3 ms·
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
by 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 agoNot 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.