Ionic vs. Apple Watch Series 3

[Ralthan]

Apple just released info on the new Series 3. I have the Series 1 along with a Charge 2 HR. I actually use both right now because I like the Fitbit App more than the Apple one. The Ionic intrigued me, so I pre-ordered it last week. I am now reconsidering. Lets discuss pros and cons of each. Off the top of my head I see the following.

Apple Watch Series 3

Pros

LTE - Can make and send calls

Streaming of Apple Music over LTE (Big plus to me - but not much known at this time)

Improved fitness capabilities

Nice selection of bands

Charging is now compatible with Qi standards

Cons
1 day battery life - no sleep tracking

ID not refreshed - still looks a bit geeky

Expensive

Fitbit Ionic

Pros

4 Day battery Life

Fitness focused

Cheaper than AWS3

Cons

No LTE (Might be a Pro for some)

select bands

Not much of an App store (yet) or apps

Clunky looking ID

I would love for people to weigh in on this. I am up in the air on which to get at this point!

Tony

[steveting99]

For those who care about battery life, take note that Garmin's Vivoactive 3 lasts for 7+ days. That's 75% longer than the Ionic's battery life.

In GPS mode, the Vivoactive 3 is rated for 13 hours. That's 30% longer than the Iconic.

If Fitbit is playing up on the long battery life of the Iconic, they need to be comparing not with an easy one like the Apple Watch, but another formidable competitor called Garmin.

[ManuelB]

yes but we are here comparing vs Apple Watch...

anyhow, just met a guy at the gym with an apple iphone and apple watch - we is currently thinking about switching to the fitbit ionic because we does not need all the functionality an apple watch is offering, his apple watch, at least the ion-x one, has a huge scratch and the apple watch is a big battery drain to his iphone. The biggest surprise for me was that he was using the iphone app instead of the apple watch app for his gym training because of the iphone battery issues he has. This obviously is the real life of some apple watch users.

[Sanjayb]

Here in Canada what disappoints me about the Ionic is the price.  It's $399 Canadian.  I think that is way too much for the Ionic especially if another $30 more u can get the non Cellular AWS3.  Also as a comparison AWS1 starts at $329 CDN.  I know that once other stores start carrying the Ionic then you will start seeing some deals but for now the price is preventing me from pre ordering the Ionic.  Now if the Ionic were to hit the $350 CDN level or less then I definitely would be tempted.

The biggest advantages Fitbit Ionic has is it's app and battery life.  If the Apple health app is the best app they have then Fitbit clearly wins.

The AWS3 biggest advantages are the build quality, the many apps that you can use and better integration with the Iphone.

Fitbit Surge owner.

[ho0lee0h]

The biggest advantage Fitbit has over the AWS3 is this same community and our ability to message each other on the forum simply through email. Apple doesn't have a community like this for AWS3 users to support each other and their fitness and health. That's the biggest plus for fitbit.

Integration with iPhone? Calls and replying to messages on the wrist is dumb. The only useful, non-distracting thing is notifications from calendar which fitbit does well. I may be in the minority... I like to know that I'm not a slave to my phone or other people's messages/calls. I prefer to look at my missed calls and messages on my own terms, instead of having a constant nagging notification on my wrist throughout the day.

[bbarrera]

My wife thinks all this fitness tracking is dumb. She eats sensibly, goes to bed at a reasonable time, and does strength training and cardio three times a week. Its pretty simple to be active and healthy and fit without any technology at all. You know what? She makes valid points, enough that I've focused my use of technology on improving my cycling to increase the fun factor on group rides, and staying strong in the second half of my life

Calls and replying from the wrist are actually quite useful and a timesaver. Every weekend I'm out working in the yard, and ask my wife to pick up something. And almost every time she calls from the hardware store to clarify something, or remind me we need something else. Its not a long call, but it sure is convenient to not have to carry the phone around because its 90+ and I'm periodically jumping in the pool to cool off.

Same for simple and quick acknowledgements to family members when they text or call.

I also thought calls/replies were dumb before I had the capability. After using for two years I can tell you it keeps me in control and saves time.

[SunsetRunner]

I'm going with Ionic over Apple Watch.  I've had both the series 0 and the charge hr 2.  I think Fitbit has the advantage of a stellar app and community.  I have about twenty active friends on Fitbit, I only have one out of four who consistently works out on AW.  The challenges feel more motivating on Fitbit than closing the rings each day on AW.  I guess, for me, software and community are the deciding factors.  I want it for fitness.  On a side note, the LTE AW is crazy expensive - $449 for the watch, $10 a month in perpetuity for LTE - get this, an 1hr phone call completely discharges the battery 😜???

[Breezygirl8]

The Apple Watch is a lot more than just a fitness tracker. The LTE series 3 will have the ability to be able to be used for phone calls, sending and receiving texts...... without having to bring your phone with you. The downside is the battery will only last 4 hours with LTE connectivity, but still a feature the Ionic won’t have. 

[datalore]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I view the Ionic and AW as 2 different products. I think the Ionic is a fitness tracker/smartwatch hybrid and the AW is a smartwatch/fitness tracker hybrid. I'm not sure that analogy made sense, but I don't think there is much overlap between the target markets. I'm not saying there is no overlap, just not much. Clearly Ftbit outclasses Apple when it comes to health metrics, and Apple outclasses Ftibit when it comes to smartwatch features. I have no need for wrist calling, low battery life, eye candy graphics on a watch that has a day of battery life, but then I'm not part of Apple's target market for an AW. With the different styles of these 2 watches I think it's hard to compare them. I'm interested in what the rest of you think. 

[SunsetRunner]

Just so you know, that 3 hours is while connected via Bluetooth to an iPhone.  Check it out :

Up to 3 hours connected to iPhone

Over 1 hour connected to LTE

Tested with call placed from Apple Watch. Up to 3 hours of talk time while connected to iPhone via Bluetooth. Over 1 hour of talk time while connected directly to LTE. Testing conducted by Apple in August 2017 using preproduction Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS) and Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular), each paired with an iPhone; all devices tested with prerelease software. Battery life varies by use, configuration, and many other factors; actual results will vary.

Cost vs. benefit?  I don't see it.  Again others may be satisfied.  To me, with that battery life, you'll still have to take your phone.

[Breezygirl8]

I agree with your analogy for the most part. There are some like me that like or want the features of both the Ionic and Apple Watch. Unfortunately neither of them combine the best of both worlds, so it comes down to what wrist wearable suits our needs best.

 At this point due to the high cost of the Iconic and lack of text and call function, I’ve decided it’s not for me. I’ll probably keep my Alta HR and buy a Apple Watch 3, try to wear one on each wrist.   

[Breezygirl8]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

Just so you know, that 3 hours is while connected via Bluetooth to an iPhone.  Check it out :

Up to 3 hours connected to iPhone

Over 1 hour connected to LTE

Tested with call placed from Apple Watch. Up to 3 hours of talk time while connected to iPhone via Bluetooth. Over 1 hour of talk time while connected directly to LTE. Testing conducted by Apple in August 2017 using preproduction Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS) and Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular), each paired with an iPhone; all devices tested with prerelease software. Battery life varies by use, configuration, and many other factors; actual results will vary.

Cost vs. benefit?  I don't see it.  Again others may be satisfied.  To me, with that battery life, you'll still have to take your phone.

---

Here’s the info I’m using.  Says 14 hours connected to Bluetooth and  3 hours of “Bluetooth” talk time. I was talking of 3 hours battery using LTE connectivity alone, I guess it’s actually 4 hours.

“Apple says its Apple Watch Series 3 offers "all-day battery life" with 18 hours of usage, but in some cases, the LTE model's battery will drain more quickly.

The 18-hour usage metric includes 90 time checks, 90 notifications, 45 minutes of app use, and a 30-minute workout with music playback, and on the LTE model, it includes 4 hours of LTE connection and 14 hours of connection to iPhone via Bluetooth.

When talking on the Apple Watch or working out, though, battery life is shorter when using an LTE connection.

The Series 3 Apple Watch offers 1 hour of battery life when talking to someone on the phone over LTE, or three hours when connected to the iPhone.

For audio playback when connected to the iPhone, the Apple Watch battery will last for up to 10 hours, which is an improvement over the Series 2 (6.5 hours). Apple does not mention how long the battery will last when listening to music over an LTE connection, but the Apple Watch Series 3 will support streaming from Apple Music without an iPhone.

When it comes to workouts, the Apple Watch battery will last for up to 10 hours during an indoor workout with an iPhone nearby, but that number drops for an outdoor workout sans iPhone. With just GPS activated, the battery in the Series 3 Apple Watch will last for five hours (the same battery life as the Series 2 with GPS on), and when connected to LTE and GPS the battery will last for four hours during an outdoor workout.”

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/12/apple-watch-series-3-battery-life/amp/

[datalore]

I think Fitbit was in a tough spot with this watch. If they would have included LTE the battery wouldn't last more than a day. Since sleep tracking is one of their strengths they really couldn't include LTE on this watch. They had to stay true to their fitness roots. They had to have multiple day battery life and the compromises of LTE was a price they couldn't pay. Apple can get away with 18 hours of battery life. While they will no doubt lose some customers due to this fact; I'm sure their research told them multiple day battery life was more important that making phone calls. I agree with you that a perfect solution doesn't exist and people have to weigh the pros and cons of each watch and decide what works best for them. In my case fitbit is the clear winner, but that calculus will be different for others. 

[Breezygirl8]

Just a quick add: You do not need LTE on the Apple Watch to make phones or to send texts, just WiFi or Bluetooth and your phone in range. LTE is only needed if your phone is not with you. 

[ManuelB]

I do not think that many users will use a smartwatch for calling, it's more of a proof of concept. Smartwatches with sim have not been invented by apple.

The more I read this conversation the more I get the impression that if you are serious about fitness tracking then better go with fitbit but if design, build quality and features  are more important then go for apple watch. Software vs Hardware.

[Gonfreaksss]

I was shocked when I read your post that the Apple Watch 3 will last only one hour when used to make a LTE phone call.  I looked it up and verified the info.

Unbelievable.  There will be so many disappointed people buying the Apple Watch for the LTE feature! Even if they only talk on it for 30 minutes, that's essentially using 50% of the battery.  To pay an additional $120 per year for the ability to make LTE calls, only makes it worst.

The battery technology is simply not there to support LTE calls on a wearable.  The added cost does not justify the usefulness of LTE calls.  

[Gonfreaksss]

---

@Breezygirl8 wrote:

Just a quick add: You do not need LTE on the Apple Watch to make phones or to send texts, just WiFi or Bluetooth and your phone in range. LTE is only needed if your phone is not with you. 

---

If we have a phone on us, why would we want to look like Dick Tracey and talk to our wrists? In addition, Blue-Tooth enabled calls kills the battery life more so than turning on GPS.      

[Breezygirl8]

I think realistically the LTE feature will let you leave your phone at home and still have access to data, email, text, music, notifications and quick phone calls for people who want to have the freedom for working out at a gym or going for a run, gardening or out to the store for a few hours..... Which to some it’s a great feature, I personally rarely ever talk on my cell phone but it would be nice to be able to in an emergency or for the quick call without my phone.  

People also have the option to buy the cheaper non LTE version Apple Watch that does not require a $10 a month fee that can still do all the same things with your phone in range. I have the first Apple Watch and easily my battery would last more than a day using it for workouts, many many texts, the odd quick phone call, checking apps..... it also charges super quickly. 

Its a a great watch and tracker the number one thing it could improve on is the fitness app and the social aspect, Fitbit is amazing in those aspects. What Fitbit can improve on is hardware and the quality of their products. 

[Koshka]

I have a Blaze and an Alta HR.  I got the Alta because the Blaze was just too big and ugly for everyday use.  So, I alternate between them depending on what they do.

I was initially intrigued by the Ionic, but it is dropping off my list.  I do like some of its features,  but its appearance is only marginally better than the Blaze.  It has zero bands that are female attractive (that isn't a dealbreaker since I could get 3rd party bands).  I liked the built in GPS but honestly the connected GPS on the Blaze is fine.  There are features that would cause me to replace the Blaze (although I would still wear the Alta HR for non-workout times), but the Ionic doesn't have them.

As someone with an iPhone that I carry everywhere I was very intrigued by the Apple Watch 3.  Right now when I go to the gym and do strength training I wear a chest heart rate monitor which I use with a phone app.  That calorie burn data does go to the Fitbit although not the heart rate data (which makes no sense, but there it is).

I don't expect the Apple Watch 3 to be any better than the Blaze or Alta HR or the Ionic in measuring heart rate and giving calorie burn during weight training.  However, the Apple Watch allows you to sync a chest heart rate monitor directly to it.  And, I do like having access to phone calls on my phone.  I love the idea of not having to have a large phone with me while I am working out.  

So, the Apple Watch 3 definitely has some advantages.  But, for fitness I think it has a couple of major disadvantages.  First, it is just now with the new one starting to do continuous heart rate monitoring.  Maybe it will be great at it.  But, we don't yet know.  I wouldn't consider buying one until it has been out a few months and we find out if it is any good at continuous heart rate monitoring.

One problem with Fitbit is that you can't directly set your own RMR.  Fitbit uses the Mifflin St Jeor formula to set RMR and ultimately that also influences your entire daily calorie burn.  I have personally had my RMR tested and Fitbit's formula overstates my RMR by over 100 calories a day and overall will overstate my daily calorie burn by a couple of hundred calories.  While I can't directly put in my actual RMR (I wish that was an option or that we could at least use the Katch McArdle formula which is more accurate for me), I am able on Fitbit to manipulate my height to get to an RMR that is close to my actual RMR.  

But, I'm not sure I can do that with an Apple Watch.  I have not been able to figure out how Apple calculates calorie burn.  I researched it and apparently Apple has some formula of its own that it uses?  But I saw many complaints from people about calorie burn being hundreds of calories a day too high.  I am concerned it will be more inaccurate than Fitbit and that I won't have the data to be able to adjust height to get to a more correct burn.

The battery thing does bother me.  With 2 Fitbits now, I have constant coverage.  I can wear one while charging the others.  But even when I had only one Fitbit it was OK since I only had to charge every few days.  Having to charge every day and either not wear at night or take off for a couple of hours and miss some steps is unattractive to me.

[ManuelB]

This is whyFitbit could be integrated into AW...best of both worlds.
--
Manuel Wymann
Bachlettenstr. 76
4054 Basel

[RalfAlston]

I can't say which is better.

With glucose monitor, Inoic can play a good role in Fitness.

With LTE, Apple Watch Series 3 creates a convenient life.