2 ms·

> 2) It's not a running watch. I'd recommend getting garmin if you're looking for that. I think we are on the same page but I've communicated poorly. Why even

> 2) It's not a running watch. I'd recommend getting garmin if you're looking for that. I think we are on the same page but I've communicated poorly. Why even include a heart rate sensor on a watch that is not intended for exercising in when the trade-off is sacrificing comfort and raising the complexity and cost of the design?

hombre_fatal 2y ago
1. Every watch with a sensor towards your skin has a bump. Every example I've looked at has a much larger one. 2. People already exercise in metal straps and aluminum Garmins. These just seem like you-things. Which is fine, but you should temper your complaints/bikeshedding accordingly.
- QuantumNoodle 2y ago
  I acknowledge this is a niche concern/complaint but this is a niche product for a niche base of folks, I'm simply curious about why. I want this to succeed and be sustainable so I asked about the utility of the sensor and provided a counter example since it's additional raises complexity. It is not common to wear watches for more than a few days at a time simply because there are not many whose battery will last that long. The effects of fatigue/pressure point from the sensor bump are less observed but not missing. With 30 days on wrist, I can extrapolate that fatigue will be more pronounced - so I am calling it out. I understand I am a small sample size but I have 2 watches whose battery lasts 7 days and the one without the bump is more pleasant to wear for a week between charges. To the point that I always reach for the comfort option and eventually sold off the other. On a lighter note, I do hope I'm not providing a series of increasingly bizarre and nonsensical questions or scenarios ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YDpvMYk5jA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YDpvMYk5jA
closetohome 2y ago
Heart rate sensors have a number of uses aside from fitness tracking. I'm guessing comfort wasn't considered because it isn't a common complaint.
- QuantumNoodle 2y ago
  I've used exercise as a catch all for continuous monitoring of the heart. Point being, to get more utility out of a sensor, you'd have to wear it more with less interruption. 30 days without taking off a device is... Unheard of (and wicked cool!). So comfort will be more appreciated in the long term, I suspect I've mentioned this in the above reply but I'll repeat here: It is not common to wear watches for more than a few days at a time simply because there are not many whose battery will last that long. The effects of fatigue/pressure point from the sensor bump are less observed but not missing. Majority of consumers wear Apple/Android watches that need to be recharged every day. With 30 days on wrist, I can extrapolate that fatigue will be more pronounced - so I am calling it out.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

1. Every watch with a sensor towards your skin has a bump. Every example I've looked at has a much larger one. 2. People already exercise in metal straps and aluminum Garmins. These just seem like you-things. Which is fine, but you should temper your complaints/bikeshedding accordingly.

QuantumNoodle 2y ago
I acknowledge this is a niche concern/complaint but this is a niche product for a niche base of folks, I'm simply curious about why. I want this to succeed and be sustainable so I asked about the utility of the sensor and provided a counter example since it's additional raises complexity. It is not common to wear watches for more than a few days at a time simply because there are not many whose battery will last that long. The effects of fatigue/pressure point from the sensor bump are less observed but not missing. With 30 days on wrist, I can extrapolate that fatigue will be more pronounced - so I am calling it out. I understand I am a small sample size but I have 2 watches whose battery lasts 7 days and the one without the bump is more pleasant to wear for a week between charges. To the point that I always reach for the comfort option and eventually sold off the other. On a lighter note, I do hope I'm not providing a series of increasingly bizarre and nonsensical questions or scenarios ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YDpvMYk5jA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YDpvMYk5jA

closetohome 2y ago

Heart rate sensors have a number of uses aside from fitness tracking. I'm guessing comfort wasn't considered because it isn't a common complaint.

QuantumNoodle 2y ago
I've used exercise as a catch all for continuous monitoring of the heart. Point being, to get more utility out of a sensor, you'd have to wear it more with less interruption. 30 days without taking off a device is... Unheard of (and wicked cool!). So comfort will be more appreciated in the long term, I suspect I've mentioned this in the above reply but I'll repeat here: It is not common to wear watches for more than a few days at a time simply because there are not many whose battery will last that long. The effects of fatigue/pressure point from the sensor bump are less observed but not missing. Majority of consumers wear Apple/Android watches that need to be recharged every day. With 30 days on wrist, I can extrapolate that fatigue will be more pronounced - so I am calling it out.