Xperia active Official Thread

On 2011-06-22 17:38:26, MNX1024 wrote:
I was just about to get this to replace my cycling computer, but after reading the specs, it became a no.

This is suppose to be a sports phone..... A real GPS is expected, not an aGPS. Freaking ridiculous!!!! This is a big mistake on SE's end.

On 2011-06-22 18:08:14, MNX1024 wrote:
But no aGPS can get a signal within 10 second like my Garmin Edge 500, therefore it's a no no. Let's just say I do use the mobile network to find signal, I highly doubt the phone can last long enough for me to finish my 100+ mile rides, which can last from 5 to 9 hours depending on the route and distance I take. Therefore the aGPS is useless.

On 2011-06-22 17:38:26, MNX1024 wrote:
I was just about to get this to replace my cycling computer, but after reading the specs, it became a no.

This is suppose to be a sports phone..... A real GPS is expected, not an aGPS. Freaking ridiculous!!!! This is a big mistake on SE's end.

On 2011-06-22 19:07:36, lolstebbo wrote:

aGPS uses the mobile network to assist in getting an initial lock on your position. Once that initial position is acquired, the GPS positioning lock is active unless reception with GPS satellites is lost.

On 2011-06-22 19:35:58, MNX1024 wrote:


Yeah, as a cyclist that rides at 20+ MPH, I don't want to stop to fix a GPS issue, heck most of my group rides are like 23+ MPH. I would be dropped by the time I stop and fix it. Also, this is a marketed as a sports oriented device, why do I , the user, have to spend 5 minutes to get it to work. Whereas I can just turn it on and it would just work without me fiddling with it? With a high sensitivity receiver, I don't have to deal with this whole ordeal.

I do have to admit, this device is great for your everyday joe or recreational jogger who wants to have an all in one device.

On 2011-06-22 19:41:17, mode wrote:


My X10 GPS (locks in at 2 secs with aGPS) works flawlessly while driving from 55-80+MPH, I'm sure it can take your 20+MPH

On 2011-06-22 19:48:25, MNX1024 wrote:
Instead of taking 15 minute for it to fix on to a signal without data, it can just get a fix within a matter of second.

On 2011-06-22 19:41:17, mode wrote:

My X10 GPS (locks in at 2 secs with aGPS) works flawlessly while driving from 55-80+MPH, I'm sure it can take your 20+MPH

On 2011-06-22 19:48:25, MNX1024 wrote:


Has nothing to do with how fast I'm going. I'm just saying the fact that I don't want to stop and in certain situation, I can't stop just to fix something. Therefore a high sensitivity sensor would be a better choice than an aGPS. Instead of taking 15 minute for it to fix on to a signal without data, it can just get a fix within a matter of second. In this case, inorder for me to alleviate this issue, I would have to stop my ride and fix it manually. That takes up my training time.

On 2011-06-23 09:19:11, goldenface wrote:
I would be surprised if this phone only had aGPS. The spec sheet could be wrong.

On 2011-06-22 19:48:25, MNX1024 wrote:


Has nothing to do with how fast I'm going. I'm just saying the fact that I don't want to stop and in certain situation, I can't stop just to fix something. Therefore a high sensitivity sensor would be a better choice than an aGPS. Instead of taking 15 minute for it to fix on to a signal without data, it can just get a fix within a matter of second. In this case, inorder for me to alleviate this issue, I would have to stop my ride and fix it manually. That takes up my training time.

On 2011-06-24 02:40:30, lolstebbo wrote:


And, as the rest of us have been saying, aGPS is just standard GPS (requires 3-4 satellite locks to confirm your location). It just uses cellular networks to help acquire the lock faster. If you lose your cellular phone signal, you don't lose your GPS bearings. If you lose your GPS bearings but still have cellular phone signal, then your phone can re-locate your exact bearings much more quickly than a standard GPS device. The use of cellular network triangulation has absolutely no effect on the aGPS system's ability to maintain a signal. If you have problems maintaining signal on an aGPS device, you'll have problems with a standard GPS device as well.

Before I start, I do not intend to be rude or try to insult anyone, but what I may say may/will sound aggressive.

From what I can tell, most of you don't even know what I'm trying to get through to you guys. Mainly due to the fact that, I'm assuming, you guys are not serious cyclists or athletes that actually train with a computer, an electronic devices that can track your records, such as Heart Rate, Speed, Cadence, Wattage, and/or etc.

First, let me give you a device to compare with the Xperia Active:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=160&pID=36728
This here is a cycling computer that uses a High Sensitivity GPS receiver. I also personally own one these.

What I'm trying to get to you guys is that, as a serious cyclist, the data I record for my rides are very important. While I'm on my 8 hour bicycle rides, which spans over 100+ miles, I would be bound to reach spots that have extremely weak GPS signal. With an aGPS I can guarantee you guys that I would lose signal somewhere along my rides. So, if I'm on airplane mode, and I'm constantly moving, there is almost no chance I can recover a signal. Even if I do recover signal, it would take god knows how long for it to. Therefore, I have lost that part of my training data. Now, if I were to use the Garmin Edge 500, these problem would not even happen. I will not lose signal, if the signal is extremely low, at most my speed would be slightly inaccurate.

Let's continue to airplane mode, without data to provide a more accurate of your position, an aGPS will not be as accurate compared to a High Sensitivity GPS receiver. So for cars, it's fine, you don't need to record your speed. For cyclist and other athletes, yes, an accurate telling of our speed is necessary for training data. Heck, I may even argue, even with data, I highly doubt it's as accurate as a High Sensitivity GPS receiver. So, if I'm using it as a training device, and my rides last 8 hours, I don't think I want to turn on data.

Some of you may say a good way to alleviate the issue of losing signal is turn on data and reconnect, then turn the phone back on airplane mode. Well, I even eat and drink while I ride on my bicycle, there's no way in hell I'd plan to stop during rides unless there's traffic, red light, and/or something important happens.

Now, to my main point. This device is suppose to aim at enthusiast athlete. Which mean people that takes training seriously. Therefore accurate training data is required, meaning that a High Sensitivity GPS Receiver is a better choice than a aGPS.

If they had use a High Sensitivity GPS Receiver, they could've trump this following device:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=160&pID=69043 (Which is a top of the line cycling computer)
because that thing cost $450USD and only offers a low resolution resistive screen with maps that you may have to pay for later if you want to update. In terms of price, the active could even be cheaper(assumption here).

I hope I got my point through with what I just said. And please, don't mind this essay of mine .

On 2011-06-24 04:55:57, mode wrote:
That's like saying you expect SLR quality photos from a mobile phone As it is a cellphone, it only makes sense to have aGPS as it could utilize the cellphone signal to get the initial lock. If you are an actual professional, you should stick to specific standalone devices, just like a professional photographer should stick to SLRs instead of image centric mobile phones, no?

On 2011-06-24 04:25:47, MNX1024 wrote:
Before I start, I do not intend to be rude or try to insult anyone, but what I may say may/will sound aggressive.

From what I can tell, most of you don't even know what I'm trying to get through to you guys. Mainly due to the fact that, I'm assuming, you guys are not serious cyclists or athletes that actually train with a computer, an electronic devices that can track your records, such as Heart Rate, Speed, Cadence, Wattage, and/or etc.

First, let me give you a device to compare with the Xperia Active:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=160&pID=36728
This here is a cycling computer that uses a High Sensitivity GPS receiver. I also personally own one these.

What I'm trying to get to you guys is that, as a serious cyclist, the data I record for my rides are very important. While I'm on my 8 hour bicycle rides, which spans over 100+ miles, I would be bound to reach spots that have extremely weak GPS signal. With an aGPS I can guarantee you guys that I would lose signal somewhere along my rides. So, if I'm on airplane mode, and I'm constantly moving, there is almost no chance I can recover a signal. Even if I do recover signal, it would take god knows how long for it to. Therefore, I have lost that part of my training data. Now, if I were to use the Garmin Edge 500, these problem would not even happen. I will not lose signal, if the signal is extremely low, at most my speed would be slightly inaccurate.

Let's continue to airplane mode, without data to provide a more accurate of your position, an aGPS will not be as accurate compared to a High Sensitivity GPS receiver. So for cars, it's fine, you don't need to record your speed. For cyclist and other athletes, yes, an accurate telling of our speed is necessary for training data. Heck, I may even argue, even with data, I highly doubt it's as accurate as a High Sensitivity GPS receiver. So, if I'm using it as a training device, and my rides last 8 hours, I don't think I want to turn on data.

Some of you may say a good way to alleviate the issue of losing signal is turn on data and reconnect, then turn the phone back on airplane mode. Well, I even eat and drink while I ride on my bicycle, there's no way in hell I'd plan to stop during rides unless there's traffic, red light, and/or something important happens.

Now, to my main point. This device is suppose to aim at enthusiast athlete. Which mean people that takes training seriously. Therefore accurate training data is required, meaning that a High Sensitivity GPS Receiver is a better choice than a aGPS.

If they had use a High Sensitivity GPS Receiver, they could've trump this following device:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=160&pID=69043 (Which is a top of the line cycling computer)
because that thing cost $450USD and only offers a low resolution resistive screen with maps that you may have to pay for later if you want to update. In terms of price, the active could even be cheaper(assumption here).

I hope I got my point through with what I just said. And please, don't mind this essay of mine .

On 2011-06-24 05:24:42, mode wrote:
I see your point, maybe you can take it up to SE Product Blog, they seem to listen to customer feedback, you might get your winner in the future But then again, from what I understand, the phone is equipped with GPS receiver, only made to be enhanced with network support hence the 'a' prefix in cases where sattelite signal is lost and can only be triangulated with the network signal. So in other words, it has GPS, and we don't even know how sensitive it is, so why don't you give it a go first and find out, for all you know your frustration might be unfounded

On 2011-06-24 05:42:48, lolstebbo wrote:

I'm going to be just as aggressive, then, but I also don't mean to be insulting.

Then, as mode has indicated, you clearly need a separate GPS unit. If you're seriously expecting a phone that is really just a ruggedized Xperia mini with some additional functionality to be able to also perform the function of a a GPS unit designed specifically for enthusiast athletes, you've got incredibly misguided expectations.

For instance, Cybershot phones target people that want a phone that can perform well for photography, but I'm not going to expect a Cybershot to be able to replace my SLR the next time I need to go on a shooting gig.

If Cybershot phones used 1/1.63" sensor, offered full PSAM controls, had actual glass lenses, and featured a fast aperture, then Sony Ericsson could trump enthusiast-level point-and-shoots. If Walkman phones had full EQ control, actually good sound chips, and full codec support, it could trump most PMPs. There's boatloads of such arguments that could be made for anything, but what it comes down to is: it's a damn cellphone. It has some additional functionality that can be of use to particular target demographics, but if you're expecting a cellphone to replace some sort of dedicated equipment, then keep dreaming.

I do not believe I'm misguided. By using a "High Sensitivity GPS Receiver" instead of an aGPS is feasible, unlike the modification you just mention. It will probably only warrant a $50(could be a little more since it's SE) increase and changes to the dimensions in millimeters. Unless SE decide to market this device for under $200USD, but I highly doubt it with specs like that. Also, this thing can already replaced a dedicated cycling computer because it has a barometer and ant+ module in it. All we got to do pair up a cadence/speed sensor, Heart Rate Monitor, and/or a power meter to it and I can display wattage, speed, heart rate, and cadence. The thing is, if they just tweak it a little by using a "High Sensitivity GPS Receiver" instead of an aGPS. With that, the "High Sensitivity GPS Receiver" can act as my odometer and I don't need a cadence/speed sensor. Meaning I don't have to attach all those sensor onto my bike.