Blaze Firmware Update - 17.8.200.3 [Closed]

[AndrewFitbit]

Update 5/6/16:

Hey all,

I've been keeping a close eye on this thread, and I wanted to give a quick update.

For reports of Blaze steps and/or distance being inaccurate, I think this is definitely something worth looking into. I've passed on all the feedback to our team so they can investigate. As a friendly reminder, remember that accuracy depends on many factors.

Here's a couple things being worked on:

• Excess Calendar Notifications
• 'Auto' brightness setting is too dim or adjusts slowly

For 'Auto' setting being too dim, you can switch to 'Normal' as a workaround in the meantime. Please note switching to 'Normal' will have a slight impact on battery life.

I'll provide updates when I can. Thanks everyone. 🙂

Update 4/27/16:

The firmware update should now be available to everyone. Update your Blaze and let me know how it goes! You can read the release notes for version 17.8.200.3 in the lead post or check them out on our help site. 🙂

Update 4/23/16:

Sorry for the wait, here's the release notes!

"The Simplified Chinese, Japanese, and Korean languages are now available on Blaze. Note that Blaze is only available for pre-order from fitbit.com in China, Japan, and Korea.

This release also resolves a couple issues:

• Some customers were unable to resume a paused FitStar workout.
• Some customers reported problems with the Blaze screen (display)."

You can find these release notes for this update (17.8.200.3) on our help site.

4/21/16:

Hey everybody,

Some of you may have noticed there's a new firmware update for Blaze! We just started pushing this update out yesterday, and just like any other update, we'll be rolling it out in waves. This update focuses on a few bug fixes. Release notes will be posted here soon.

Thanks!

[mbre2004]

Most likely to create smaller devices, Fitbit doesn't incorporate date and time batteries into their watches. Time is basically on volatile memory, so it runs off the ram of the watch. Just like with computers, anything ran of volatile memory will be lost when the power is turned off or interrupted.

.

Have they mentioned the issue with syncing if the device does not communicate with the cell phone for a long period of time? I've noticed if I don't let my watch sync with my phoen after four hours, it has a hard time syncing. Even with classic bluetooth turned on it doesn't always work but helps.

[bbarrera]

---

@mbre2004 wrote:

Most likely to create smaller devices, Fitbit doesn't incorporate date and time batteries into their watches.

---

No, this isn't a computer, a real-time clock is integrated into the microcontroller that is the brains of a wearable.

Both the Fitbit Surge and Blaze use Silicon Labs EFM32 Giant Gecko (EFM32GG395F1024) microcontroller that is designed for wearables and other low-power applications. The microcontroller includes a real-time clock and low-power sleep modes. The Blaze has a 167maH battery, you can read the datasheet and use that info and guestimates in an online battery calculator to estimate the number of hours of battery life.

Back to my point, both the Surge and Blaze use the same microcontroller and real-time clock. However only the Blaze loses time when you power down, no other Fitbit tracker has that issue:

Source: https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/1176/

[Rich_Laue]

Right now my Blaze does not lose time when powered down, at least no more tv k it would if it had not synced in a long while.
We are told that with the new upgrade the time will need to be set, is this because the time will be off or will it say something like Jan 1 @12am?
I guess we will have to wait and see

[mbre2004]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

---

@mbre2004 wrote:

Most likely to create smaller devices, Fitbit doesn't incorporate date and time batteries into their watches.

---

No, this isn't a computer, a real-time clock is integrated into the microcontroller that is the brains of a wearable.

Both the Fitbit Surge and Blaze use Silicon Labs EFM32 Giant Gecko (EFM32GG395F1024) microcontroller that is designed for wearables and other low-power applications. The microcontroller includes a real-time clock and low-power sleep modes. The Blaze has a 167maH battery, you can read the datasheet and use that info and guestimates in an online battery calculator to estimate the number of hours of battery life.

Back to my point, both the Surge and Blaze use the same microcontroller and real-time clock. However only the Blaze loses time when you power down, no other Fitbit tracker has that issue:

Source: https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/1176/

---

The memory on those are only non-volatile for the firmware. Everything else is ran off of ram. So if the fitbit had a date and time battery, it would need a chip similar to what a cmos does for the computer. But again that volatile as well because enough time lapse in power results in it losing data. As long as a fitbit remains on, (even charging while on) it holds the data in the ram. 

[LexJDavis]

Andrew,  is there an ETA for the new firmware update?  I am hoping this may resolve my fitbit telling me I've climbed a bunch of stairs (when I haven't.)  Some days it shows I've climbed 110 flights of stairs and I might have climbed 4 or 5. 

Thanks in advance for all you do!  I love my Blaze!

[mbre2004]

---

@LexJDavis wrote:

Andrew,  is there an ETA for the new firmware update?  I am hoping this may resolve my fitbit telling me I've climbed a bunch of stairs (when I haven't.)  Some days it shows I've climbed 110 flights of stairs and I might have climbed 4 or 5. 

Thanks in advance for all you do!  I love my Blaze!

---

I had that issue too with my blaze. But I recall going back and forth in a location that had a slight incline to it. But I don't know what's causing that issue. One day last week it told me I climbed 85 flights of stairs. As much of an accomplishment that would have been, I know I didn't do that.

[bbarrera]

---

@mbre2004 wrote:

The memory on those are only non-volatile for the firmware. Everything else is ran off of ram. So if the fitbit had a date and time battery, it would need a chip similar to what a cmos does for the computer. But again that volatile as well because enough time lapse in power results in it losing data. As long as a fitbit remains on, (even charging while on) it holds the data in the ram. 

---

@mbre2004 Sounds like you haven't spent much time around microcontrollers (MCUs). Go review page 8, Chapter 10 (10.3.4 in particular), and Chapter 22 in the reference manual for the Blaze/Surge microcontroller:

http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/EFM32GG-RM.pdf

and get back to me.

Seriously, just take a look at page 8 and the current specs on page 6. I think you'll find that the deep sleep mode (energy mode 2) on the MCU used in Blaze/Surge is more than capable of everything you are talking about, at 1.1uA of current, which with the Blaze's 167mAh battery is over 4000 days of operation. 

Hope that helps.

[mbre2004]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

---

@mbre2004 wrote:

The memory on those are only non-volatile for the firmware. Everything else is ran off of ram. So if the fitbit had a date and time battery, it would need a chip similar to what a cmos does for the computer. But again that volatile as well because enough time lapse in power results in it losing data. As long as a fitbit remains on, (even charging while on) it holds the data in the ram. 

---

@mbre2004 Sounds like you haven't spent much time around microcontrollers (MCUs). Go review page 8, Chapter 10 (10.3.4 in particular), and Chapter 22 in the reference manual for the Blaze/Surge microcontroller:

http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/EFM32GG-RM.pdf

and get back to me.

Seriously, just take a look at page 8 and the current specs on page 6. I think you'll find that the deep sleep mode (energy mode 2) on the MCU used in Blaze/Surge is more than capable of everything you are talking about, at 1.1uA of current, which with the Blaze's 167mAh battery is over 4000 days of operation. 

Hope that helps.

---

Thanks for the share. it looks as though they are using the memory based off of flash memory which takes advantage of the low voltage output. Flash memory is nonvolatile memory. I'll spend a bit more time reading the operation manual a bit more. 

[bbarrera]

@mbre2004 microcontroller (MCU) technology is similar but a bit different than what you find inside a computer. With MCU the RAM is on-chip - there is no separate DRAM on the circuit board. In addition MCUs are designed to support special low-power operational modes, and those modes allow certain key peripherals (real-time clock) and on-chip RAM to remain on. That allows MCUs to be used in battery operated devices for days or months, while still supporting accurate timekeeping.

Beyond the deep-sleep mode I mentioned, there are even more aggressive low-power modes including stop and shutoff. Both stop and shutoff also support maintaining the backup real-time clock at ridiculously low power consumption. MCUs accomplish these modes by shutting off power to all but a few hardware units (so called "power domains"), and one of the most important is the real-time clock and its small bank of RAM. The block diagram on page 5 is color coded to show which hardware units are available for each energy mode.

Anyways, coming full circle, the Surge and Blaze use the same MCU. If I recall correctly, and trusting Fitbit Help, the Surge can be shutoff and will maintain time (using the MCU's real-time clock). For some reason the Blaze loses time if you shutoff the tracker, even though there is still battery available. Therefore with the Blaze, after power-on, it must sync with phone to have accurate time.

[Corvettekid]

When I shutdown my Blaze -- not that often, only when the battery is near-dead and I want to save power -- the Time comes on as normal.

Ditto when the battery is 100% drained -- power it up, time is correct as before.

I don't know why a software upgrade would interfere with this feature.  No other devices I own need to have the Time re-set if you power-off or if the batter is dead.

[Corvettekid]

Gretchen & Other Step/Distance Folks:

I did some calculations the last few days:

(1)  CONDO WALK:  On an irregular walk around my condo complex, where I didn't double-back but just started and ended up at our Clubhouse, the Blaze registered 0.75 miles and the Garmin GPS showed 0.88.  That's 85% accuracy.

(2)  NIGHT USE:  Including the Condo Walk, but also including a few hours in the Clubhouse (40' x 50') with walking around while not couch sitting, the Blaze showed 0.99 miles and the Garmin showed 1.49 miles.  That's 66% accuracy...but that includes the Condo Walk which means that when measuring accuracy in the Clubhouse Solo, the Blaze was capturing only 40% of the distance (the Condo Walk was 85% accuracy so Clubhouse Solo dragged down the total).

(3)  ERRAND RUN:   Another outside walk near my condo complex, the Blaze measured 0.53 miles while the Garmin said 0.60 miles.  That's 88% accuracy !  

(4)  CLUBHOUSE ACTIVITY:  A few hours in the Clubhouse, walking around, bathroom breaks, etc.......the Blaze showed 1.03 miles while the GPS said 1.53 miles.....67% accuracy, way off but better than the earlier measurement for Clubhouse stuff when you stripped out Condo Walk.

(5)  1/4 MILE TRACK:  I walked this twice.....I reveresed direction for the 2nd walk.  I got 0.19 miles on the Blaze while the Garmin showed 0.27 miles.  Then reversing I got 0.20 miles for the Blaze and 0.25 on the Garmin.  FWIW, my Galaxy S4 showed 0.29 miles each time with the S4 Health App.  So it appears the Blaze was at 80% more-or-less for the 1/4 mile track.

Bottom Line:  The Blaze is more accurate than my Garmin GPS only when in my very small condo/apartment.  The +/- accuracy of the Garmin may not capture small moves of 10-20 feet in my unit.  But on longer movements in the much larger Clubhouse or walking around the complex or on the high school track, the Blaze consistently averages only about 75-80% of the distance and steps.

[herget]

Dear Mike,

Yes, you were correct the step count does remain the same. However, with adjustments to stride your overall mileage accuracy is increased. If one is depending upon their fitness tracker to take them for a three-mile run and not a 2.8 mile run, well, distance is key! Once again, the best place to gauge the accuracy of distance, stride, steps per mile, and to run free from cars is your nearby college track! The B.Y.U. outdoor track is amazingly soft with a beautiful layer of shredded blue turf. This was wear I first began my love of barefoot running. Word to the wise - barefoot running in July on a track surface takes much time for the feed to build up tough skin... @MikeS1971

[Flareildor]

Sad to say, my first post isn't about how I did 20,000 steps and felt great for it.
It's not about how my active minutes are disappearing from my dashboard.
It's not even about how Fitbit didn't tell me that my phone both supports and doesn't support my Fitbit Blaze (Lumia 635 is supported. The OS of Windows 8.1 is not. You only find this out when you try to sync them).

Nope, my first post is being that one guy on the net that cares about grammar and spelling.

[Rylan]

---

@Corvettekid wrote:

Gretchen & Other Step/Distance Folks:

I did some calculations the last few days:

---

I think the lesson from this is that no device is going to give 100% accuracy under all conditions. GPS is very good for measuring distance in ideal circumstances - on a walk, outside, in clear weather, with full battery.  GPS is not great for general tracking such as pottering round the house, indoor shopping etc.

Accelerometer based pedometers use a complex calculation to work out steps and will be inaccurate just to the way we move generally.

The other thing to consider is that not all steps are created equal. When people consider their stride they do so by power walking. On a Blaze, using connected GPS, you can fine tune your stride length by going on walk whilst tracking distance accurately. It's close enough but nobody ever calculates stride length by walking round their kitchen, pacing round their desk at work or idly ambling round a shop, bored, whilst the wife is trying on that same dress for the 3rd time.

So we calculate our stride length based on super powerful, "I'm going out for a huge walk and the world isn't going to stop me" steps and then we rack up thousands of steps in a week where we're simply shuffling our body weight. Each time, the fitbit thinks we're really moving places.

I think the main test of these devices should be like for like. Run the devices against each other and see what the step count is like. Also, remove the perception bias and run three devices if you can. I've seen so many people on this forum comparing two devices and then blaming the one they feel least confident in, ignoring the fact the comparison device could be the one at fault.

I ran a Jawbone Up for years and my regular walk (to a local church and back) was 6000 steps, 450 calories, 1hr duration, 3 miles. A borrowed polar loop comes in at 6200 steps, 420 calories, 1hr duration, 2.96 miles. My fitbit blaze came in at 6,500 steps, 850 to 900 calories, 1hr duration and 3 miles. If I don't use the connected GPS and simply trigger a walk the Fitbit suggests I've walked nearly 4 miles.

Google Maps shows it as 3 miles.

[meresydotes]

Unless you're using GPS (I presume), distance is simply a function of number of steps multiplied by stride length. So, if the number of steps is correct and the distance is incorrect, the problem is your stride length, which you can set in your profile. I believe Blaze also has an option to set it automatically based on GPS information. The problem is that stride length changes with different types of walking and running, so you're not going to get it just right.

So, the correct metric to pay attention to for accuracy in everyday use is number of steps. I don't even require 100% accuracy, so much as consistency. I did the same kickboxing workout for years and years and every fitbit I ever had counted right around 3000 steps for the 30 minutes workout. It didn't matter to me that it wasn't even a stepping workout, as long as it gave me a consistent picture of my day.

Then, when fitbit Force was recalled, I got a Garmin Vivofit. For the same workout, the Garmin would count between 2200 and 3500 steps. This, to me, was a problem.

Right around when I got my Charge HR, I also realized my back couldn't handle the kickboxing anymore and I got a treadmill. At first, it seemed that the Charge HR was counting right around the same 3000 steps/ half hour as previous fitbits with the kickboxing workout. It wasn't as consistent, but I was also changing speeds a lot.

When I finally got comfortable with the treadmill, I started noticing that my right foot would hit the deck at least 1x/ second and the Charge HR would only count 2300-2700 steps/ half hour. I called fitbit support numerous times, but they pretty much refused to believe me. They replaced the Charge HR once, which is their default support method, but that didn't fix the problem.

I also noticed that my normal daily steps were low. As in, I was having trouble meeting the 10,000 steps/ day goal, when I had previously been racking up at least 13,000 steps/ day. One fitbit support rep connected that to the fact that the Charge HR was counting all my walking workouts as elliptical and suggested it was someone counting all my daily steps as elliptical. Once I disabled the elliptical auto-workout, the daily steps got much better, but I still wasn't getting as many steps as I should on the treadmill. And it wasn't detecting a workout at all, so I disabled all the auto-workouts.

It would also seem to be tracking my heart rate just fine for a while, then it would mysteriously decide that it was 72, when I was huffing and puffing and feeling like I was going to die.

When I got the Blaze, I was disappointed to discover it had the same problems. However, it also had better workarounds. I discovered that manually starting a treadmill workout caused much more accurate heart rate tracking. I also started experimenting with keeping my Blaze hand on my body, as fitbit support would suggest keeping the tracker in my pocket for step accuracy (wearing a tracker on the body is much more accurate than wearing it on the wrist), but that would eliminate the heart rate tracking.

Keeping my Blaze hand on my body got me the steps I expected. Then I just calculated a stride length by dividing that number by the distance the treadmill told me I went. This was *OK*, but keeping my hand on my body wsn't super comfortable. 

I had a theory that the problem with step counting was that Blaze would get confused with large arm movements. When people power walk and run, they tend to swing their arms a lot. Then, randomly, I decided I was tired of keeping my hand on my body all the time and did a treadmill workout without it. I think I just got used to keeping my hand pretty still, though, as Blaze was suddenly counting my steps pretty accurately.

It may not be 100% accurate, but it's consistent, which it wasn't before. As long as it's not hugely under or over counting, consitency is what's most important to me.

[Corvettekid]

Rylan, I don't expect 100% accuracy and even a GPS has problems in small, confined spaces (which makes sense since GPS is really for outdoor/hiking/running use).

But on regular walks outside or on a 1/4 mile track, the Blaze should be much better than 75-80% accuracy.  I'm not looking for 97% or 98% accuracy.  I'll take 90%.

My understanding is previous FitBit devices did that and more, so I think their state-of-the-art Blaze should be at the same level.  And NO WAY should it be off by 20-30% on steps/distance (esp. if you manually input your Stride Length which should really improve accuracy but seems to do nothing). 

[meresydotes]

An accurate stride length, as accurate as you could get anyway, might improve distance accuracy, but it wouldn't improve step accuracy. The only way to improve step accuracy is for fitbit to undo the changes they made that compromised it. Or learn to walk and run without swinging your arms, I guess.

[Mbwii]

For distance accuracy, if you use the connected GPS feature it will set your stride length automatically based on your distance and strides taken. Every time you connect and do it, your stride will update.

[meresydotes]

@Mbwii You bring up a good point. I'm wondering if the problems people are having with the GPS appearing to cut corners is caused by the Blaze skipping steps. It's unable to compute the 7 foot stride length that would be required to travel the GPS distance in the number of steps counted, so it takes the path of least resistance and reduces the GPS distance.

[RunninLateAgain]

I went from 10,000 or 12,000 step a day with my reg Fitbit to 3,000 a day with the Blaze. I'm ready to take it back and get an Apple Watch