Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
42mm Apple Watch 2 May Have 35% Larger Battery
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope the power draw doesn't go up proportionally. Power requirements don't always go down as technology moves forward.
Sleep Pulse 2. But I doubt the sensors are going to be too different from whatever the Fitbit has. And syncing the program crashes often, so the Fitbit probably would be a better experience-for now.
This would seem to be quite a narrow use case - to put GPS in just for this seems overkill.
What do you use your sleep monitoring for? I am genuinely interested - I have terrible sleep patterns but am not sure tracking them will help...
[doublepost=1472510082][/doublepost]
The issue for me is that the inclusion of GPS is at the expense of something else - in this case thinness as there is a need for a bigger battery.
If I need to drive I'll bring my license.
[doublepost=1472512769][/doublepost]
Tracking sleep can help you identify what's making you sleep better or worse. If you make notes of what you do before bed, when you go to sleep etc. and compare with sleep quality, you can identify problems.
The Fitbit is great as it detects when I go to sleep, instead of making me tap a button. I'll find that I just forget to often to tap the button.
Well that's understandable. However, thinness is not something I expect we can all agree on anyway. Many prefer thicker watches. My biggest complaint with the watch is not that it's too thick, but that it looks too thick thanks to its Chiclet design.
As far as the GPS chip making the watch notably thicker, or preventing a reduction, that's not a real concern. In terms of battery life being the issue that determines thickness, I do not subscribe to the theory that GPS will dramatically change that. Apple already allows phone calls to be taken and made on the watch, with a corresponding power draw resulting in less than 3 hours of continuous use on a full charge. Adding GPS would certainly not drain the battery any faster than that -- in fact I'd expect the drain to be substantially less, more like listening to music which will drain the battery in less than 6 hours of continuous use. The key here is a judicious application of GPS. People who don't need it never need turn it on. People who do need it, likely only need it occasionally when away from their iPhone. People who need it on continuously understand the compromises just like those who continuously use the phone feature, or music. The battery doesn't have to be increased at all to add that feature, any more than it needs to be increased to add cellular capability.
Including the technology and using it are two different things. All things considered, I'd rather have more features to use when I need them, than not due to some imagined power limitations.
Main issue being you need either Amex (I have just moved away from Amex as my main card) or ANZ Visa
Agreed. I've never understood why some people are so adamant about wanting/needing more than a day of battery life. When I used to wear a regular watch I never wore it to bed anyway, but maybe some people like sleeping with their watch on?
Two-day battery life might be nice for those times when you end up sleeping over at a friends unexpectedly or something, but if I'm going to be away from the house for more than a couple of days I'll probably just bring my charger...
Wow.... You really have not a clue hey.
So, you want magic battery tech? Or a massively big watch...
That's what is needed right now to put a cell chip in a smart watch the size of the Apple Watch that won't die in 4-5h hours (magic tech). If its a huge ass watch, it wouldn't be a watch Apple will ever do, but they do exist...
Your other comment about Apple is a total non sequitur.
I don't agree at all. Plenty of watches do exactly this. Apple markets their current entry level watch as a sports edition watch yet it is inferior to cheaper products in that aspects.
Fwiw the barometer in most modern smart phones also had a relatively limited number of uses to the average user. Someone at Apple (and other companies) deemed it necessary enough to ship in millions (of not billions) of devices.
[doublepost=1472521653][/doublepost]
I actually just noticed Starbucks had wireless charging stations in Boston (I haven't been in Starbucks in about two years, so this may not be a new thing lol). I'd be plenty happy if they added wireless charging that at least works with current technology and standards.
[doublepost=1472521815][/doublepost]
I tried to be as clear as possible in my response to you that I was expressing my (and wife's) personal needs and experiences. I'm not about who's wrong or right. You use it for what you use it for. That's great. I'm not at any point implying you are wrong here. My argument is it's not convenient for us (my wife and Me). That being said, I would be shocked if we were the only ones who felt this way. And I would be amazed if a very large segment of the Apple Watch owning population uses their watches for sleep tracking. For me personally having to charge a watch at multiple points during the day just to get thisnfunxtionaltiy isn't worth the headache. Again, if you don't mind it, more power to you.
I did mention my wife's watch had died during the day more than once, previously in this thread. She doesn't have the option to take it off and charge at work without risk of theft, so there's that. She was actually excited about the charge band that doubles the battery life by storing charge in a band but Apple effectively shut that product down. We have an almost three year old, the day gets busy, it's entirely too easy to forget to charge something and then slap it in your wrist on the way out the door. I'm happy if I'm able to get my morning run in lol. What I'm getting at is everyone's experience is different depending on their lifestyle and I would argue this device is the most lifestyle oriented device Apple has ever released.
For my usage patterns I compare this first gen watch a lot to the first gen iPhone. The original iPhones crutch was its 2g data connection. This didn't keep millions of people (including myself) from buying one. It did keep me from enjoying it quite a bit, particularly after seeing what could be achieved with a much faster connection. I'm nearly a decade older than the college freshman I was then and am a bit more frugal with my money. If I'm going to spend many hundreds of dollars on a product I need to be happy with it overall.
We have a thread here that is about a 35% increase in Apple Watch battery capacity. I more than welcome that alongside potentially faster charging (iPhone could use this too!) to fit in with my needs. The less I need to micro manage charging, the better!
Last edited:
Change banks. Me and the wife just did and it was pretty painless. The main hassle is re-setting up automatic transfers and informing your employer where to send your pay.Main issue being you need either Amex (I have just moved away from Amex as my main card) or ANZ Visa
As for AMEX, I got it for Apple Pay when it was first introduced. It was a novelty, but limited acceptance became a hassle (I feel you Americas). Having your main bank debit card on Apple Pay is a night and day experience.
One great argument I hadn't thought of until reading it here is that the battery diminishes over time. Starting with a larger battery means that after 2 years when that battery is down to, let's say, 80%, you still have a very viable full days worth of juice.
I think Apple charges something like $79 (don't quote me) on battery replacement for their watches. Of course, I don't even know if the average Watch is going to last longer than 2-3 years anyway.
Regardless, I'd like a large battery just to be sure I won't drain it in a single day "no matter what".
Last edited:
Completely disagree. If Apple introduces GPS and a larger battery, this would only make sense. The 18 hour battery now would be wiped clean under two hours with GPS and the heart rate sensor active.
Secondly, I would not compare the Apple Watch to a mobile device, at least in Apple's fashion when it comes to battery life. The Apple Watch is a whole different Device with different capabilities.
I highly doubt LTE is probable with Watch 2, thinner maybe. But make no mistake, either the battery is larger in Watch 2 or the existing battery is made more efficient with Watch OS3.
The Fitbit surge has a measely 100mah battery and a gps lifespan of up to ten hours (my personal real life tests, while I had one, were good for about 8-9). I'd be very surprised if Apple opted a gps implementation that killed a battery quite as rapidly as you suggest. In sure there are other examples, but none that I have experience with. I've heard good things from the moto sport too, in terms of gps life in a smart watch, but unfortunately the software tracking seems to be completely missing.
Unless Watch OS3 can manage the current battery in its state IF GPS is added, then it could be a possibility it could survive. THe reason I believe it will require a larger battery is if Apple introduces a 14NM/S2 Chip, which will consume more power.
As it is now, with the Apple Watch in its current state with 'Hey Siri', Heart rate sensor, applications running, ect, the battery life struggles. It truly depends on how you use the Watch.
I for one would really appreciate a larger battery. As far as processing power now, it's works for me. And I don't use third party applications.
[doublepost=1472530510][/doublepost]
I currently own the Stainless 42 MM Watch, if Apple can offer something for me to upgrade, I will. I could care less if it's thinner or not. I would like to see additional casing options, this would be a selling point for me. Internal upgrades are expected.
I got excited for a minute. I have trouble with thinking they'll ever release something like this considering there's a not terribly inexpensive wearable supposed to hit the market soon. Certainly anything is possible.Not yet
I don't understand these wild claims either. People seem to pull these "facts" out of their posteriors, with no basis for them. In addition to your examples, the RipCurl Search GPS watch has continuous GPS tracking for up to 10 hours.
By comparison, Apple included from day one the ability to make and take calls which will drain the battery in less than 3 hours. Continuous music will drain the battery in 6 hours. So adding GPS to that mix which typically gets much better performance on many other similar devices simply makes no sense as the primary reason Apple would be adding a larger battery now.
I think we are saying the same thing. Apple will not change the effective battery life on the next device. They are simply making up in some way (battery size or OS) to allow for added tech like GPS. At some point in the future, the Apple Watch will have cellular - that I think we can all agree to.
I'll bet there will definitely be an increase. Maybe 20 hours instead of 18. But still an increase.
