Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
find the simplest, accurate, free one.

--
Jim the Geordie

On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
> find the simplest, accurate, free one.

A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 16.05.24 14:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
>> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
>> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
>> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
>> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
>> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
>> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
>
> A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.

Jim asked for an app on his *Android phone*.
By far not everyone wants to wear one of these ugly and for all visible
"watches". And btw they are not more accurate than a smartphone.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

In article <v9chhkxloa.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, robin_listas@es.invalid
says...
>
> On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
> > Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
> > not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
> > However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
> > steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
> > I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
> > find the simplest, accurate, free one.
>
> A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.

Got a perfectly good analogue watch thank you.
BTW Watches are not used to tell the time, they are used to tell how
long it is before...
Wait for someone to look at their watch, then ask them what time it. I
bet they look again. :)

--
Jim the Geordie

In article <v254f7$1jmiv$1@dont-email.me>, hugybear@gmx.net says...
>
> On 16.05.24 14:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> > On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> >> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
> >> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
> >> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
> >> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
> >> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
> >> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
> >> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
> >
> > A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.
>
> Jim asked for an app on his *Android phone*.
> By far not everyone wants to wear one of these ugly and for all visible
> "watches". And btw they are not more accurate than a smartphone.

I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!

--
Jim the Geordie

Jim the Geordie <jim@jimxscott.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <v254f7$1jmiv$1@dont-email.me>, hugybear@gmx.net says...
> >
> > On 16.05.24 14:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> > > On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> > >> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
> > >> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
> > >> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
> > >> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
> > >> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
> > >> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
> > >> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
> > >
> > > A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.
> >
> > Jim asked for an app on his *Android phone*.
> > By far not everyone wants to wear one of these ugly and for all visible
> > "watches". And btw they are not more accurate than a smartphone.
>
> I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
> taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!

So you've proven that Carlos is correct and Jörg is wrong. Nothing out
of the ordinary.

For *running*, a smartphone app and the smartphone in an upper-arm
'holster' is probably somewhat OK.

For *walking* - i.e. your "STEPS" -, the specialized sensors of a
'smartwatch' (or 'fitness tracker') - and their position - give more
accurate results.

Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:

> In article <v254f7$1jmiv$1@dont-email.me>, hugybear@gmx.net says...
>>
>> On 16.05.24 14:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> > On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>> >> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
>> >> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
>> >> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
>> >> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
>> >> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
>> >> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
>> >> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
>> >
>> > A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.
>>
>> Jim asked for an app on his *Android phone*.
>> By far not everyone wants to wear one of these ugly and for all visible
>> "watches". And btw they are not more accurate than a smartphone.
>
> I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
> taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!

You can't have been out for long! Or they grossly underestimate.
Why not do a test, count your steps, and see which one us best?

I see there's an NHS app: have you got that? And there are - or
were - pedometers - maybe on ebay.
--
Remove numerics from my email address.

On 16.05.24 19:05, Dave Royal wrote:
> Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>> I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
>> taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!
>
> You can't have been out for long! Or they grossly underestimate.
> Why not do a test, count your steps, and see which one us best?

+1; even the 558 steps are at best 250 m.

> I see there's an NHS app: have you got that? And there are - or
> were - pedometers - maybe on ebay.

The whole issue depends on the sensor quality of the phone and how/where
the phone is placed during the count.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 16.05.24 19:05, Dave Royal wrote:
> > Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:
> >> I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
> >> taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!
> >
> > You can't have been out for long! Or they grossly underestimate.
> > Why not do a test, count your steps, and see which one us best?
>
> +1; even the 558 steps are at best 250 m.

Your age is showing! :-) More like 400-420m. (Stride/step length of
75cm.)

[...]

In article <v25ess$1lp06$1@dont-email.me>, hugybear@gmx.net says...
>
> On 16.05.24 19:05, Dave Royal wrote:
> > Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:
> >> I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
> >> taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!
> >
> > You can't have been out for long! Or they grossly underestimate.
> > Why not do a test, count your steps, and see which one us best?
>
> +1; even the 558 steps are at best 250 m.
>
> > I see there's an NHS app: have you got that? And there are - or
> > were - pedometers - maybe on ebay.
>
> The whole issue depends on the sensor quality of the phone and how/where
> the phone is placed during the count.

all on the same phone at the same time

--
Jim the Geordie

On 16/05/2024 15:49, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> In article <v9chhkxloa.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, robin_listas@es.invalid
> says...
>>
>> On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
>>> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
>>> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
>>> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
>>> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
>>> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
>>> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
>>
>> A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.
>
> Got a perfectly good analogue watch thank you.
> BTW Watches are not used to tell the time, they are used to tell how
> long it is before...
> Wait for someone to look at their watch, then ask them what time it. I
> bet they look again. :)
>

That's a consequence of psychology and the brain not focusing on
irrelevant details, not product design. Unless I'm missing something.

Jim the Geordie wrote on Thu, 16 May 2024 19:19:28 +0100 :

>> The whole issue depends on the sensor quality of the phone and how/where
>> the phone is placed during the count.
>
> all on the same phone at the same time

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker/

Pedometer (PFA)
Privacy Friendly Pedometer can count your steps in background, provides you
an overview about your walked steps and allows you to define custom walking
modes and notifications if the achievement of your daily step goal is in
danger. The app requires minimal permissions (Run at startup and prevent
phone from sleeping). It belongs to the Privacy Friendly Apps group
developed by the research group SECUSO at Technische Universit�t Darmstadt.
More information can be found an secuso.org/pfa

Privacy Friendly Pedometer can count your daily walked steps while it runs
in background. It gives you an overview about your walked steps, distance
and about the calories you have burned while walking. You can add and
choose different walking modes with different step lengths, such as walking
or running, to improve the calculation of distance and calories.

In a special training mode you can track your training sessions. To each
training session additional information, such as feeling or a description,
can be added.

What makes Privacy Friendly Pedometer different from other pedometers?

1. Minimal amount of permissions:
* Run at startup: This permission is required to restart the step counting
when your phone boots.
* prevent phone from sleeping: On some devices the processor falls asleep
and prevents counting steps. With this permission the app can keep the
processor awake while counting steps.

Most of Pedometer Apps in the Google Play Store require additional
permissions. E.g. accessing the network or Internet which is mostly used to
display advertisement. Some apps have access to GPS or telephony data.

2. No advertisement.
Many other free apps in the Google Play Store dazzle annoying advertising
and also shortens battery life.

Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <v9chhkxloa.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, robin_listas@es.invalid
> says...
>>
>> On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
>>> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
>>> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
>>> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
>>> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
>>> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
>>> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
>>
>> A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.
>
> Got a perfectly good analogue watch thank you.
> BTW Watches are not used to tell the time, they are used to tell how
> long it is before...
> Wait for someone to look at their watch, then ask them what time it. I
> bet they look again. :)

Carlos didn't say "watch". He said "smart watch". The latter have
force sensors that can detect when you step. Of course, if you glide
then there is no impact for a step measure. Some people step on their
heels to rotate forward on their feet. Some stomp down on their entire
foot. And some step down on the ball of their feet. I suspect those
that step soundly on the heels of their feet giving the most impact
would measure more reliably than the other walking styles. When
running, some runners cushion their impact rather than pound their feet.
Ever notice how some horse riders bounce in the saddle while others ride
more smoothly by using their knees as shock absorbers?

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/fitness-app-step-count

As mentioned, where you position your phone on your body when walking or
running significantly affects the reliable of measuring the impacts of
your style of movement. Are you stowing your smart phone on your hip,
like in a waistband or belt, or in a pants pocket? Having your smart
phone in your hand to monitor the swing of your arms in another good
location, and why Fitbits or other smart watches are worn on the wrist.
Quite often steps are not measured when there is no hand movement. For
example, steps may not be measured when pushing a lawn mower, because
you're arms are fixed on the handle bar, not swinging. Don't be looking
at your phone when monitoring steps as that changes the rotation. Some
apps won't start counting steps until a threshold has been reached, like
10 continues steps have occurred, not a couple steps, then none, then
some more. Have the option for when to start and stop counting steps.
Automatic measurement could include "steps" from vibrations when riding
in a car, on a train, or while on a moving walkway.

To see what sensors you unmentioned phone has, you can lookup its
specifications, like at GSMarena. That your smart phone has an motion
sensors (accelerometers, gravity, gryroscopes, and rotational vector)
means it can measure acceleration and rotational force along 3 axes.
That doesn't make them good footstep counters. There are various types
of sensors in Android phones, but not all are employed in every smart
phone. See:

https://developer.android.com/develop/sensors-and-location/sensors/sensors_overview

Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:

> In article <v25ess$1lp06$1@dont-email.me>, hugybear@gmx.net says...
>>
>> On 16.05.24 19:05, Dave Royal wrote:
>> > Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>> >> I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
>> >> taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!
>> >
>> > You can't have been out for long! Or they grossly underestimate.
>> > Why not do a test, count your steps, and see which one us best?
>>
>> +1; even the 558 steps are at best 250 m.
>>
>> > I see there's an NHS app: have you got that? And there are - or
>> > were - pedometers - maybe on ebay.
>>
>> The whole issue depends on the sensor quality of the phone and how/where
>> the phone is placed during the count.
>
> all on the same phone at the same time

Looking at auctions of old pedometers on ebay I see that they
often clipped to the waistband or a belt.

If I actually wanted to count my steps I might offer a few quid
for this:
THE SUN WALKERS Walk-o-meter Step Counter Vintage Collectable.
(That's the Sun newspaper and Walkers as in crisps. )

Or maybe the wrist band made by Kelloggs.

--
Remove numerics from my email address.

In article <v25edi$1m1sd$1@dont-email.me>, dave@dave123royal.com says...
>
> Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>
> > In article <v254f7$1jmiv$1@dont-email.me>, hugybear@gmx.net says...
> >>
> >> On 16.05.24 14:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >> > On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> >> >> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
> >> >> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
> >> >> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
> >> >> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
> >> >> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
> >> >> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
> >> >> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
> >> >
> >> > A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.
> >>
> >> Jim asked for an app on his *Android phone*.
> >> By far not everyone wants to wear one of these ugly and for all visible
> >> "watches". And btw they are not more accurate than a smartphone.
> >
> > I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
> > taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!
>
> You can't have been out for long! Or they grossly underestimate.
> Why not do a test, count your steps, and see which one us best?
>
> I see there's an NHS app: have you got that? And there are - or
> were - pedometers - maybe on ebay.

I have run my tests on several - 6/7 different apps.
No two produce the same result.
When physically counting steps the results can vary from half the
counted steps to twice the steps or more.
They may be fine on an 'armband' or for running/brisk walking, but with
a trudging gait like mine, and the phone in a trouser pocket they are a
waste of time.
My old pedometer works fine, but I don't wear it all the time, which was
the original plan for the phone.

--
Jim the Geordie

Jim the Geordie wrote on Fri, 17 May 2024 18:49:03 +0100 :

> I have run my tests on several - 6/7 different apps.
> No two produce the same result.

Did you test the privacy aware SECUSO Research Group pedometer app?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker/

How did it do?

In article <v28ca9$6uc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>,
andrew@spam.net says...
>
> Jim the Geordie wrote on Fri, 17 May 2024 18:49:03 +0100 :
>
> > I have run my tests on several - 6/7 different apps.
> > No two produce the same result.
>
> Did you test the privacy aware SECUSO Research Group pedometer app?
>
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker
> https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker/
>
> How did it do?

No better than the others except no advertising.
The numbers of steps counted were particularly low.

--
Jim the Geordie

Jim the Geordie wrote on Fri, 17 May 2024 21:46:24 +0100 :

>> Did you test the privacy aware SECUSO Research Group pedometer app?
>>
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker
>> https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker/
>>
>> How did it do?
>
> No better than the others except no advertising.
> The numbers of steps counted were particularly low.

Thanks for letting us know, where there's also no Internet account needed
so they can't sell your activity data to anyone because they don't have it.

Also it provides nice graphs of your activity, and since there is no flat
land within miles of where I live, it also provides an elevation profile.

Most of the apps might give you all those activity analysis graphs though.

What you might want to do given you tested a number of apps is find the
average, and then select and app that you like that was close to the mean.

Andrew wrote on Fri, 17 May 2024 21:04:14 -0000 (UTC) :

> What you might want to do given you tested a number of apps is find the
> average, and then select and app that you like that was close to the mean.

Or.... since the average could still be incorrect, what you might want to
do (although tedious) is literally *count* your steps (yes, tedious).

And then you'd know which one is correct as otherwise you're stuck with the
old adage about knowing the time when you have two clocks in front of you.

One perhaps slightly less tedious way to count the steps is to measure your
stride, and then find a flat area to walk a given decent distance at as
much of the same stride as you can facilitate. Then do the simple math.

Whichever app is closest to your control, would be the most accurate
(at least for flat land with even strides).

In article <v28h08$22t1$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>,
andrew@spam.net says...
>
> Andrew wrote on Fri, 17 May 2024 21:04:14 -0000 (UTC) :
>
> > What you might want to do given you tested a number of apps is find the
> > average, and then select and app that you like that was close to the mean.
>
> Or.... since the average could still be incorrect, what you might want to
> do (although tedious) is literally *count* your steps (yes, tedious).
>
> And then you'd know which one is correct as otherwise you're stuck with the
> old adage about knowing the time when you have two clocks in front of you.
>
> One perhaps slightly less tedious way to count the steps is to measure your
> stride, and then find a flat area to walk a given decent distance at as
> much of the same stride as you can facilitate. Then do the simple math.
>
> Whichever app is closest to your control, would be the most accurate
> (at least for flat land with even strides).

Thanks Andrew.
It all started with an argument between two friends in the pub.
Neither of them will have thought about stride length or whether they
were burning calories. They probably read somewhere that taking 'x'
strides a day would go towards living for ever and yah boo sucks I do
more strides than you.
My quick check suggests they are talking tosh, not only about what other
things go on with their life, but they are comparing apples with oranges
and it all baloney.
But how many others believe they are saved by an app of dubious
validity.
Perhaps they shouldn't be in the pub if they want to live longer.

--
Jim the Geordie

On 2024-05-16 16:16, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 16.05.24 14:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
>>> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
>>> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
>>> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
>>> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
>>> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
>>> find the simplest, accurate, free one.
>>
>> A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately.
>
> Jim asked for an app on his *Android phone*.

I am aware.

> By far not everyone wants to wear one of these ugly and for all visible
> "watches". And btw they are not more accurate than a smartphone.

Having used both, I disagree.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-05-16 20:19, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> In article <v25ess$1lp06$1@dont-email.me>, hugybear@gmx.net says...
>>
>> On 16.05.24 19:05, Dave Royal wrote:
>>> Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>> I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had
>>>> taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!!
>>>
>>> You can't have been out for long! Or they grossly underestimate.
>>> Why not do a test, count your steps, and see which one us best?
>>
>> +1; even the 558 steps are at best 250 m.
>>
>>> I see there's an NHS app: have you got that? And there are - or
>>> were - pedometers - maybe on ebay.
>>
>> The whole issue depends on the sensor quality of the phone and how/where
>> the phone is placed during the count.
>
> all on the same phone at the same time

No, the location of the phone itself is important.

You have to repeat the test, placing the phone in different places.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <v28h08$22t1$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>,
> andrew@spam.net says...
>>
>> Andrew wrote on Fri, 17 May 2024 21:04:14 -0000 (UTC) :
>>
>>> What you might want to do given you tested a number of apps is find the
>>> average, and then select and app that you like that was close to the mean.
>>
>> Or.... since the average could still be incorrect, what you might want to
>> do (although tedious) is literally *count* your steps (yes, tedious).
>>
>> And then you'd know which one is correct as otherwise you're stuck with the
>> old adage about knowing the time when you have two clocks in front of you.
>>
>> One perhaps slightly less tedious way to count the steps is to measure your
>> stride, and then find a flat area to walk a given decent distance at as
>> much of the same stride as you can facilitate. Then do the simple math.
>>
>> Whichever app is closest to your control, would be the most accurate
>> (at least for flat land with even strides).
>
> Thanks Andrew.
> It all started with an argument between two friends in the pub.
> Neither of them will have thought about stride length or whether they
> were burning calories. They probably read somewhere that taking 'x'
> strides a day would go towards living for ever and yah boo sucks I do
> more strides than you.
> My quick check suggests they are talking tosh, not only about what other
> things go on with their life, but they are comparing apples with oranges
> and it all baloney.
> But how many others believe they are saved by an app of dubious
> validity.
> Perhaps they shouldn't be in the pub if they want to live longer.

The step count isn't useful as an absolute measure, but moreso as a
relative measure. It's more useful to see whether you're doing 50% more
steps this month when compared to last month.

Chris wrote on Sun, 19 May 2024 00:35:39 -0000 (UTC) :

> The step count isn't useful as an absolute measure, but moreso as a
> relative measure. It's more useful to see whether you're doing 50% more
> steps this month when compared to last month.

Agree with Chris.

You set goals. And then you try to achieve them.
The apps help you with quantization metrics.

They're not intended to be accurate distance measurements, per se.

Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> writes:

> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app.
> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm
> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use.
> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of
> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all.
> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to
> find the simplest, accurate, free one.

As I recall, step counter functionality was added to Android as a system
function in version 4.2 or thereabouts, over a decade ago. This relies
on a dedicated hardware sensor which just counts steps, quietly and
without a fuss. So all a step counter app needs to do is query that step
counter often enough since the system just counts steps from boot so
it's up to the app to figure out which steps were taken on a particular
day.

Looks like there is now both a step detector and step counter, with the
latter being the more accurate.

A phone without these hardware sensors would have to try to constantly
analyze whatever the phone accelerometer puts out or maybe try something
like "distance travelled by guessed stride length" which are likely to
get the steps wrong.

After some searching I found "Privacy Friendly Pedometer" by SECUSO
researd group in the Play store
(https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker). I
tested it very briefly this afternoon, seemed to match closely to what
my Garmin Fenix 6 smartwatch counted. And it tells you if your phone has
the needed hardware sensors or not.