Reviews

                                               Getting Into (Data-Tracking) Gear With Nike+ FuelBand

Despite the fact that I’m a writer, which conjures up images of long days glued to the desk, I consider myself to be pretty active, and I try to maintain momentum by working out regularly. So I’ve been intrigued by the newest wave of wearable health and fitness products meant to track daily activity levels.

This week, I’ve been testing the $149 Nike+ FuelBand, as well as BodyMedia’s $199 Fit Link armband, with varying results.

The Nike+ FuelBand generated a lot of buzz when it was introduced in January. It’s currently sold out, aside from availability at a couple Nike retail stores in New York City. Otherwise, interested customers have to sign up on Nike’s Web site to be notified of the next shipment batch.

In my five-day test of the Nike+ FuelBand, I liked its design, ease of use, and overall coolness quotient. But I didn’t always find the “Fuel” metric — Nike’s new way of calculating exertion levels — to be super useful. On the flip side, while I wouldn’t give BodyMedia’s armband any design awards, it tracked more of the kind of data I’m interested in.


The Fuelband is a plastic wristband with a smooth, rubbery coating that measures a wearer’s steps, calories burned and Fuel levels, and then syncs the data with an app on your iPhone. It also acts as a watch. The FuelBand comes in three sizes. After adjusting the fit using a small insert that comes in the packaging, I eventually forgot I was wearing mine, aside from some minor annoyances, like when it tapped against my laptop.

The wristband’s display of LED lights really stand out, and garnered enthusiastic responses when people noticed it. There’s a single button on the band, for toggling between functions. A USB connector at one end of the FuelBand is used for charging the device and for syncing data through a computer.

Nike estimates that the battery will last up to four days without needing a charge, factoring in several “sync” sessions a day. In my test, the FuelBand went almost exactly four days without needing a charge, though this was skewed slightly because I plugged the FuelBand into my computer at one point to sync the data online, which automatically prompted more charging.

After registering my band online, entering in my height and weight, and setting my daily Fuel goal at around 3,000, I downloaded the free Nike+ FuelBand app from the App Store (the app is currently only available for iPhone). Syncing the FuelBand with the iPhone app was easy and took just about 10 seconds with a good Bluetooth connection.

On the main page of the app, the data appears in a circle with a giant Fuel score in the middle, but I could also view my activity in a linear graph. While the band only shows the number of steps taken, the app displays distance in miles, which was helpful. I found myself wishing the band would display distance in miles.

The Fuel number is drawn from a table created by Nike’s team of researchers, which studied various activities — for example, walking, running, playing tennis, etc. — and the levels of oxygen needed during those activities. While Fuel factors in your movement, it doesn’t factor in your height, weight, or body mass index. It’s meant to be a universal currency for everyone using the FuelBand.

For the most part, my Fuel levels were in line with my activity levels, but there were some aspects of Fuel I thought were sort of bogus. My Fuel level on Monday was hundreds of points higher than the next day’s level, even though I went for a two-mile run on Tuesday. On Wednesday, I lifted some light weights for about 30 minutes, which netted me 207 Fuel points, and then jogged for 20 minutes, which nearly tripled my Fuel score. But then I sat on a plane for 4.5 hours, so I didn’t reach my goal of 3,000 Fuel points for that day. 

On Thursday, I worked out twice, which is not a regular occurrence for me, but I did this for the sake of testing activity bands. Both workouts were aerobic, and lasted around 35 minutes. And yet I still didn’t hit my Fuel goal that day.

One explanation for this, according to Nike, might be that I was more consistently active on days I didn’t exercise, like Monday (which would make sense, because I was running around the South by Southwest festival in Austin that day). In the Nike Fuel world, one great hour of exercise isn’t supposed to make up for 17 hours of inactivity.



By connecting to Facebook and Twitter, FuelBand wearers can share and compare Fuel scores. I liked the competition it created with other friends who were sharing their scores and I liked the reactions I got from the Twitterverse; to me, that was the best part of Fuel, and I could see why this would be motivating for users.

	Nike+ FuelBand	BodyMedia Fit Link	Fitbit Ultra
Form Factor	Wristband	Armband	Dongle, clips to clothing or wristband
Measures	Movement/Steps, Activity Levels, Calories Burned, Nike “Fuel”	Movement/Steps, Activity Levels, Calories Burned and Consumed, Heat Flux, Skin Temperature, Sleep Efficiency	Movement/Steps, Activity Levels, Calories Burned and Consumed, Sleep Patterns, “Flower Power”
Estimated Battery Life	Up to 4 Days	Up to 4 Days	5 to 7 days
Mobile App	Yes, iPhone only	Yes, iPhone and Android	Yes, iPhone only
Waterproof	Water-resistant, but shouldn’t be submerged	Water-resistant, but shouldn’t be submerged	Water-resistant, but shouldn’t be submerged
Price	$149	$199, plus $6.95 a month for data-tracking	$99.95



For comprehensive data tracking, I actually found the BodyMedia Fit Link armband to be more useful than the FuelBand. 

Like Nike’s device, and the Fitbit, the Link armband measures steps and overall movement, but also uses sensors to detect changes in the skin’s surface temperature. So, while it doesn’t measure heart rate (the beauty of this new wave of fitness bands is that many of them don’t use heart-rate straps), it measures the body’s reaction to changes in heart rate, according to BodyMedia CEO Christine Robins.

I also liked that BodyMedia’s product incorporated weight goals, my caloric intake as well as output, and my sleep patterns, through a comprehensive online dashboard. Access to these advanced analytics online will cost users $6.95 a month, after a few free-trial months.


One night, I slept wearing both the FuelBand and the BodyMedia band. The FuelBand, which isn’t supposed to measure sleep patterns, only showed that my activity level had flatlined. The BodyMedia band, on the other hand, recorded how many hours and minutes I was actually sleeping, out of the total time that I was lying down, and calculated my sleep efficiency based on that.



The BodyMedia Fit Link band has its own drawbacks. There’s no display of information on the band itself, and it’s hard to forget you’re wearing it. It’s a bigger band that fastens to your arm, whereas the FuelBand feels like a thick bracelet. The armband also costs more than the FuelBand, and in my experience, syncing my Link armband to my iPhone was problematic. The company plans to release a new app, due this spring, that allows for better Bluetooth syncing, so users can update their BodyFit iPhone app and Web accounts at the same time.


For users looking for an activity-tracking wristband that tells you when and how much you moved throughout the day, the Nike+ FuelBand may work. But for serious weight-trackers or people looking to track segmented workouts, a product like a BodyMedia band or even a Nike+ SportsWatch would probably be a better fit.

  New iPad: A Million More Pixels Than HDTV

Apple’s iPad could be described as a personal display through which you see and manipulate text, graphics, photos and videos often delivered via the Internet. So, how has the company chosen to improve its wildly popular tablet? By making that display dramatically better and making the delivery of content dramatically faster.

There are other changes in the new, third-generation iPad — called simply “iPad,” with no number, which goes on sale on Friday at the same base price as its predecessor, $499. But the key upgrades are to those core features — the 9.7-inch screen and the data speed over cellular networks. These upgrades are massive. Using the new display is like getting a new eyeglasses prescription — you suddenly realize what you thought looked sharp before wasn’t nearly as sharp as it could be.

Boosting those particular features — the screen and the cellular speed — usually has a negative impact on battery life in a digital device. But Apple has managed to crank them up them while maintaining the long battery life between charges that has helped give the iPad such an edge over other tablets.

Objects, like the trees in this photo of Glacier National Park in Montana that Walt made his screen wallpaper, look sharper on the new iPad.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t other trade-offs. Mostly to make room for a larger battery, the new iPad weighs about 8% more and is about 7% thicker than the prior model. That means the company can’t claim to have the thinnest and lightest tablet, as it boasted last year with the iPad 2. (It’s still thinner and lighter than the original iPad.)

I’ve been testing the new iPad, and despite these trade-offs, its key improvements strengthen its position as the best tablet on the market. Apple hasn’t totally revamped the iPad or added loads of new features. But it has improved it significantly, at the same price.

It has the most spectacular display I have ever seen in a mobile device. The company squeezed four times the pixels into the same physical space as on the iPad 2 and claims the new iPad’s screen has a million more pixels than an HDTV. All I know is that text is much sharper, and photos look richer.

If you already own an iPad 2, and like it, you shouldn’t feel like you have to rush out to buy the new one. However, for those who use their iPads as their main e-readers, and those who use it frequently while away from Wi-Fi coverage, this new model could make a big difference.

The optional, extra-cost, 4G LTE cellular-data capability made it feel like I was always on a fast Wi-Fi connection. I loved the photos and videos I took with the greatly improved rear camera. And the battery life degraded by just 11 minutes, a figure that is still much better than on any tablet I’ve tested.

Letters that seemed sharp on the iPad 2, far left, suddenly felt fuzzier when compared with the new iPad’s ‘retina’ display, left. (It’s hard to reproduce on a web page.)

Along with the unmatched collection of 200,000 third-party programs designed for its large screen, and the large catalogs of music, books, periodicals and video content available for it, I can recommend the new iPad to consumers as their best choice in a general-purpose tablet.

The exceptions would be people who prefer a smaller size for one-handed use, or those who find the weight a burden. While the weight gain was noticeable, I didn’t find it a problem even for long reading or video-watching sessions. The extra thickness was barely discernible.

For the weight conscious, and for those who can’t swing the $499 entry cost, there is an out. Apple for the first time is making and selling the prior iPad model at a reduced price. The iPad 2 will now be available starting at $399, with just one choice of storage capacity — 16 gigabytes. The new iPad can be bought in 16, 32 or 64 GB capacities, at prices up to $829. The optional cellular capability costs the same as the slower 3G capability, both up front and in monthly fees from Verizon and AT&T.

The Display

It’s not as if people are complaining about the screens on their iPads, a device so attractive and useful that Apple sold about 55 million of them in two years. But this display is a big leap forward.

It’s hard to illustrate on a Web page or in print how brilliant this new display is. You have to see it. Apple calls it a “retina” display because, at normal viewing distance, there are so many pixels per inch, the human eye can’t pick them out individually. This display packs 264 pixels into every inch, twice as many as on iPad 2. Overall, the resolution is 2048 x 1536, versus 1024 x 768 for the iPad 2.

My epiphany came when I placed my iPad 2 next to the new model, with the same text on the screen. Letters and words that had seemed sharp on the older model five minutes earlier suddenly looked fuzzier.

As I tested the new model over five days, I found I was able to use smaller font sizes to read books and email. The same photos I had enjoyed on the older model looked much better on the new one, not only because of the increased resolution, but because Apple claims it increased color saturation by 44%. One thing Apple hasn’t fixed: like all glossy, LCD color displays, this one still does poorly in direct sunlight.

The new iPad’s 4G LTE cellular speeds are faster than many home Internet connections, as seen in this speed test showing how fast it would take to download data.

The Speed

The new iPad is hardly the first device to use 4G LTE cellular technology, but it marks a huge difference from the iPad 2. On Verizon’s network in Washington and Austin, Texas, I averaged LTE download speeds of over 17 megabits per second, faster than most home wired networks. A colleague using a new iPad on AT&T’s LTE network averaged over 12 mbps. My iPad 2 running Verizon’s 3G network averaged just over 1 mbps. Of course, you can get a Wi-Fi only model, at $130 less. The base $499 model is Wi-Fi only.

There is another dimension to speed: the overall responsiveness of the device. The new iPad is just as buttery smooth to use as the iPad 2. Apple beefed up the processor, especially its graphics capabilities.

The Battery

Apple claims up to 10 hours of battery life between charges, and up to nine hours if you are relying strictly on cellular connectivity. In my standard battery test, where I play videos back to back with both cellular and Wi-Fi on, and the screen at 75% brightness, the new iPad logged 9 hours and 58 minutes, compared with 10 hours and 9 minutes for the iPad 2. Other tablets died hours sooner in the same test. In more normal use, the new iPad lasted more than a full day, though not as long as the iPad 2 did.

The Rear Camera

Like the iPad 2, the third-generation iPad has front and rear cameras. The front camera, meant mainly for video chats, hasn’t changed. But the rear camera, which was awful for photos on the iPad 2, and was estimated at less than a single megapixel of resolution, has greatly improved. It’s now a 5-megapixel shooter with improved optics. I loved the photos and videos it took, indoors and out.

Other features

The new iPad is the first that can be used, like many smartphones, as a personal hot spot — a base station to connect laptops and other devices to the Internet. In my tests, this worked fine.

It also allows you to dictate, rather than type, emails and other text. I found this surprisingly accurate. And Apple now has a brilliant new version of its iPhoto software that has been rewritten for the iPad, reviewed this week by Katie Boehret.

Bottom Line

Since it launched in 2010, the iPad has been the best tablet on the planet. With the new, third-generation model, it still holds that crown.