Apple says Apple Watch heart rate reader failing to read is a feature, not a bug

[GoodBytes]

The Apple watch has a feature that is supposed to read your heart rate every 10 min.

But since the latest update, Apple has been editing it's support pages to reflect an issues that people reported where the heart rate monitor no longer measure the user heart rate every 10min. It is skipping the moment it is supposed to measure every now and then.

Apple says that this is a new feature of the watch, where the heart rate monitor only reads your pulse when you don't move at all. If you move your arm, it wont' measure your heart. The support pages of the Apple watch has been modified to reflect this claim.

 

An updated heart rate information page on Apple's website, first spotted by 9to5Mac, says that the device "attempts to measure your heart rate every 10 minutes, but won't record it when you're in motion or your arm is moving." The page was updated today, and it previously made no mention that certain movements would prevent a passive heart rate reading. (A separate feature, in the Workout app, can record your heart rate during runs or other physical activities.)

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691513/apple-watch-sporadic-heart-rate-readings-explained

So that just turned the Apple watch heart monitor totally useless. Not only you need to stop running, but you need to catch the 10min cycle for your heart rate to be read. So this render the entire feature pointless. Maybe they should rename it to "Heart Attack Confirmation Monitor", 'cause it is the only time I see it being useful.

[Elapo]

Wha....

 

What?

 

What do they think "monitor" means?

[Grrizz]

Breaking news: Apple watch price increases due to new heart rate monitoring feature!

[FelixMemoria]

Wat  :huh:

[ImBleu]

If in doubt, make it a feature.

[sof006]

Apple = Thick as two planks of wood.

[Master Disaster]

Apple = Thinks their customers are thick as two planks of wood.

FTFY

[Embattled]

Sir Crown Prince Dr. Professor Tim Cook PHD MD Esquire, the new device catches on fire...

 

DAMNIT DIDN'T YOU HEAR ME THE LAST TIME FUCKING INTERN, CALL IT A FEATURE AND INCREASE THE PRICE BY $200!

[sof006]

FTFY

Some of them are... surprisingly.

[JcGross]

So that just turned the Apple watch heart monitor totally useless. Not only you need to stop running, but you need to catch the 10min cycle for your heart rate to be read. So this render the entire feature pointless. Maybe they should rename it to "Heart Attack Confirmation Monitor", 'cause it is the only time I see it being useful.

 

Did you actually read the text you quoted? "A separate feature, in the Workout app, can record your heart rate during runs or other physical activities."

[Bouzoo]

[RedRound2]

Widely misinterpreted (as always with apple reports)...

 

There's a workout mode where it'll constantly check your heart rate every 10 sec. The feature they're talking about here is passive one where it would check your heartbeat every 10 min regardless what you're doing

And I believe Android Wear doesn't have this continuous functionality rather on request or workout mode while the AW atleast takes every 10 minutes while you aren't doing anything to I guess make sure everything's ok

[Master Disaster]

Widely misinterpreted (as always with apple reports)...

 

There's a workout mode where it'll constantly check your heart rate every 10 sec. The feature they're talking about here is passive one where it would check your heartbeat every 10 min regardless what you're doing

And I believe Android Wear doesn't have this continuous functionality rather on request or workout mode while the AW atleast takes every 10 minutes while you aren't doing anything to I guess make sure everything's ok

So how does the fact I'm moving my arm somehow invalidate the fact my heart might be doing funny things? I mean c'mon, its called a heart rate monitor for god sakes, clues in the name. I think most people are clever enough to look back at the numbers and realise that a high reading might be because of activity.

The whole process is rendered completely moot if your gonna stop monitoring because of movement.

[sgloux3470]

Chances are it was destroying the battery life so they changed.

I feel like if you need to monitor your heart rate while exercising, you probably shouldn't rely on Apple for it.

[Victorious Secret]

Widely misinterpreted (as always with apple reports)...

 

There's a workout mode where it'll constantly check your heart rate every 10 sec. The feature they're talking about here is passive one where it would check your heartbeat every 10 min regardless what you're doing

And I believe Android Wear doesn't have this continuous functionality rather on request or workout mode while the AW atleast takes every 10 minutes while you aren't doing anything to I guess make sure everything's ok

 

Wait, you're using facts? To the stake with you, heathen! 

 

I'll go a step further - if you're using a Apple Watch as a activity watch, you truly need assistance. 

 

Get a Basis Peak or Fitbit Surge (I lean towards Basis more and more, my Surge makes me sad). More robust tracking algorithms, passable HR, built in GPS and true running and cycling modes (along with various others) that actually spit out valid data. 

 

If Apple left it as is and people complained about the battery life being less than it should as a result, people would bitch. Apple took it out because you don't need constant HR outside of activity monitoring, people still bitch. I am convinced this is the Schrodinger's Cat of bitching. 

 

 

So that just turned the Apple watch heart monitor totally useless. Not only you need to stop running, but you need to catch the 10min cycle for your heart rate to be read. So this render the entire feature pointless. Maybe they should rename it to "Heart Attack Confirmation Monitor", 'cause it is the only time I see it being useful.

 

 

This is only in the normal, "resting" mode where it doesn't poll the HR sensor as much. In activity mode, it will be polling constantly. Its a battery saver. Not different to my Fitbit Surge which pulses every now and then, will actively sense HR when you go to the information page for HR, and otherwise is constant during an activity. 

[Guest Kloaked]

Widely misinterpreted (as always with apple reports)...

 

There's a workout mode where it'll constantly check your heart rate every 10 sec. The feature they're talking about here is passive one where it would check your heartbeat every 10 min regardless what you're doing

And I believe Android Wear doesn't have this continuous functionality rather on request or workout mode while the AW atleast takes every 10 minutes while you aren't doing anything to I guess make sure everything's ok

Came here to say the same thing.

[GoodBytes]

Widely misinterpreted (as always with apple reports)...

 

There's a workout mode where it'll constantly check your heart rate every 10 sec. The feature they're talking about here is passive one where it would check your heartbeat every 10 min regardless what you're doing

And I believe Android Wear doesn't have this continuous functionality rather on request or workout mode while the AW atleast takes every 10 minutes while you aren't doing anything to I guess make sure everything's ok

All actual sports watches have contentious monitoring, water proof, you can go swim with it, can track your strokes as you swim, and a lot more, and cost about the same as the Apple watch.

But regardless, the feature WAS working on the Apple watch, and stopped working properly after the update.

So what is the point?

[Victorious Secret]

All actual sports watches have contentious monitoring, water proof, you can go swim with it, can track your strokes as you swim, and a lot more, and cost about the same as the Apple watch.

But regardless, the feature WAS working on the Apple watch, and stopped working properly after the update.

So what is the point?

 

Like I said, passive tracking has been nerfed to poll less frequently. Active tracking is the same. 

 

I have a Suunto Ambit. Wonderful activity watch, although fairly pricey for a dedicated tracking watch. Its also exceptionally dumb and is only good at activity tracking. It doesn't look fashionable, it certainly isn't pairing well with business casual and it just isn't a all around watch. Its a very dedicated device. 

 

The Apple Watch, 360, G Watch; they're all smartwatches being sold in a niche that is still trying to justify its existence. They do a little of everything and excel at nothing. It just so happens that Apple charges the most and gets crap for it. Nothing new there.

[bogus]

Gotta love when products are uncovered for false advertisement, suddenly get extra kind of weird features.

[Bsmith]

this acutally makes sense since you are supposed to read your heart beat when you find yourself in a resting state.

 

Admit it, u never have been to your doctor to measure your heartbeat while biking/walking unless needed for medical research not?

[Xorbot]

 

This is the only "smart watch" I'll ever wear:

 

 

Wristlojackimator

[Victorious Secret]

this acutally makes sense since you are supposed to read your heart beat when you find yourself in a resting state.

 

Admit it, u never have been to your doctor to measure your heartbeat while biking/walking unless needed for medical research not?

 

The most valid (and really, the only truly accurate) time to get a resting heart rate is just before you wake up, which is what the Watch (and several watches) use to get their resting heart rate. Getting your HR when moving, its not as useful a number. You are moving, you're excited. It makes sense in activities, you want to know what it is continuously and the watch continuously tracks that. 

 

But when you're not in that, having a resting heart rate is far more valuable in diagnostic purposes. 

 

Even in research, we hook up to ECGs. Infinitely more accurate and far more detailed than a wrist based solution (at this point in time) will ever be. 

[GoodBytes]

Like I said, passive tracking has been nerfed to poll less frequently. Active tracking is the same.

Doesn't mater. What is the point of the feature is now it will only track your heart rate when you are in front of your computer (basically). Just disable it.

[Victorious Secret]

Doesn't mater. What is the point of the feature is now it will only track your heart rate when you are in front of your computer (basically). Just disable it.

 

I don't think you're getting why its doing that. 

 

Constantly polling your heart rate, for any tracker, outside of activity purposes doesn't make sense. You're really interested in your RESTING rate, thats the one that is actually useful to have. So yes, the heart rate when you're in front of your computer or otherwise NOT MOVING is actually diagnostically crucial and the most useful to have. 

 

My doc actually used my HR logs to aid his process. My resting went from 65BPM all the way to 74BPM. That is not a insignificant increase. Nearly 10BPM more when I'm sitting around? Something is seriously wrong. That is useful information. 

 

My BPM when I am moving around doesn't tell anyone anything. Each person has different increases and decreases in the same activity. Everyone however will have diagnostically useful resting heart rates, which as I said is medically more important. 

Apple changing the behaviour to what it honestly should've been isn't a bad thing. 

[79wjd]

Doesn't mater. What is the point of the feature is now it will only track your heart rate when you are in front of your computer (basically). Just disable it.

Without the ten minute interval I could see it being a non issue -- I.e you could check your heart rate as soon as you stop moving...but the ten minute interval makes it hard (stupid) to time...so I just have one question, is it fixed at every ten minutes exactly, or does it wait ten minutes and then poll at the next moment of no movement?