Teardown of 38mm Apple Watch Sport Reveals 205 mAh Battery, Taptic Engine

kdarling said:

I agree.

Although, from their viewpoint, it does prevent them from being able to make money doing some repairs to Apple Watches.

(At first I was going to say it's not worth repairing a smartwatch, because they're pretty inexpensive. Then I remembered that people are actually paying a pretty hefty amount for an Apple Watch, especially the stainless steel models.)



If that's a problem, you can either turn off the always-on mode, or change the settings to not display preview cards automatically.



Nobody said any of that. Calm down and stop posting strawmen.

Everyone else seems to have realized that it was a chart with very broad ranges, posted simply to point out that battery size can have a big effect on usable life. It's not meant as a direct or detailed comparison, except as far as battery size goes.

I'm sure we'll be seeing the kind of comparison tests you're talking about pretty soon.



If by small, you mean its battery capacity, then yep. Heck, this button cell battery has the same Watt hour output (3.0V x 260 mAh) as the battery in the Apple Watch (3.8V x 205 mAh):

View attachment 544995

Click to expand...

Really? A straw man! You're really going to go there, especially with a paternalistic "calm down" affixed to it (never a good idea to say to any women due to historical use), when your whole argument is based on a heap of fallacies.

You linked battery size to time the time the watches supposedly lasted.
You based your argument on the weakly supported numbers you put down.
Numbers asserted despite there being no way to compare those watches except in narrow controlled lab tests of certain functions. Numbers supposedly pulled from reviews, when they don't even match the Apple watch reviews.

My argument is directly linked to contesting both
the numbers and that link.
Thus, my argument is by definition not a straw man's argument.
Unless your dictionary has a different definition of "straw man".

Your own argument though is loaded with fallacies :
- False authority
- Appeal to the people
- Asserting that everyone agrees
- Hasty generalization (conclusion based on incomplete or false info)
- Assuming the conclusion of the argument
- Single cause fallacy (Battery size is the only relevent factor)
- Inconsistent comparison (comparing as similar despite different models existing, possible different use relating to the numbers, different level of discharge at the end of the day)
- Correlation proves causation (battery size vs how long it lasts)
- Cherry picking (not using all the info from Apple or other watches reviews)

The funny thing is there is certainly a correlation between battery size and how long smart watches lasts (if anything because most non Apple watches used similar, comparable components and software, which reduces the impact of other factors), but you haven't proved your case AT ALL, for the Apple watch.

Why? Because there are undoubtedly many other factors at work, such as : type of CPU/GPU, fab process used for SOC, screen, software, com chips, sensors, specialized components, battery type, throttling, how long its used, frequency & type of use, settings, native app use vs Iphone apps, independent vs tethered, tethered far from phone vs close, etc).

RogerWilco said:

The coin cell battery is not rechargeable, so its volume & weight are not valid for comparison with the battery in the watch.

After seeing the full tear-down on this watch, I'm really not that impressed by the technology or engineering. The internals are crude by comparison to similar products made in Japan and Switzerland, and even other Apple products like the airport express.

Click to expand...

Huh! That's one hell of weird argument considering most of the engineering in this would not be really that visible; in the components themselves, the software, the material and inside the sealed S1.

Considering how generic the tech in an airport express is, the argument is even more bizarre.

Then, comparing swiss tech (which tech, mechanical watches, guns?) to this, a powerful small computer on a wrist, and area that the Swiss have no expertise in, as a proof of Swiss engineering feat, is the highest level of bizarre.

Keirasplace said:

Huh! That's one hell of weird argument considering most of the engineering in this would not be really that visible; in the components themselves, the software, the material and inside the sealed S1.

Considering how generic the tech in an airport express is, the argument is even more bizarre.

Then, comparing swiss tech (which tech, mechanical watches, guns?) to this as a proof of engineering feat, is the highest level of bizarre.

Click to expand...

Go look at what watchmaker Seiko designed and built for HP's Kittyhawk micro hard drive two decades ago and tell me how the mechanicals in the uberwatch are anything but crude. Have you ever looked at the sheet metal RFI covers on the main board in an airport express? Companies that can hold those mechanical tolerances are few and far between.

Oh yeah, the S1 SOC. It's a BFD for sure.

AlphaTeam said:

Even better. Just make a slot I can keep pumping these babies in like quarters in a Pac-Man machine and I'd never have to charge the watch.

Click to expand...

You might be joking, but I've always wondered why someone didn't make a replacement battery slot that goes all the way through a watch device!

Then make chewing-gum stick shape batteries that can be pushed in from one side. The incoming stick would push the old battery out the other side. With multiple contacts on top, they both would have continuous contact during the sliding replacement procedure.

RogerWilco said:

The coin cell battery is not rechargeable, so its volume & weight are not valid for comparison with the battery in the watch.

Click to expand...

I think it still helps people to visualize just how small the charged up capacity is.

After seeing the full tear-down on this watch, I'm really not that impressed by the technology or engineering. The internals are crude by comparison to similar products made in Japan and Switzerland, and even other Apple products like the airport express.

Click to expand...

The Sport internals are also crude when compared to Apple's marketing.

For instance, ads show a wonderfully thick Digital Crown compartment, and a sleek Taptic Engine module. In reality, at least on the Sport, the Crown compartment is a thin bent piece of metal, and the Engine is cheap looking metal with holes in it.





The internals of the Taptic Engine are rather crude as well. It's just a bigger than usual back-and-forth magnetic linear actuator. So I reiterate my original comment about dumping it and going for more battery

peterdevries said:

A ridiculous analogy. The apple watch and your citizen are only similar in the way that they are worn on the wrist and tell time.

Its like saying a concert piano is superior to a synthesizer because you don't need to plug it in, ignoring all the additional possibilities of the synthesizer.

Click to expand...

You understand not every ppl care about more options at the expense of battery life right?

mrjr101 said:

You understand not every ppl care about more options at the expense of battery life right?

Click to expand...

You understand that you're doing an apple and orange comparison don't you?
(look up logical fallacies)

So, your getting better battery life in a device that otherwise doesn't really compare. No ones buying a smart watch just to tell time (even though its better at it than any mechanical watch or quarts watches (since it gets atomic time) and in power saving mode all the time, it could likely last a week.

If battery life is all important and the actual function of the device is not important, why not pull in any device that last years on battery into the fray no matter the use. Hey, my smoke alarms are better than quartz watches because they last 10 years on one charge! Fantastic. Sounds absurd? Not more than comparing a wrist worn computer to a quartz watch.

People are really suggesting that Apple should take the Taptic engine out for more battery? Ha. Beyond ludicrous and delusional.

So Apple is the first to get the smartwatch right, it comes up with a comprehensive product that amongst its main features it has a linear actuator that can notify you of all kinds of activities going on discretely, including feedback for your actions, but you figure you can actually do one better and remove that altogether so it could have a few more hours of battery life (that you'll have to charge every night as well anyway) instead of just a full day battery.

Okay buddies. But that's not the Apple Watch, which is the best smart watch in the world and people are buying it by the millions because Apple got it right, not you. You're not as good as Apple in designing products. End of. And that's okay.

Next step will be wireless energy! No battery and double the space for components... Or a very small battery using a constant trickle charge.

mattoligy said:

Next step will be wireless energy! No battery and double the space for components... Or a very small battery using a constant trickle charge.

Click to expand...

I think, since it's a wearable with near constant contact with a human, Apple should figure out how to transfer a charge through human skin. Just a constant trickle charge so the person wouldn't feel it but enough to keep the watch charged. Sure, we would be moving closer to the concept of humans being use as batteries like in "The Matrix" but people would stop whining about recharging the watch for a couple hours every day!

ksuyen said:

Amazing feat of engineering! Kudos for Apple

----------



But... but... does it compute?


Image VS Image

Click to expand...

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home. -- Ken Olsen

Click to expand...

And here we have 13 computers just in this one house. Some are too old to be used but for special tasks, but there you have it...

Nyy8 said:

I think a Rechargeable Triple A Battery has 600 MAh, 200 is just 1/3 of that.

For it to last that a whole day of use? That's amazing.

Probably cost $.10 a year to charge

Click to expand...

But comparing the capacity of two batteries with different voltage is misleading. They will store the same charge, because the Apple watch battery has tripple the voltage of AAA battery. 200mAh * 3.6V = 600mAh * 1.2V = 720mWh.