Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Band

microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 534 posts

Re: Microsoft Band

#201

Post by TillE »

DiggityDug7 wrote: post #153
sytelus wrote: post #117

While everyone is trying to make a watch that looks as traditional as possible, Microsoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes. That's some guts. At $200 this looks like great device with built-in sensors including GPS and UV that also talks to whatever phone you own. I also like the fact that heart rate monitor is always on. Addition of barometer could have been nicer, however.…

Rather than being gutsy, I think it looks like it belongs in the Fitbit ecosystem (which maintains 69% of wearables marketshare, according to NPD Group). It doesn't appear to be hand-specific. Most fitness trackers suggest you should wear on your non-dominant hands, because they give a more accurate step count. I actually appreciate the fact that its not marketing as an entire smart phone on my wrist. I don't want to…

This is more or less exactly what I hoped the Apple Watch would be: a sensor platform with simple notifications. Too bad it doesn't look as nice as a Fitbit, though; that screen is way too long.

Re: Microsoft Band

#202

Post by omgtehlion »

underwater wrote: post #162
javert wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the software running on this? Interestingly, MS is mum on it. I'd really like to know. No matter what the answer is, it's going to be fascinating. Even if it's Windows but they've decided not to broadcast that.

I imagine it's Windows CE. Is there any reason to suspect otherwise?

Given that it is ARM CM4, this must be a custom firmware.

add: and if they left JTAG/SWD pads exposed, then you could consider it “arduino on steroids” with some builtin sensors and GCC toolchain available ;)

Re: Microsoft Band

#203

Post by pedalpete »

beggi wrote: post #32
curiousDog wrote: post #30

Wow, this actually looks fantastic. Microsoft has always killed it in the hardware department. Looks like it connects to their cloud service as well. Will probably consider getting one.

Erm, always killed it? Zune, Surface, Lumia?

I still use my Zune-hd, kinda amazed the battery has lasted as long as it has. It is still a beautiful piece of kit. Fits in the hand so well. No updates to the OS, but the music player was so good it isn't necessary. My only wish was that it didn't have a proprietary charging port.

Re: Microsoft Band

#204

Post by atmosx »

aragot wrote: post #200
sytelus wrote: post #117

While everyone is trying to make a watch that looks as traditional as possible, Microsoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes. That's some guts. At $200 this looks like great device with built-in sensors including GPS and UV that also talks to whatever phone you own. I also like the fact that heart rate monitor is always on. Addition of barometer could have been nicer, however.…

I like your reasoning. Worth mentioning the Apple Watch starts at $349. > feel that it's designed for fitness nuts This product is quite a leap for Microsoft already. The watch market is young and probably led by fitness nuts. It's probably a good strategy for Microsoft to nail this market first, learn about the marketing and triggers, secure a position and a revenue, then extend to a larger watch market when it is m…

> The watch market is young and probably led by fitness nuts.

Nope, not the feeling I'm getting. Most people around me do not have a smart-watch. I own a pebble which has extremely limited functionality compared to Apple Watch, etc.

The fact that I don't have to watch my phone to get input (read notifications, who's calling, runkeeper data, etc.) + the fact that I can keep my iPhone volume off and still not miss a single call, is a huge plus to me! Having Siri on your wrist could be extremely important for free lancers or generally speaking people who don't have a secretary to call at all times.

Re: Microsoft Band

#205

Post by rplnt »

suprgeek wrote: post #27

Got a nice package of on board sensors: Optical heart rate sensor 3-axis accelerometer/gyro GPS Ambient light sensor Skin temperature sensor UV sensor Microphone Haptic vibration motor The 2 day battery life is the one turn off for me. Otherwise this is actually quite nice for $199 cross platform fitness wearable

Just curious, what is UV sensor good for?

And I'd really like altimeter for this kind of device.

Re: Microsoft Band

#206

Post by sjwright »

wfjackson wrote: post #196
guylhem wrote: post #35

All the sensors + apparently a very lightweight OS + small form factor = I like it. The killing feature is the integrated GPS. As mentionned on the website, you can go without your phone. That alone could make it a buy if it supports wireless charging (I don't want to bother with wires in 2014) Also, it is multiplatform, which is a big plus. I do not want an android watch or an iwatch, but something that will work re…

The iWatch looks clunky and thick from some angles and tries too hard to be a smartphone on your wrist. http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/iwatch-i... https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtB7RX... The Moto 360 looks better because it's round but the UI is made for a square device. Whereas this appears to be a reimagination in an authentically digital and modern format. The iWatch is…

> The iWatch looks

Apple's wrist worn product is not called iWatch, and that linked picture is not of an Apple product.

Re: Microsoft Band

#207

Post by rplnt »

robomartin wrote: post #142
robomartin wrote: post #139

Wow! This. Is cool. And $199? Just ordered three of them. Happy to see Microsoft put out something like this and, to some extent one-up Apple. While the i-everything world is interesting, not sure I want to shackle myself to a single company like that. Swimming? Is it waterproof? Any swimming apps?

Ah, not waterproof. That's OK.

It's weird though, isn't it? I would expect it to be waterproof. If not swimming, then just not having to worry about it when being in rain, washing hands, etc..

Re: Microsoft Band

#209

Post by pedalpete »

roxtar wrote: post #138

Look pretty slick. It's interesting that it's marketed as a fitness device but is actually a smart watch. I own a Garmin Forerunner 305 which can last 6-8 hours of active use. I know that the recent Garmin devices last close to a day. The Microsoft Band doesn't tell us how well it does on battery with the GPS -- without the GPS it claims 48 hours.

If you're using gps to track running and such, you aren't running 24 hours a day, so you can save battery by turning it on and off. I think that's a great feature. But it would have been nice to say 'GPS' time, like phones describe 'talk-time'.

Re: Microsoft Band

#210

Post by harshreality »

com2kid wrote: post #191
javert wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I took the person saying "MS is mum on it" as "they are keeping it secret." If they are keeping it secret, that's interesting. But I'm possibly reading into this something that isn't there.

Hi! Dev lead here. Obviously not an official MS response! We are using a single threaded lightweight runtime based around call backs. We are completely non-blocking on all IO (including all sensors), and our CPU spends the majority of its time in a very low power mode. Every microsecond of CPU time is accounted for and justified! I cannot wait until people look at our battery size in mAh.

That sounds cool! Can you disclose/admit what language it was written in? I'm very tempted to try this out instead of getting a fitbit (not at all impressed with the Apple or Android watches so far).
Post reply on HN