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.
Apple Aiming for 19 Hours of Apple Watch Battery Life With 'Mixed Usage'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Meh - nevermind... why am I arguing on the internet again?
----------
This is a good point. What if we don't give a crap about fitness tracking? I wonder if we can turn all of that stuff off to save battery?
Personally, I want it for notifications and quick replies to messages... with a little bit of App usage here and there and more convenient Apple Pay to boot. Fitness tracking is interesting... but I'm not really a fitness dude and would be fine without it...
----------
This is a good point. What if we don't give a crap about fitness tracking? I wonder if we can turn all of that stuff off to save battery?
Personally, I want it for notifications and quick replies to messages... with a little bit of App usage here and there and more convenient Apple Pay to boot. Fitness tracking is interesting... but I'm not really a fitness dude and would be fine without it...
Last edited:
If Woz was still at Apple he would never have allowed this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4R3hODnTGo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4R3hODnTGo
Hey don't knock it till you try it! You might need those extra couple hours with how crappy the battery life is going to be! But shouldn't you be more worried about what people are going to think of you when they see that huge brick of a watch on your wrist? Or just the fact that it's an apple watch at all? If I see anyone with an apple watch, I'm laughing at them, in person, in public, I don't care. The apple watch is the most ridiculous thing apple has ever made, the ipad being number one since it's just a giant ipod touch.
Nope, it's not.
Watches like Basis Peak and the Fitbit Surge will last 4 to 6 days and track real time pulse, as well as sleep, steps, etc..
The Withings Activité Pop has a replaceable battery which lasts 8 months!
If the Apple Watch cannot last more than 4 hours with the screen on, or more than 19 hours in "mixed" use, it means it's worse than most Android watches and is basically useless as a tracker.
Apple should not embarrass itself until this thing is better baked.
Did I read this correctly? If your use is solely as a watch, meaning leaving the watch face on but no other operations, you only get 3 hours of battery life? I really wouldn't want a watch whose face goes to sleep and has to be woken up. This is a basic function of a watch. The face should be able to at stay on all day(working day not 24 hours). It's not about having to do whatever action to wake it up but rather a fashion/typical watch type of deal. I understand this watch does way more than just tell time, and I would use it for more as well..... But it has to AT LEAST be good at being just a watch BEFORE adding anything else. If it can't even be a good watch alone, what's the point? I'm really hoping I read that 3 hours wrong with the watch face on.
And why would people who work with high resolution media all the time NOT care about that?
And the watch will be fine if you glance at it 5 times to check the time and see a few alerts.
If you want to play wo w fr on it for 24 hours straight you are screwed. You must have an iPhone to use the watch in the first place so this limitation is not nearly as extreme as some are pretending.
----------
You clearly did not comprehend the article with your fantasy trips to the airport.
You can live in the airport for 24 hours and your watch will be fine. Plus if you are stuck in an airport for 24 hours you literally have nothing better to do then charge your watch.
There is literally not a better or more appropriate place and time to recharge your watch then when in an airport.
People do it with their laptops and phones. Why would you travel without the charger for your watch?
So actually you point out the best possible time to charge an apple watch and act like it is impossible.
----------
When traveling lol? Yes
----------
I am shocked there is no electricity in Amsterdam.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you, ok? The only people who care about "retina" displays are people with apple computers. Nobody else cares. It's totally overhyped like everything apple does. Apple doesn't even make their own displays. They don't even make anything themselves except for the outer casing.
Android phones have more ppi than the iphone anyway. "Retina" is just a marketing gimmick.
Actually, a lot of professional video/photo editors are turning AWAY from apple because final cut pro is a complete joke now. It's almost as dumbed down as garageband, which is pretty sad.
Last edited:
Err, first you say that no one else cares about high resolutions, then you point out that other phones have high resolutions...
Jesus christ! The retina display may have been cool back in 2010 when the iphone 4 was released but all the other manufacturers have done higher ppi while apple still lags behind like with everything else. EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!
I didn't say that nobody cares about higher resolution, I said nobody cares about "retina" displays except for apple users. Other phones have "retina" display but they don't advertise it as a "retina" display.
Besides, Steve Jobs himself said that the human eye cannot perceive more than around 300ppi so anything more is just a marketing gimmick.
Since Retina is just a marketing term for high ppi, you're pretty much arguing with yourself.
Oh yet apple uses these marketing gimmicks to attract their loyal religious customers into buying their products? Apple is nothing but a marketing company. They're good at marketing, nothing else. They like to make people think they need their products when in reality they don't. Everything they sell is overhyped and glorified. They know they can get away with it because their loyal customers will buy anything they sell.
Apple customers are the one's getting a hard on over retina displays, not android users. We actually know about technology.
Okay. So I'm typing this on a "retina" macbook pro because of marketing. Here I was thinking a machine with a high ppi screen that scales fonts and all applications perfectly, with a great multi-touch trackpad that works consistently, a stable operating system that in practice is safe from crapware and viruses, is stable, and provides a real *nix command line, all the while giving me 12 hours of battery life in some scenarios.. here I was thinking this was a solid machine. Now I know it was all in the marketing.
The amount of detail the eye can perceive is relative to distance. Job's claim was based on a distance of 12 inches from the display. I don't really know what this has to do with the Apple Watch though, since its display has roughly the same PPI as the iPhone 4 that Job's was touting.
And of course other companies don't use "retina". It's a marketing term developed by Apple!
You're on a roll. I hold an Honours degree in computing and have 15 years experience as a developer and systems admin. Yet Apple users don't know about technology.
Do you have any more generalisations up your sleeve?
Well if you were smart you would know that I don't mean "everyone." Jeese. Other than the .1% of apple users who know about tech, most do NOT. I mean, let's get real here, we all know apple markets their crap to people who are computer illiterate. They've ALWAYS marketed to those people since the dawn of apple time.
Here's a technology lesson: "retina" displays use IPS technology and they're made by LG.
What do most people do on their macs? Internet, email, facebook, twitter? Oh yah, that retina display is really useful! Yah let's pay an extra $200 for something we A. Don't even use, and B. Can't even notice when doing a blind test.
So, the ipad has a "retina" display but my galaxy s3's display is way better than my roommate's ipad. I watched the same 1080 video on youtube testing them out. The galaxy was way better.
Last edited:
There is if you are on a 20 hour flight
----------
Our sources say that Apple is targeting 2.5 hours of "heavy" application use, such as processor-intensive gameplay, or 3.5 hours of standard app use. Interestingly, Apple expects to see better battery life when using the Watch's fitness tracking software, which is targeted for nearly 4 hours of straight exercise tracking on a single charge.
It seems like it shouldn't be a watch at all, just a fitness tracking device. It sure doesn't have the battery power to be used like an actual watch.
Let me get this straight: You are basically calling millions of satisfied Apple customers religious idiots who have no idea what they are buying, because they simply fell for Apple's marketing. Because Apple's products are garbage and the people in the know - like yourself - stay clear of it.
Yet you proudly list your (older) Apple products in your signature, which seem to work still fine and service you well after all this years.
Exactly.
What does it matter who makes the display? It'd be pretty stupid of me to not choose a mac because Apple didn't make the display.
The value of a retina display is subjective. Personally, I value being able to run at 1680x1050 on a 13" display. I find it easier on the eyes. Am I wrong?
Who exactly are you arguing with? High definition is better than low definition, whether marketed as 'retina' or not. If your non-Apple display is better than a 'retina' display, then good for you. Enjoy your device.
"IPS technology" is a method of controlling the orientation of Liquid Crystals in an LCD display. It has nothing to do with pixel density.