Apple Watch Vs Fitbit: Fitness Data Showdown!

Having spent a couple of months with Fitbit Charge HR and now almost a fortnight with an Apple Watch I am ready to share my thoughts on the fitness data capabilities of both:1. Apple Watch heart rate sensor is much better & data can be exportedThe sensor on the watch seems much more accurate (Fitbit would often drop out mid-workout) and, using a handy app called QS Access, data can be exported to a spreadsheet from Apple Health and onto the Mac with ease using AirDrop. Now, one more member is going to join in these products. Not only can I now have access to great games that are universal apps and Apple TV-compatible like Transistor, but Game Center will let me sync my progress across devices. So when a discount comes along on one of the tech giant's bestsellers, we tend to want to shout it from the rooftops. That's a total savings of $50, beating our last post by $16 and marking the lowest price we've ever seen on these earbuds. In my case, Xcode crashed whenever I tried to use lldb.

Having spent a couple of months with Fitbit Charge HR and now almost a fortnight with an Apple Watch I am ready to share my thoughts on the fitness data capabilities of both:1. Apple Watch heart rate sensor is much better & data can be exportedThe sensor on the watch seems much more accurate (Fitbit would often drop out mid-workout) and, using a handy app called QS Access, data can be exported to a spreadsheet from Apple Health and onto the Mac with ease using AirDrop.This overcomes one of my main issues with Fitbit - whilst the HR data was nicely graphed on the web and mobile app it was not exportable - which meant in the case of a certain article about the UK election I had to painstakingly record it to a sheet. Never again!2. I prefer the Fitbit dashboard apps…Whilst the circular graphing of three key stats on the watch is certainly quite cool and Apple Health can show a nice range of metrics, Fitbit's mobile and web apps are far better.In addition to actually having a great web app (Apple does not) Fitbit allows you to match calories eaten directly against those burned - something I've only been able to achieve on iOS and WatchOS using MyPlate - which is nice but slightly clunky.3. Apple Watch does cycling well…I was never sure how well the Fitbit was tracking my cycling but the watch seems to handle it really well. Would be nice if it could integrate with Apple Maps to show routes and stuff too though.4. Apple Watch has a lot nicer interface and features for when you are actually exercising…Switching between your steps, calories burnt, speed, heart rate etc when using the watch is done with a simple swipe - and it also give some handy and encouraging notifications on your progress towards any goals you've set.5. The Fitbit offers simplicity…I have to admit I find the Charge HR's simple push button activation very useful and it is of course a purely health tracking device . That's not to say triggering workouts on the watch is a hassle - it is just not as instant and of course as a device offers a fair few more features!In terms of the data they were reporting each gave similar results - although I've no intention of wearing both and will be sticking with the watch going forward.I would be interested in hearing others thoughts and experiences on this one - if you've any to share then make use of the comments section below…

Google Card -Look Smart Debit Card by google to rival Apple’s

Hey guys, as we all know Google is one of the best company which is growing day by day. And Google is working on a lot of algorithms to provide better performance to its users. Google is providing various products and services like a search engine, YouTube, Google Assistant, Google Translate, Advertising services. Communication & publishing tools like Google docs, Gmail, Google pay and many more.We all are using these products on a daily basis. These products are like a part of our life. Now, one more member is going to join in these products. And that member is "Google smart Debit Card". Yes, friends, Google is going to launch its another and very useful product Google Smart card. It includes a lot of interesting features and this would be a great experience for you. Google card is now attached to Google Pay and we all are familiar with Google pay right. The "TechCrunch" has confirmed that Google is going to launch its physical smart card. Google is going to offer its smart card to compete with Apple Pay and Apple Card. Because Apple has already launched its smart card. This tangible card would connect with Google apps. People can add money to their accounts via the Google app. Moreover, Google is also offering a feature of Virtual debit card. You can use the virtual card with the use of Bluetooth mobile phone payments. If you want to use the card for online shopping then you could use a virtual card number. Besides, this will be integrated with Apple Pay as well as iOS wallet apps.What are the features that Google card includes???First of all, this is a smart debit card. Meanwhile, you can check your balance as well as you can track your purchases.You can Lock and Unlock this smart card when it comes to any security issues.Certainly, this is a physical card, so you can use it in any Store, Mall or anywhere at shopping time. This will be linked with the google pay app.Moreover, it would be a tie-up with the banking partners CITI bank.It provides strong security.If any problem occurs with the transaction then you can resolve it through the Google Pay app. For that, you do not need to go to any bank.Instant working capability.People can change their password.This would be attached to Google Map too.There are many chances of cashback.Conclusion:Apple has already launched its smart card. We can say that Google is latecomer for this type of facility. But it definitely will Rock!!!Content Creator : makawana jankiEditor: Darshan Chauhan

Apple Should Build a “GamePlay” Service

I am really excited for the new Apple TV. Not just because of the revamped UI and the chance to run Plex, but because of the games support. Not only can I now have access to great games that are universal apps and Apple TV-compatible like Transistor, but Game Center will let me sync my progress across devices.I've always wanted to live in a gaming world where I could play the same game on the go or on the couch. This does not work for every type of game, where the design is specifically suited to a type of interaction, but for games like Knightmare Tower, Horizon Chase, Space Marshals, and Jetpack Joyride, these experiences would easily translate across devices.I will definitely be picking up a couple SteelSeries Nimbus (Nimbi?) when they launch, and it is interesting that Apple is forcing developers to support their remote.However, another feature I've been intrigued by is the app limit of 200MB. Apple is encouraging developers to lazy-load content when necessary. Considering some games can cross the 1GB threshold, this struck me as odd, especially since the Apple TV can sport up to 64 GB of storage.But this limitation got me thinking: maybe the plan is for Apple to offer a new service: GamePlay. While you can already stream some games via AirPlay, GamePlay would be the evolution of Apple's game streaming strategy.This would function similarly to how iTunes content gets streamed via AirPlay. If you want to watch a movie you own on your friend's Apple TV, when you choose to stream it via AirPlay from your iPhone, your device does a handshake with the Apple TV and the movie streams directly to your friend's Apple TV. You do not need to sign-in and the content is not being routed through your phone as an intermediary.Imagine if games could work the same way through a new streaming option: GamePlay. In a similar fashion, I could carry a library of Apple TV-compatible universal apps on my phone, and then play them on any Apple TV via GamePlay. In this world, the 200MB limitation makes sense. Essentially, this is the only amount that would have to be buffered in order for a gaming session to begin. Now an iPhone or iPad not only lets you game on the go, but lives up to the dream of systems like the Sega Nomad or the more recent GameStick. I really hope this is the long-term plan for iOS and tvOS, and think a service like GamePlay could really change the gaming landscape

Apple's AirPods Pros just dropped below $200 for the first time ever

— Recommendations are independently chosen by Reviewed's editors. Purchases you make through our links may earn us a commission. Editor's note: The Airpods Pros have sold out here, but you can get the Apple Airpods With Wireless Charging Case for $129 or the Apple AirPods Pros at their next best price of $219.99 at Verizon Wireless. One thing we all know to be true about Apple products? They do not go on sale very often. So when a discount comes along on one of the tech giant's bestsellers, we tend to want to shout it from the rooftops. Case in point: the Apple AirPods Pro, which are currently being offered for less than $200 right now for the first time ever. Need help finding products?Sign up for our weekly newsletter. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any time. While Apple's latest and greatest earbuds usually retail for $249, you can snag them for $199 right now at Staples through Saturday, August 1. That's a total savings of $50, beating our last post by $16 and marking the lowest price we've ever seen on these earbuds. We named the AirPods Pro the best true wireless earbuds of 2020, as we were floored by the quality, fit, design, ultra-long battery life and impressive noise-cancelation they afforded. In other words? We loved pretty much everything about them. In fact, in our in-depth review, our tester confidently stated that they were the best headphones Apple has ever made. These buds made vast improvements over the standard AirPods 2 ($199) by being water- and sweat-resistant and featuring active noise-cancelation. They are also far more comfortable thanks to the silicone ear tips, which come in three different sizes for a super snug fit that beat out its predecessor's one-size-fits-all design. Like the previous model, the Pros still support wireless charging and pair seamlessly with other Apple devices. The only downside seems to be their usually-high price tag, and they are likely to sell out before August 1, so get 'em while the getting's good! Note that you can also get the company's Apple AirPods with charging case for $129, down $30 from their regular $159. Get the Apple AirPods Pro at Staples for $199 (Save $14.05) Get the Apple AirPods With Charging Case for $129 (Save $30) The product experts at Reviewed have all your shopping needs covered. Follow Reviewed on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram for the latest deals, reviews, and more. Prices were accurate at the time this article was published but may change over time.

I installed Windows 95 on my Apple Watch

With a 520 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and 8GB of internal storage, the Apple Watch packs a lot of computing horsepower into a very small package. On paper, its processor alone is about twenty-five times faster than the average 386, and 512 MB was the size of a hard drive in the mid nineties, not memory. As a result, I was feeling confident that the Apple Watch had the ability to run one of the most revered desktop operating systems Redmond has ever produced. What are you, nuts?Pretty much. I was born in the nineties, and the first personal computer my family bought (a $3000 screamer with a 300 MHz Pentium II, 256 MB of RAM, and the optional Boston Acoustics speaker system) ran Windows 95. Also, this is not the first time I've installed an old operating system on a watch. Here's a video of my Apple Watch running Mac OS 7. 5. 5:But How?Unlike the above port of the Mini vMac emulator, the result here had to be interactive. That meant that Apple's WatchKit SDK was not good enough, since it does not allow you to access user touch locations directly — it only lets you use Apple's stock controls. Long story short, it's possible to patch certain files within a WatchKit app to load your own application code rather than Apple's. For more information, check out Steven Troughton-Smith's excellent blog post on the subject.Here's an outline of the steps involved:Copy symbols and headers from Xcode's iphoneOS and iphoneSimulator platforms to the watchOS and watchSimulator platforms, respectively.Build your "normal" UIKit-based iOS app inside a framework, rather than in your WatchKit extension. Use install_name_tool to point your WatchKit app's _WatchKitStub/WK binary to your framework instead of SockPuppetGizmo. SockPuppetGizmo is the framework that (to my knowledge) runs WatchKit and interacts with normal WatchKit extensions that developers write.Jury-rig the iOS port of the Bochs x86 emulator into your framework. "Easy!" "How hard can it be?" read: Pretty hard. In my case, Xcode crashed whenever I tried to use lldb. Your mileage may vary.Copy a Windows 95 disk image in to your app's bundle, write the config file, and boot 'er up. *Optional: hot glue a motor to the watch's crown to keep it from falling asleep.Will It Blend?Yes! Due to the fact that it is emulated (not virtualized), it takes about an hour to boot.Can I Try?Yep! The code is on GitHub. You will need to source the files that show up in red yourself — they are not redistributable.