Keep the pips visible on the default clock face?

[PGunK]

It'd be nice if the 5-minute pips remained visible on the default clock face once the green circle begins to fill in.

[FelixFive]

---

@racertempo wrote:

I do require precision, it is what I do for a living....but my point is that most watches have a couple of minutes separation, and people don't sync their watches together.  Again, of the 8 or so watches I own they are not all the exact same time and second, are yours?  Yes or no?   

Do you want a time calibration sticker the next time you get a Fitbit to be happy?  Does that calibration need to ber traceable to NIST to fit your standards?

90+% of your posts are negative about the product and towards Fitbit product developnment.  I am simply trying to show that there is an alternate view.  YES, the PIPS would be nice, but it not unusable as-is.  This is my pet peeve, people saying this are not functional, like the Pop face, when it is perfectly functional.  If people would say they don't like it I have no problem, but coming out and saying it is not functional is not a true statement.

I hope they add the "pips" back if there is a way, and I hope they add more face options, but if they don't I am not going to say that they are failing the customers as many generalize.  The OP wants the Pips at 5 minute marks, but will that make you happy felix if they are not at every minute, and what about no second hand?

---

If one needs a 60 second hand, then it's not functional. If one needs a minute hand, then it's not functional. I manually check my pulse during exercise. Usually to check calibration of my heart rate monitor. Unfortunately, this is more often with the ChargeHR and Blaze. No second hand no manual check.  I have certain weight equipment circuits I do on a 45second rest. No second hand and no minute hand, no consistent interval of rest.

Badgering with irrelevant yes/no questions is OCPDish and sophomoric.  Reference to an NIST sticker is nonsensical and displays an uneasy grasp on the technology.  And trying to convince people they don't need what otherwise would be a standard expectation of timekeeping is settling for mediocrity.

Do I have watches that don't show minutes or seconds? Sure, but I don't get the point.  They are not functionally usable for my runs and gym sessions.  Are these watches still usable and functional for telling time? Yes, so if that's your point, then I agree, win win, but it's a tiring and circuitious route to prove a point outside the scope of a stated need and understandable expectation.

Most OS's including those for mobile sync time with registered sites linked to NIST, directly to NIST, or to similar national agencies. Not rocket science.  Many digitally connected devices can do the same directly (my old printer has settings for NIST-type IP addresses) or via sync to the devices own servers (Fitbit's servers are connected to NIST) or via the devices' sync with applicable mobile or desktop systems and the applicable OS's time settings.  Again, not rocket science and no configuration nor NIST stamps needed.

[racertempo]

---

@FelixFive wrote:

If one needs a 60 second hand, then it's not functional. If one needs a minute hand, then it's not functional. I manually check my pulse during exercise. Usually to check calibration of my heart rate monitor. Unfortunately, this is more often with the ChargeHR and Blaze. No second hand no manual check.  I have certain weight equipment circuits I do on a 45second rest. No second hand and no minute hand, no consistent interval of rest.

And trying to convince people they don't need what otherwise would be a standard expectation of timekeeping is settling for mediocrity.

---

Glad you finally explained you want/need for a second hand and the "pips".  As for "standard expectation" of timekeeping, those standards are different for each people.  You use the second hand so it makes sense for you to expect it as a standard.  I have never used a second hand in any functional way, so to me it is not a "standard expectation".  You are trying to convince people that your expectation is the only  expectation and therefor an industry requirement that Fitbit has missed, which is just not true.

You expect black, I expect white.......I will say though that "expecting" something that was not promised and is only what you believe to be standard does not mean Fitbit has done it incorrectly.  They just did not do it the way you would like.

[AngelaMa]

Hello everyone! Thanks for taking the time to visit this thread and share your opinions. just remember to keep it friendly and follow the community guidelines. Also I would suggest to visit the Feature Request board and vote for the idea to add more clock faces for Blaze, make sure to add your comments. 

Thanks for stopping by! 🙂 

[FelixFive]

@racertempo I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. My point is that a watch with typical and synced hh:mm:ss satisfies the needs of @bbarrera to get to a meeting on schedule, my needs to take a pulse, and your needs to tell time. HH:MM:SS however displayed, there is nothing out of the ordinary here. If this were a Calvin Klein watch emphasizing style over substance the expectation might be different. But it's not. It's a fitness first watch.

@AngelaMa Duly noted thank you. 🙂

[racertempo]

I would say that yes it is a fitness watch, but style was VERY much added to the Blaze with the ability to change bands so easily.  It may not be for style, but it is far more of a step towards style than any other thing Fitbit has ever produced.  The emphasis is certinly on substance over stye though.

[bbarrera]

Having a display is really really nice, but honestly there isn't much more substance versus Charge HR and that seems to be a commonly held opinion in published reviews.