GPS vs Connected GPS

[kurtisscott1]

I did a comparison on the Blaze and the Surge it pretty much had (in the chart) everything the surge had except GPS route tracking, but in the video and the feature of the Blaze it said it does have GPS route tracking.

Moderator Edit: Title For Clarity

[IsmeneP]

Another difference between the Blaze and the Surge is that with the Blaze you can change the band (if you want to have different colours - or if it gets damaged) while with the Surge you have no way of changing the band.

For me the above feature is a big plus.

Also, if you normally exercise outdoors and carry your phone with you, then connected GPS will be better that the Surge GPS for two reasons: 

1. the Surge GPS is not as accurate as the GPS of the phone (you can witness this on the dashboard when the Surge GPS shows you exercising one or two blocks away from where you were actually exercising)

2. The Surge with GPS on has a battery life of a few hours, while I hope that the Blaze will have a much better battery life with connected GPS.

[MikeF]

To be fair, I've never seen any such accuracy issues with the Surge GPS when compared with the phone so I don't think individual issues ought to be generalised too far.

[DaffyLisa]

I agree!

KSH

[golfercacher]

Not having built in GPS is a deal breaker for me. I like having to only rely on one device for my runs. The blaze won't be a device I use.

[golfercacher]

Not having built in GPS is a big mistake. Fitbit could have differentiated themselves but instead decided to marry their newest device to a phone for fitness functionality.

[golfercacher]

Connected GPS also is prone to being less accurate when measuring distance, especially when distance increases, your in an area with poor cell reception, or where terrain is hilly. Built in GPS is way better.

[golfercacher]

Connected GPS relies on cellular coverage, which can be notoriously inaccurate when coverage is spotty due to poor cell coverage or terrain.

[Michael]

---

@golfercacher wrote:
Connected GPS also is prone to being less accurate when measuring distance, especially when distance increases, your in an area with poor cell reception, or where terrain is hilly. Built in GPS is way better.

Connected GPS relies on cellular coverage, which can be notoriously inaccurate when coverage is spotty due to poor cell coverage or terrain.

---

@golfercacher Really? My understanding is that Connected GPS uses the GPS chip in your phone, and wouldn't require cellular coverage at all. I use a SmartPhone that doesn't even have a SIM in it all the time to track runs with MobileRun in the Fitbit app and it works just fine. I imagine that Connected GPS would be the same: just porting the data from the phones GPS receiver to the Blaze.

[golfercacher]

I have an iPhone. It doesn't have a satellite GPS chip in it. It has an assisted GPS chip. Assisted GPS requires cell towers and wifi hot spots for the GPS to work. Also, using assisted GPS typically consumes or counts against data usage. Not a big deal for me but could be an issue for folks with caps on data usage.

I often do trail runs in areas with little or no cell coverage so the blaze wouldn't be an option for me. I need a device with satellite GPS, so I use the surge. I'm looking at the Garmin vivoactive because I like the screen. As an FYI, Garmin is starting to expand their use of dedicated GPS by also including chips that can access GLONASS, which is the Russian version of GPS. The device can use either if one isn't available.

[bbarrera]

---

@kurtisscott1 wrote:

I have an iPhone. It doesn't have a satellite GPS chip in it. It has an assisted GPS chip. Assisted GPS requires cell towers and wifi hot spots for the GPS to work.

---

@golfercacher

That is not correct. iPhone's since the 3GS 4 have a satellite GPS chip. In addition they support assisted-GPS which speeds up initial position fix by using cell network. Since iOS 8.3 when you turn on Airplane mode it leaves GPS on. I've been in an airplane using GPS at 35,000 feet over the ocean and GPS works fine.

I also hike in the Sierra Nevada mountains in the middle of nowhere. I carry my iPhone 4s (no sim card) or 5s, and use a hiking app (Gaia GPS) and it has no problems getting GPS position from satellites only. Works great. Here is a link explaining the difference between using phone GPS and handheld Garmin GPS:
http://blog.gaiagps.com/iphone-vs-garmin-gps/

[golfercacher]

I'm a little wary of relying on that article. It was written by the gaia GPS company, for their product, and their founder wrote it. I'm guessing they are a little biased in saying their product is better than a dedicated GPS. Almost all the scholarly or scientific articles I have read indicate GPS is better than assisted GPS in situations where cellular coverage isn't available.

[golfercacher]

Also a matter of personal preference. I only want to carry one device when I go running. I don't listen to music so I just want a wrist device. Thanks for the info.

[bbarrera]

@golfercacher I'm an electrical engineer and worked on GPS chipset in 1990s. The good GPS chipsets found in high-end cellphones are fully capable of working with satellites, and also support assisted GPS.

The Garmin stuff is definitely more accurate, as the article states. I use a Garmin Edge 520 on my bike and the position is more precise than my phone (except if I put the Garmin 520 in my pocket).

When hiking I try and reduce the amount of stuff I take, so the old Garmin handheld doesn't travel with me anymore. While you may find the Gaia blog post a little over the top, he does give 3 solid reasons why you might want to use handheld GPS. For your reading pleasure, here is a non-biased article about why you should consider using phone as GPS:

http://www.adventurealan.com/iphone-gps-map-backpacking/

That article has a ton of useful information, including battery life estimates by iPhone model. And also nuggets like this which match up to my experience:

===

GPS Accuracy – When using an iPhone in shallow grade mountains or flat landscapes, with minor tree cover, the accuracy has consistently been within 15 meters. When using it in deep steep walled canyons, the fix is not as accurate as Garmin, 50 to 100 or more meters off in a deep canyon (Paria Canyon in Utah). Using a Garmin and an iPhone 4 we concurrently recorded tracks on 12 miles of trail in fairly dense conifers on the west slope of California’s Sierra Nevada range and could not tell any difference in accuracy. We leave it to the reader make their own determination if this level of accuracy is sufficient.

===

Source: http://www.adventurealan.com/iphone-gps-map-backpacking/

GPS in high-end cellphones has come a long ways and is really good now. Of course there are other considerations when comparing to dedicated GPS, just wanted to be clear that in many use cases its nearly as accurate as dedicated GPS units (and more convenient).

[MikeF]

Yes, you've said that in about the last 5 threads I've read.

Not every tracker suits and everyone and this one slots neatly into the lineup under the Surge. Its clthe ally not made wit you in mind but for many of us it's pretty much ideal. I'm sorely tempted but now have a daughters iPhone to get repaired so the budget is rapidly draining away!

[dpeete]

The band issue is a good catch. After a year, my Surge is BEAT and there is no replacment band option. The Surge has been a great device... I do love it. But if I was buying again, I think I'd grab the Blaze.

My biggest issue with the Blaze isn't the lack of GPS... I am instead disappointed it doesn't support third-party notifications like the Pebble does. I would love it if my GroupMe (a group chat tool we use when coordinating team events) alerts showed up on my FitBit like they did on the Pebble I used to wear. I don't believe there is any cost issue on this one (like the GPS would have added), merely a lack of FitBit getting after the the smartwatch market in an intelligent manner.

[MikeF]

I guess the decision to take is whether you believe it will ever support other notifications rather than whether it will support them at release. Clearly I have no idea, but one interview I saw did make the point that Blaze is capable of a whole lot more than it's currently doing. Of course it didn't promise that any of that capability would be used in the future.

[Rich_Laue]

Following thread it looks like everyone has their own idea of what the Blaze should have been, its not on the market yet? 

Fitbit has added the Blaze as an alternative tracker to its current line. It is not suppose to be a replacement but an aditional choice.

As for the title asking is their any drawbacks to the Blaze. I'm sure their are. I could just as easily ask of drawbacks to the Surge over the Blaze.

I can think of several.

In either case until it is released we really will not know, will we?

[bbarrera]

LOL yes everyone has their opinion of a perfect Fitbit. Honestly, after band issues with Flex (thankfully those were replaceable), and Force (non-replaceable), you can go back and find an old post or two of mine where I swore my next Fitbit would have replaceable band and GPS. Well I have a Surge anyways, although mainly using my phone as Fitbit tracker (works great, usually in my pocket).

The Blaze is the form factor and band options I wanted when the Surge was announced. For me, GPS watches are still too big for all-day use. Eventually the size will come down.

[ErickFitbit]

@Rich_Laue@bbarrera "Drawbacks" are a matter of opinion. I can easily say having a replaceable band is a drawback when for others, it's a positive addition.

[matt9013]

@ErickFitbit

I agree, I love having replacable bands as if the band breaks I can get a new one. As for my Charge if the band goes than I need a completly new Charge and not just a new band like the Flex. Like you said I can see others not liking the feature for various reasons.