uses Cortex A7, a 32 bit processor.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that you can't name one modern chip design firm designing new 32 bit SOCs.
You lose. [androidauthority.com] Qualcomm's latest smartwatch SoC uses Cortex A7, a 32 bit processor.
Proving once again the Qualcomm is a fucking joke when it comes to microcontrollers/SoCs.
Re: (Score:2)
Without Qualcomm, Android would not be grinding Apple down towards single digit market share right now.
Re:It's real and it's spectacular (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's not what's happening [fool.com]. Going from 13 to 17% marketshare is the opposite of being ground down towards single digit share.
Odd.
Re: (Score:2)
Doofus, Apple went from 61% share of the smarwatch market to 17% today. That actually happened. I would not be surprised if Apple hits single digits by this time last year. This butt ugly power hungry product update practically guarantees it.
This actually happened.
Re: (Score:3)
From a majority of a "smartwatch" market incluing Apple and Samsung -- but not Fitbit and others who made "basic wearables" [cnet.com] -- to 17% today where there is almost no such thing such thing as "basic wearables" because the survivors have all moved into "smartwatches." Odd how you insist upon starting in 2015, versus 2016 (10.8%) [idc.com] or 2014 (0% - no Apple watch). Perhaps because in 2015 Apple and Samsung were the only game in town, and Samsung
Re: (Score:2)
Without Qualcomm, Android would not be grinding Apple down towards single digit market share right now.
You are pathetic.
GTFO
Re: (Score:2)
Single digits.
Re: (Score:2)
During our brief time with the Apple Watch Series 4, I can’t say I noticed it being all that much faster than before [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but it's thinner while keeping the same battery life, and also providing longer sport use (six hours vs. four). It doesn't need to be any faster, when being able to use a smaller battery for the same functions is probably even more valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but it's thinner while keeping the same battery life
Thinner while still being gigantic. Same battery life, which is still too little. Little wonder that Apple keeps losing share in this category.
Re:It's real and it's spectacular (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes but it's thinner while keeping the same battery life
Thinner while still being gigantic. Same battery life, which is still too little. Little wonder that Apple keeps losing share in this category.
And yet, they not only have the best-selling Smartwatch, they have the best-selling watch, PERIOD!
Re:It's real and it's spectacular (Score:4, Informative)
Source? [fool.com]
Apple grew its market share by 4% from 13 to 17%.
Xiaomi grew its market share by 1.8% from 13.3% to 15.1%.
That's called falling behind, not taking the lead.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple had 61% of the smartwatch market in 2015 and 17% today. That's what I call falling behind, not taking the lead.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine that - it essentially had no competition in 2015. Apple is the market leader now. It is growing faster than Xiaomi now. It introduced a new generation product now. How is Xiaomi "set to take the lead" exactly? You can't fall behind people that you're pulling away from.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that - it essentially had no competition in 2015. Apple is the market leader now. It is growing faster than Xiaomi now. It introduced a new generation product now. How is Xiaomi "set to take the lead" exactly? You can't fall behind people that you're pulling away from.
Really, The Hate is strong with ToughLove.
He is as stupid as he is ugly.
Don't waste your time on him.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't you talking about Xiaomi being "set to take the lead?" Oh wait, we're moving the goalposts again.
Asks the man-child who's been posting in the Apple product announcement threads for ten and a half hours.
You're projecting.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't you talking about Xiaomi being "set to take the lead?" Oh wait, we're moving the goalposts again.
Asks the man-child who's been posting in the Apple product announcement threads for ten and a half hours.
You're projecting.
I warned you not to engage. He's actually clinically insane.
But that was a good retort, anyway... ;-)
Kudos!
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm having fun. It's like pointing a wind-up robot at the end of your counter and watching it haplessly march off, with no ability to stop itself.
TL says crazy shit.
Rebut it with a link.
TL either claims that it's all lies or moves the goalposts, and the onlookers share their heads.
Repeat.
The fun part is never thinks that he'll get called on the crazy shit, then loses it in short order when he is.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point, for most use-cases things don't need to be faster...
So your point is, this has a faster processor even though it doesn't need to be faster? Um I think I get it, it's like the Emperor has no clothes right?
Some Apple employee with mod points hates the idea of Apple with no clothes? Maybe design a better product then.
Re: (Score:2)
And may I point out, Apple claims "up to" 18 hours. You can be sure it is less. Reality: if you have this watch then you need to charge it multiple times per day, and get used to wearing a brick for those times you forget. These guys have the right idea. [slashgear.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And may I point out, Apple claims "up to" 18 hours. You can be sure it is less. Reality: if you have this watch then you need to charge it multiple times per day, and get used to wearing a brick for those times you forget. These guys have the right idea. [slashgear.com]
Unlike all the other LYING OEMs, Apple has a reputation for being the ONLY tech-device manufacturer that even APPROACHES their st stead battery life.
You need to do less Spewing of that Bile, and do some more Research.
Re: (Score:2)
Huawei's Watch 2 can last for weeks without its smarts [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So firstly 64 bit. What? But only x86 that was massively register starved in 32 bit mode.
As for the ECG you're right , but it only works when you touch the watch with your other hand. I'd assumed naively that any ECG watch was a watch that monitored ECG just on your wrist, not a watch with a rather standard single channel ECG bolted on. My mistake though. But I don't think you'll find it very useful.
Re: (Score:2)
So firstly 64 bit. What?
For the Apple Watch specifically, the main benefits I can see would be that compilers and the hardware designs are all well tuned to 64 bit support now, not spending as much time on 32 bit... remember the chip architecture shares a lot of things with the iPhone chip designs. The watch generally is processing a lot of floating point data as well so the extra accuracy may be helpful there.
As for the ECG....I don't think you'll find it very useful.
I don't actually care that much about
Re: (Score:2)
It may also not be about increased precision. It is pretty common in floating-point architectures to allow a 64-bit FPU to perform operations on two 32-bit operands in parallel in the same amount of time. So instead of doing a 64-bit x 64-bit multiplication in some number of clock cycles, it can do two (32-bit x 32-bit) multiplications in the same time. A lot of that can be handled by compi
Re: (Score:2)
How on earth would an ECG work off a single hand?! A circuit needs to be complete, which implies both arms.
Re:It's real and it's spectacular (Score:4, Informative)
How on earth would an ECG work off a single hand?! A circuit needs to be complete, which implies both arms.
That's why you have to touch the crown with a finger on the opposite hand from the one on which you are wearing the watch. The back of the case forms one side of the circuit, and your finger is the other.
They explained that in the Keynote. Pretty clever, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
So firstly 64 bit. What? But only x86 that was massively register starved in 32 bit mode.
As for the ECG you're right , but it only works when you touch the watch with your other hand. I'd assumed naively that any ECG watch was a watch that monitored ECG just on your wrist, not a watch with a rather standard single channel ECG bolted on. My mistake though. But I don't think you'll find it very useful.
It still has the optical heart rate sensor. This is just a more accurate sensor. They explained in the keynote: when you touch your finger to the crown, it completes a circuit with the back of the watch. That's how it is able to read the WAVEFORM, rather than just the RATE.
That's the same reason that that $99 ECG device has TWO pads, one for a finger on your left hand, and the other for the right hand.
tl;dr signal acquisition (especially of very small signals) requires both a "positive" and a "ground".
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr signal acquisition (especially of very small signals) requires both a "positive" and a "ground".
That's what was confusing me! I figured they had two electrodes and were using some sort of ECG field measurement. I have managed to get a signal out of the noise floor from as far down the arm as a bicep with tlectrodes 35mm apart, but it wasn't very good.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr signal acquisition (especially of very small signals) requires both a "positive" and a "ground".
That's what was confusing me! I figured they had two electrodes and were using some sort of ECG field measurement. I have managed to get a signal out of the noise floor from as far down the arm as a bicep with tlectrodes 35mm apart, but it wasn't very good.
Do you know about using chopper-stabilized amplifiers, or Autocorrelation?
These techniques both work pretty well to retrieve signals that are actually BELOW the noise-floor. In fact, that's how Cellphones are even able to WORK at all! If you look at the raw signal to noise ratio, you'll just shake your head and go "no way"...
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know about using chopper-stabilized amplifiers
Yes. They have incredibly low input offset voltage and amazing DC characteristics. Both of which aren't useful for ECG signals. ECG has no DC bias itself but also the electrolytic cell formed with your skin an electrodes gives a large DC bias to the signal which needs to be removed.
So, chopper amps aren't the right tool for the job.
or Autocorrelation? These techniques both work pretty well to retrieve signals that are actually BELOW the noise-floor. In f
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know about using chopper-stabilized amplifiers
Yes. They have incredibly low input offset voltage and amazing DC characteristics. Both of which aren't useful for ECG signals. ECG has no DC bias itself but also the electrolytic cell formed with your skin an electrodes gives a large DC bias to the signal which needs to be removed.
So, chopper amps aren't the right tool for the job.
or Autocorrelation? These techniques both work pretty well to retrieve signals that are actually BELOW the noise-floor. In fact, that's how Cellphones are even able to WORK at all!
Sounds like you're talking about the spread spectrum code division multiple access schemes where you cross correlate with the chipping code. It can get stuff many db below the noise floor. Unfortunately, my heart isn't multiplied by a high frequency chipping code, so that kind of thing is not likely to work.
You might be able to get heart rate from well below the noise floor by cross correlating with likely ECG signals at various beating rates and heavily bandpass filtering, but that would be rate only, not any kind of ECG trace.
Chopper stabilized amps also are useful for high-accuracy, high-gain applications. So yes, they could be useful.
Autocorrelation might not be too useful, though. IIRC, it is best if you are trying to recover a modulated carrier wave.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an afib/sinus-bradycardia patient and a beta tester for the AliveCor / Kardia apple-watch band product they sell. I had the condition most of my life but it wasn't properly diagnosed until I started playing with home EKG equipment and noticed the trends. I've been using the AliveCor watch band produc t (and the separate unit they sell) for a few years now. It has been an invaluable asset in my afib care, and the data from it (and the multiple events / cardioversions over the years) have provided good r
Re:what I don't even (Score:5, Informative)
It is certified by the FDA for AFib and ECG.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh I see. So I just checked, it's only certified ECG when you touch a metal bit in it with your other hand. Yeah that's technically feasible for a single channel ECG. Not really sure how useful that is. It's certainly not a continuous monitoring device that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh I see. So I just checked, it's only certified ECG when you touch a metal bit in it with your other hand. Yeah that's technically feasible for a single channel ECG. Not really sure how useful that is. It's certainly not a continuous monitoring device that's for sure.
I broke some bones in an accident and ended up in hospital. When they did an ECG they found I had AFib without being aware of it. I wonder if anyone's new watch will give them a surprise like that. It's not like healthy thirty- and forty-somethings get ECGs that often.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like healthy thirty- and forty-somethings get ECGs that often.
Is that another sign of the American medical system? I mean an ECG and stress ECG is something recommend and provided free in many coutries around the world and is highly recommeneded to do as part of a medical checkup every 10 years after you become an adult.
Did mine 3 days ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh I see. So I just checked, it's only certified ECG when you touch a metal bit in it with your other hand. Yeah that's technically feasible for a single channel ECG. Not really sure how useful that is. It's certainly not a continuous monitoring device that's for sure.
They still have the optical heart rate sensor on the back. That IS continuous, and has already been credited with saving several lives.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's got an ARM processor, and 64-bi
Re: (Score:2)
64-bit ARM is vastly faster than 32-bit ARM
Not it isn't, and whatever small advantages it has come at the expense of more power-hungry transistors, at least twice as many for the ALU. An idiotic tradeoff for a watch. And I suppose, marketing has sent talking points around explaining why 64 is better than 32 that don't need to be right, they just need to sound good to an uncritical mind.
Re: (Score:2)
What benchmarks? Nobody has any yet, there aren't even details about which ARM core the S4 uses. Until those details come out, Apple astroturfers will spin the "twice as fast" angle as hard as they can. My take on it: IPC differs only slightly between current 32 bit and 64 bit ARM cores, but power draw is significantly higher for 64 bit cores. Or to put it simply, the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any. To work around this, Apple will redefine the length of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
ARM disagrees (slide 7) [arm.com], but what do they know.
Re: (Score:2)
Support your argument, please, because slide 7 does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Something about "highest efficiency" in the A35 that you do not understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Something about, you are imagining something in that slide that isn't there. Please try a little harder.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cortex-A35
Highest Efficiency
64/32-bit"
It's there all right.
Re: (Score:2)
With subtitle "64/32 bit". See the "32 bit" part? Your argument still not supported, you are trying to parse a slide. How lame. See if you can find something better, good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that means that the processor supports both 32- and 64-bit code [arm.com], not that some are 32-bit only, right? "Most efficient 64-bit Armv8-A processor with full Armv7-A compatibility" in ARM's words.
Sore because I can correctly parse one and you cannot?
You surely realize that every ARMv8 processor short of the A76 [theregister.co.uk] is 64/32-bit,
Re: (Score:2)
If A35 really is more power efficient than A7, other things being equal (cache, frequency, process) then why did Qualcomm go with A7 and not A35 for their new power efficient smartphone SoC? [androidauthority.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Time for you to prove the A7 is more power efficient, not for me to explain Qualcomm decisionmaking. "We slapped a limited function coprocessor onto an A7 in an attempt to cheaply extend battery life" is not a rebuttal to ARM's own documents.
Re: (Score:2)
More like "we didn't go with A35 because A7 is more efficient". A35 has been out since 2015, Qualcomm had plenty of time to evaluate it. A7 obviously won. I guess I'm not trusting ARM on their marketing claim.
Re: (Score:3)
So where's the false marketing lawsuit? [anandtech.com] After all, there's been three years for people to claim fraud versus claims like:
"At the same frequency and process, the A35 architecture (codenamed Mercury), promises to be 10% lower power than the A7 while giving an 6-40% performance uplift depending on use-case. In integer workloads (SPECint2006) the A35 gives about 6% higher throughput than the A7, while floating point (SPECfp2000) is supposed to give a more s
Re: (Score:2)
So absence of lawsuit is your new fallback argument.
See "promises to be" in your own quote. Promises promises. See, ARM engineering told ARM marketing that "A35 is more power efficient than A53" and marketing twisted it. Omigosh, marketing did that. Qualcomm obviously untwisted it based on actual engineering, not marketing claims. But you want to ignore that with bluster.
Re: (Score:2)
In response to your fallback argument of "I don't believe ARM?" Yes.
Your link doesn't support that. There's is no indication that the A7 was selected for power efficiency rather than, oh, cost.
Based upon one and only one very ambiguous link, you think that you can dismiss links to years of ARM materials as "bluster." Don't make me laugh.
Provide power efficiency numbers. I
Re: (Score:2)
There's is no indication that the A7 was selected for power efficiency rather than, oh, cost.
Cost is a theory you pulled out of your ass, with zero support. Snapdragon Wear 3100 is based on a new ultra-low power hierarchical system architecture approach. [qualcomm.com] More than sufficient evidence that the primary goal of Qualcomm's new SoC is power efficiency. And they passed up the A35 for that. Blow smoke all you want, it happened.
Other than the Qualcomm 3100 data point, there is not a whole lot of evidence as this point in time about which system architecture is ultimately the most power efficient for a watc
Re: (Score:2)
Efficiency is a theory that you pulled out of your ass, and even your own article contradicts it.
"This new SoC uses the same 28nm process and quad-core Cortex-A7 CPU as Wear 2100 "
"
Re: (Score:2)
The absence of the A35 in Qualcomm's design proves that A36 did not get the design win, A7 did. Now go ahead and bluster about that.
It's also interesting that 28nm got the design win, not 14nm. Instead of blowing an artery like you seem to be on the verge of, just sit back and see which product gets the win in the market. I'm predicting: not Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving the goalposts:
"My take on it: IPC differs only slightly between current 32 bit and 64 bit ARM cores, but power draw is significantly higher for 64 bit cores. Or to put it simply, the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any."
Not proven.
"If A35 really is more power efficient than A7, other things being equal (cache, frequency, process) then why did Qualcomm go with A7 and not A35 for their
Re: (Score:2)
Not proven
Strongly suggested by the fact that the A7 got the win. Better than your frantic arm waving.
Re: (Score:2)
Fail. Do better.
Re: (Score:2)
You got nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase an apparent hypocrite: Your argument still not supported, you are trying to parse a product announcement. How lame. See if you can find something better, good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
I win.
"At the same frequency and process, the A35 architecture (codenamed Mercury), promises to be 10% lower power than the A7 while giving an 6-40% performance uplift depending on use-case. In integer workloads (SPECint2006) the A35 gives about 6% higher throughput than the A7, while floating point (SPECfp2000) is supposed to give a more substantial 36% increase"
Still not proven false, and you quit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you won the internet blowhard award today. You must be fun at parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Linking to actual tech articles and manufacturer info = blowhard, but saying that a product announcement "strongly suggests" something that it in no way does = proof.
The fun part is that you were compelled to rebut anyone who dared to reply to your "What things? That actually matter to a watch?" with an almost fact-free and snarky reply. Which is the epitome of being a blowhard.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't wet your jammies.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you say "bye" several posts ago?
About as truthful as the rest of your drivel, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
So sorry, you did wet your jammies.
Re: what I don't even (Score:2)
Hello! More fact free drivel, I see. You just canâ(TM)t bring yourself to actually end the conversation. So why did you write âoeBye.â?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you don't see any irony. Interesting specimen of something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one who wrote "bye." I'll haunt you so long as it amuses me, and I'm not going to pretend any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also sneak around at night and peer into windows?
Re: (Score:2)
You're projecting again.
Re: (Score:2)
What benchmarks? Nobody has any yet, there aren't even details about which ARM core the S4 uses. Until those details come out, Apple astroturfers will spin the "twice as fast" angle as hard as they can. My take on it: IPC differs only slightly between current 32 bit and 64 bit ARM cores, but power draw is significantly higher for 64 bit cores. Or to put it simply, the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any. To work around this, Apple will redefine the length of the day.
You're an illiterate retard.
There are two facts that point to the S4 being 64 bit:
1. Apple said so.
2. Apple is 64-bit "clean" across ALL of their OSes, except macOS. And the next version of macOS, Mojave, is supposed to be RELEASED in about a week from now is going to be the last macOS that will support 32-bit AT ALL. iOS kicked 32 bit to the curb a year ago with iOS 11.0.
TL;dr 32 bit is D-E-A-D at Apple; so it wouldn't make any sense for them to regress with the S4 and WatchOS 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
64bit makes development more unified
So let me get this straight, Apple devs save some money while customers get a watch that won't make it through a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are tons of examples of consumerised sensors delivering real value in clinical settings. eg wireless blood pressure cuffs.
Accuracy and richness of datasets aren't the be-all and end-all. Frequency of measurement can be very important. Hell, take the example of wireless blood pressure cuffs -- they are less accurate than the cuffs used by health professionals, but readings aren't distorted by white coat hypertension
Re: (Score:2)
Um. The FDA has certified it. AliveCor has been certified for the same purpose for a while. The way you think the world is, is not how it actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly what.
64 bit on a watch? Does this thing access more than 2 GiB of addressable memory?
And ECG. There's no way in hell this thing is remotely certified (it's bloody hard to get a good reading from the wrist under ideal conditions never mind on a watch without wet silver chloride electrodes). That makes is not just useless but actively deceptive. Fitbit couldn't even manage heart rate (via pulse ox like tech which is way easier that far distal) without a class action lawsuit.
Isn't it disgusting how Apple employees get on here and mod down any comment critical of Apple's design mistakes? That doesn't turn a bad product into a good one, but it does tell you about Apple's corporate culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would autistic stress rocking call for kleenex and dating? Shouldn't this instead call for calming music and comfort foods?
You did specify "if Google made this".
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, I'm waiting for 6+ months per charge. It's useless if it can't be used as an actual watch.
Re: (Score:2)