Skip to main content

iPhone and Galaxy smartphones more reliable than current wearable fitness devices at measuring activity, finds study

If you were thinking about buying a fitness band, a university study suggests you probably shouldn’t bother: it found that the iPhone 5s and Samsung Galaxy S4 measure activity more reliably than most current fitness bands.

The study by the University of Pennsylvania (via EurekAlert!) tested the ability of the phones to measure steps on a treadmill and compared the results to six dedicated fitness bands. The two smartphones had a margin of error of 12.9%, while the error rates of the fitness bands ranged up to 22.7%.

The study tested the iPhone 5s and Galaxy S4 against the Nike Fuelband, Jawbone UP24, Digi-Walker SW-200, Fitbit Flex, Fitbit One and Fitbit Zip. Only the FitBit One and Zip performed significantly better than the two smartphones. While the iPhone apps all delivered similar levels of accuracy, Health Mate out-performed the others.

Tim Cook took a dig at existing smartwatches at yesterday’s Goldman Sachs conference, saying that “there are several things that are called smartwatches, but I’m not sure you could name any.” The Apple Watch would, he said, “change the way people live their lives.”

Via Gizmodo

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. bmuller999 - 9 years ago

    I used to have a Fitbit flex, but gave it away. I use MyFitnessPal and just use the step counter built into my iPhone 5 to track steps. Why have something on my wrist that does what my phone does anyway? I normally have my phone in my pocket, so that works for me.

    For running, I use the bluetooth Addidas MiCoach speedcell. On my bike I have a bluetooth cadence and speed sensor. I use a BLE heartrate strap. There’s a dedicated BLE device for most anything that’s fitness measureable with more on the way. The point being is that for me to use a wrist wearable, it will have to bring something significantly more to the table than tracking fitness motion. Plus, it will have to provide better measuring capability. Normally, a dedicated sensor has much better performance than a sensor designed to do many things in one package.

    So, I am leading into the Apple Watch… Do I really need something that does everything my phone and some BLE sensors can do? For fitness tracking, I don’t see any significant advantage. For notifications, my phone works for me. I immagine my comments are shared by others out there. Apple will have a tough time selling me a watch; especially a gen 1 device that will have to be charged daily. Just my 2 cents….

    • o0smoothies0o - 9 years ago

      Two things: the watch is something always attached to your body, which you can wear all day, everyday. You lay your phone down a lot, and it isn’t always in your pocket.

      A heartrate sensor is only useful on the watch because it will constantly track your heartrate, which is the only way heartrate tracking is useful at all. Can you download an app to see your heartrate on the phone? Yes, but that is to open the app and randomly check your heartrate one time, it isn’t constantly tracking, ergo it is useless, as anyone with a stopwatch (I.e. Phone or watch) can check their heartrate at any time, by finding it on their wrist or neck, and timing it…

      Something always attacked to you which can constantly be monitoring will always be better for tracking you, and especially for biometrics.

  2. The study seems to suggest, then, that pocket-worn trackers are more accurate than wrist-worn trackers. (One and Zip from Fitbit are pocket-worn.) That seems like what we would expect, right? Wrist-worn have trouble with some activities and may overestimate others. For example, riding a bicycle would be harder for a wrist-worn device to accurately track, while it might overestimate the activity generated by my vigorous typing of this comment.

    • o0smoothies0o - 9 years ago

      No, the study suggests current wearables are not of good accuracy. I can guarantee Apple’s works better than all of the others. They should try the study again with the next generation of wearables.

  3. hayesunt - 9 years ago

    They say the best camera is the one you have with you – usually your phone. In this instance, I think the best fitness tracker is the one you are wearing all the time. There are many times when I walk around my home or work without my phone in my pocket, and when I am working out I for sure don’t want my giant 6 Plus banging around in my pocket. I think fitness trackers definitely have their use, and often they have other features and sensors that make it worth it – sleep tracking, heart rate, etc.

    I am…was… looking forward to the UP3 provided Jawbone is able to release it sometime this year.

  4. iosser - 9 years ago

    I just set up a new FitBit Charge HR today because (a) I don’t keep my 6 plus on me all the time, least of all while exercising, and (b) The HR sensor should help get more accuracy than the phone anyway.

    Yes, a phone in a pocket will track movement better than something on the wrist which gets extra movement noise. But HR should filter much of that noise. Plus a lot of people (like women) don’t put their phone in their pocket much. So it’s a case of the article being true but irrelevant for many people

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear