4 ms·

And even many Garmin devices sync via the phone and app: My Edge bike computer connects via Bluetooth to the Garmin app, which uploads the file to the connect w

And even many Garmin devices sync via the phone and app: My Edge bike computer connects via Bluetooth to the Garmin app, which uploads the file to the connect website and then downloads the analysis again. There is no technical hindrance for doing analysis in the app (I wrote my own decoders for the fit file format some time ago for building my own archive) except that this makes it simple to have consistent state and defined usage of things like altitude correction.

RandomWorker 6y ago
Except battery life. Nobody wants an apps that are battery hogs. Sending the data is less computationally expensive and therefore uses less energy. Also, takes out the difficulty figuring out how this processing might impact Various phone models, one word they didn’t care or were lazy both are bad pr.
- tridentlead 6y ago
  Not true. It is much, much more energy intensive to run an RF link up to a tower or WiFi than to sum 2000 rows of 10 column wide data. RF works by emitting energy into free space, and there is absolutely no way it is cheaper for this type of thing (especially if it takes the transmitter out of sleep mode, like if you’re really out there and in airplane mode).
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  I can tell you that I would welcome the option to sync locally the last few days, even if I had to plug in my phone to support the massive power costs. Maybe they could offload the processing to the watch (since it already is able to display a summary of these files).
  - jbj 6y ago
    I used to sync my old 910 via ANT+ to my former Samsung Galaxy which has ANT+. Using a third party transfer app. and then viewing it with another third party app, directly on my phone. no battery complaints, but those ANT transfers were pretty flakey. I dont think you can browse files on the watch through bluetooth, but an OTG cable would do the trick.

RandomWorker 6y ago

Except battery life. Nobody wants an apps that are battery hogs. Sending the data is less computationally expensive and therefore uses less energy. Also, takes out the difficulty figuring out how this processing might impact Various phone models, one word they didn’t care or were lazy both are bad pr.

tridentlead 6y ago
Not true. It is much, much more energy intensive to run an RF link up to a tower or WiFi than to sum 2000 rows of 10 column wide data. RF works by emitting energy into free space, and there is absolutely no way it is cheaper for this type of thing (especially if it takes the transmitter out of sleep mode, like if you’re really out there and in airplane mode).
ultrarunner 6y ago
I can tell you that I would welcome the option to sync locally the last few days, even if I had to plug in my phone to support the massive power costs. Maybe they could offload the processing to the watch (since it already is able to display a summary of these files).
- jbj 6y ago
  I used to sync my old 910 via ANT+ to my former Samsung Galaxy which has ANT+. Using a third party transfer app. and then viewing it with another third party app, directly on my phone. no battery complaints, but those ANT transfers were pretty flakey. I dont think you can browse files on the watch through bluetooth, but an OTG cable would do the trick.