Apple Watch Series 4 Launches With Bigger Display, ECG Sensor, watchOS 5
- Mehedi Hassan
- Sep 12, 2018
-
34
Apple is launching a brand-new Apple Watch along with three new iPhones today. The company just took the wraps off the new Apple Watch Series 4, the fourth iteration to the Apple Watch line.
Apple Watch Series 4 brings radical improvements to the Apple Watch line. It now includes a larger display, with a nearly edge-to-edge design that looks way more immersive than ever before. Apple says the displays are larger by up to 35%. The larger display means the device is slightly bigger as well, increasing by 2mm — so the Watch Series 4 is only available in 40mm and 44mm sizes, as opposed to the previous 38mm and 42mm sizes.
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Under the hood, Apple has included a new S4 dual-core 64bit processor to offer up to 2x boost in performance. The company is even including a “next-gen” gyroscope that can detect when you fall. For people with heart problems, the company is introducing new features like getting notified when your heart rate is low and detect heart rhythm like atrial fibrillation, both powered by the optical sensor. There’s a new sensor that now lets you take an electrocardiogram, aka ECG, right with your Series 4 Watch which is certainly a big step forward for the Watch.
In other parts of the device, Apple says the crown on the Watch has been completely redesigned, and now gives you haptic feedback, so you will get a mechanical feel when you scroll or whenever you interact with the digital crown. The speakers inside the Watch has been redesigned to be louder, too, helping with watchOS 5’s new features like Walkie-Talkie. The company’s moved the microphone around to make your voice sound clearer to Siri and on calls as well.
With the bigger display on the Watch Series 4, Apple is tweaking the OS powering the product itself. First things first, with watchOS 5, the watch faces will now make better use of the larger display. The default watch face, for example, now displays more complications (read: widgets), than ever before. There are a bunch of new faces like the new Fire watchface, and Breathe watchface coming with the new Series 4 Watch. With the larger display, you will get more information at a glance, as long as your favorite watch face gets updated to make use of the bigger display. This applies to regular apps, like Maps, Music, etc.
Despite all the updates and new sensors, Apple has somehow managed to make the watch slightly slimmer compared to the previous generations. Although the watch bands for the Series 4 Watch will likely be slightly different from the previous generations, you should still be able to use your old watch bands with the new models. As for the battery life, Apple says the new Watch will continue to provide the same 18 hours of battery life as the Series 3, despite all the new upgrades.
Apple Watch Series 4 looks like a solid upgrade for the Apple Watch. The company’s even launching a wide variety of Sport Bands, Sport Loops, Modern Buckles, Hermés bands, and Milanese Loops, with a new Milanese band available in gold for the first time. The device will be available for $399, with the cellular model selling for $499. Apple’s reducing the price of the Series 3 Watch to $279, too.
Start shipping September 21.
Tagged with
Conversation 34 comments
-
skane2600
<p>Unless the watch has been approved by the FDA as a medical device, the ECG should probably be considered a novelty feature rather than a serious diagnostic tool.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#321586">In reply to RichardFenoglio:</a></em></blockquote><p>It would be interesting to see the clinical research behind this, if there is some. I found the FDA statement disturbing. The head of the FDA is a resident fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. As a Trump appointee it wouldn't surprise me if, like most of the others, he's more pro-business than being motivated by the fundamental purpose of the agency he heads. It's not the FDA's job to "spur innovation" but to ensure the safety and efficacy of medical products.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#322360">In reply to behindmyscreen:</a></em></blockquote><p>That seems plausible, however, there may be people with heart disease who skip getting suggested checkups because the watch says they are OK. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#321589">In reply to Jeffsters:</a></em></blockquote><p>If there's a disclaimer there's no danger of being sued.</p>
-
provision l-3
<p>To Apple's credit the FDA approved health features of this version of the Apple Watch easily put it in a class above its competitors. They can legitimately claim "health and fitness" device. It's hard to see Fitbit, Garmin etc.. matching it any time soon. I would think that Smasung is the most likely candidate to catch up given that they have the resources to invest. </p>
-
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#321732">In reply to Andi:</a></em></blockquote><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Clearance requests are for medical devices that are exactly like those already on the market. Approved requests are for items that are completely new and need to be inspected for safety in case of new hazards. Apple did not invent ECG it added something existing to it's device. So, you are correct it is not "Approved" it is "Cleared" but for the layperson that is largely a distinction without a difference. and it is in fact a medical device.</span></p>
-
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#321784">In reply to Andi:</a></em></blockquote><p>Okay, if we are going to use truthinadvertising as the source of record that is fine but selectively quoting the source is not. </p><p><br></p><p>Second paragraph:</p><p>"The FDA puts <strong>medical devices</strong> into three different buckets, creatively listed as Class I (low risk — think bedpans), Class II (higher risk — think exercise equipment and pregnancy test kits), and Class III (highest risk — think pacemakers)."</p><p><br></p><p>All three classes are referred to as medical devices. </p><p><br></p><p>Here is the sentence for Class II devices that proceeded the one you quoted:</p><p><br></p><p>"Class II products<strong>: </strong>A slightly smaller percentage of <strong>medical devices</strong>, 43 percent, fall into this category."</p><p><br></p><p>Again, the term medical device is used. </p><p><br></p><p>Based on your choice for source the Apple Watch is clearly a medical device and you are simply ignoring the designation. </p><p><br></p><p>As far as "Cleared" vs. "Approved" goes, I called out the distinction you are making. Not sure where you are going with that but I'll concede again that Approved and Cleared are technically not the same thing. </p>
-
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#322101">In reply to Andi:</a></em></blockquote><p>This isn't my "reasoning" Class I, II and II are designations of medical devices per the FDA. So, it is the FDA that has classified them medical devices. That is objectively verifiable. Fitbit and Garmin could be called medical devices and I wouldn't take issue with it. My point was that Apple Watch having gone through FDA clearing is on better standing than the likes Fitbit and Garmin as it has passed through some level or of regulation. Fitbit and Garmin haven't done that.</p><p><br></p><p>I, nor anyone else I am aware of, have not calmed that an Apple Watch will perform at the same level as an ECG used in a hospital. In addition it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. </p><p><br></p><p>What is clear is that you are, in addition to selectively quoting sources, completely moving the goal posts and no creating a category of your own making called "real medical devices". That's great and I won't argue what falls in and out of a category that you have personally defined. </p><p><br></p><p>Anyway, now that we are at the point where you cherry pick quotes and make up categories it is clearly that there is actual honest discussion to be had here. Best of luck to you. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#321784">In reply to Andi:</a></em></blockquote><p>Unlike most of the others here, you sound like you have had experience with FDA requirements, as I have. The issue is whether performing an ECG at a novel location on the body is "substantially equivalent" to measuring it at the chest. Obviously attaching multiple sensors to the chest isn't done for aesthetic purposes, but because it's believed they are required for an accurate reading.</p>