Apple Aiming for 19 Hours of Apple Watch Battery Life With 'Mixed Usage'

[Abazigal]

Didn't Ive mention something about the watch waking you up with the haptic version of an alarm or something? Doesn't seem like a useful feature if you are expected to take it off to charge every night. Unless you are talking about small naps at work...

 

[5232152]

It's simple then, don't buy one.

What a idiotic remark. Isn't the behavior obvious to everyone reading the post? Sheesh, the future looks grim.

----------

He was probably an android user anyway.

I probably invested more capital into Apple during the last 20 years, than you will your entire life. So keep your zombie-comments to yourself, and go play cool on gizmodo or something.

 

[kerrikins]

You seem to be completely ignoring people who actually.. kinda do. What I mean by that is what about the frequent traveler. Many journeys across the globe can take upwards of 24 hours between catching flights, the flight itself lay overs etc. Point is, you can find yourself many times in situations where it is not realistic or convenient to pause to tie your arm to the closet power plug you can find to charge your watch, all the while staring at said watch in desperation as you see your boarding time drawing near.

That's just one example. Long bus trips is another.. etc etc.

Those people are not, however, the majority, or the target market for these devices. I think people keep forgetting that in their hurry to condemn the watch for not being all that they expect and more.

 

[samcraig]

I imagine as hard as it is for you to refrain from commenting on those people.

Everyone one of those people

 

[Keirasplace]

Me thinks Apple should have chosen a different display technology that doesn't eat that much power and can stay on all the time.

Not only because of the battery drain but mainly because I am wondering how one activates the display? Do I have to press the crown? I do not like that idea.

They have chosen OLED, you know the lowest power color display currently in existence. And, the watch face is only active when you see it. The 4h active I gather is when the screen is lit up.

 

[tomegun]

There are a lot of replies - too many for this guy to read - and I apologize if someone said this already.

I can see myself getting extra charging cables for this the same way I have extra charging cables for my iPads and iPhones. I don't see any problem with charging this watch while I'm doing something at work. I may be in the minority, but there are actually times during my day when I am busy enough to leave my iPhone alone for an hour.

Something else to think about (I'm not sure if it has been mentioned) is competing devices. If this is truly going to be a companion to use with my iPhone, there will be times when I will use the watch instead of my iPhone and iPhone instead of my watch. For me there will even be times when I want a bigger screen and will pull my iPad out of my bag. All of that will extend the battery life of the iPhone and watch.

My last point is about accessories. I have really been looking for a reason to get a good battery pack to charge my iDevices on the go. This may be the device that pushes me over the top. Or, we know that some vendors will make a battery > cable > watch charger device. That will be something for people to charge at home and carry in their bag.

I am more concerned about how this will wear (pun intended) for someone that wants to wear it during workouts. Over time will sweat mess the watch up, will it get super nasty, etc. I hope they continue to improve the health app so people like me can use less intrusive devices like the Withings Pulse or Jawbone Up Move during workouts.

 

[Keirasplace]

The naysayers were presumably expecting some breakthrough battery tech that no-one else in the world has come up with yet? 19 hours is fine with me given that i do sleep and spend my working day sat at a desk.

Also, as an iPhone6+ owner I very much get the idea of not having to pull it out to find out what the latest notification was/is, for answering calls with a quick message etc. I'm also intrigued by the communication through drawings/emoji and vibrations stuff and the new pressing on screen feature.

Love the straps - I'm going for milanese loop

I'll have a problem using it in the gym though if I have to carry my iPhone 6+ as well (I've taken to using my old iPod classic for the gym these days), but I'll come up with a modus operandi on that (deeper pockets, arm strap or whatever).

We don't have Apple Pay yet in the UK but, again, the Watch would be damn useful if it means not having to take out my phablet every two minutes (not that I buy stuff every two minutes though!).

I also like beautiful things.

My only disappointment is the lack of some of the rumoured health sensors that haven't made it into first-gen.

And before the smart guy says 'why did you buy an iPhone6+ if you don't like taking out of your pocket/jacket' - I love it because it's a great computer, media consumption device with better battery life than any other iPhone I've had - and I've had all of them (I don't make many phone calls) and I make less typo mistakes now, although Apple still needs to fix crashes on landscape views.

I want an Apple Watch now...

It can collect sensor data and play music without the phone. Only network functions/GPS really need the phone. And I'm guessing that at the Gym you don't need the GPS ;-).

 

[APlotdevice]

They have chosen OLED, you know the lowest power color display currently in existence. And, the watch face is only active when you see it. The 4h active I gather is when the screen is lit up.

No, OLED the lowest powered light emitting display. It still consumes way more power than a light reflecting display, especially when used in areas with high ambient light. (Most notably outside in sunlight)

Sure, emissive displays can produce more vivid color can reflective ones, but frankly so what? It's not like you're not going to be watching videos on your watch.

Now the choice of oled is one thing. What I really don't understand is why they would think this thing needs to run at a smooth 60 frames per second. (Especially when the AppleTV apparently can't even do that!)

 

[Keirasplace]

No, OLED the lowest powered light emitting display. It still consumes way more power than a light reflecting display, especially when used in areas with high ambient light. (Most notably outside in sunlight)

Sure, emissive displays can produce more vivid color can reflective ones, but frankly so what? It's not like you're not going to be watching videos on your watch.

Now the choice of oled is one thing. What I really don't understand is why they think this thing needs to run at a smooth 60 frames per second. (Especially when the AppleTV apparently can't even do that!)

The vivid colors and smooth animation makes the watch face striking and is a major differentiation points (The CPU/GPU in this thing will not matched by others and you want all that power to show up somewhere .

As for emissive
- Transmissive makes it easier to read no matter the lighting conditions, which is important for the wrist... .
- Color reflective are pretty new November 2012 is the first mention I got for that tech. Looked at that tech and its obvious why they wouldn't use that. ClearInk seemingly has something better that emerged in 2014, but it is still a pretty green tech to be put in a mass market device.

As for OLED vs LCD
- Oled is better read at bad angles
- Oled has a wider color gamut, which is in fact not that great for movies or photos (since they have a restricted gamut).
- But is great for a striking watch face.
- Oled has a high contrast which improves reading smaller print.
- Oled uses less power if screen is mostly dark.

Anyway, anything you can do that others can't is a major sales point.

 

[APlotdevice]

The vivid colors and smooth animation makes the watch face striking and is a major differentiation points (The CPU/GPU in this thing will not matched by others and you want all that power to show up somewhere .

As for emissive
- Transmissive makes it easier to read no matter the lighting conditions, which is important for the wrist... .
- Color reflective are pretty new November 2012 is the first mention I got for that tech. Looked at that tech and its obvious why they wouldn't use that. ClearInk seemingly has something better that emerged in 2014, but it is still a pretty green tech to be put in a mass market device.

Emissive and transmissive technically aren't the same thing. But either way, saying it makes it easier to read no matter the lighting conditions is quite inaccurate. Any display that has to output its own light will, by definition, need to "compete" with external light sources. To prove this all you have to do is look at the day sky. Why is it only one star (the sun) is visible, when there are so many at night? For that matter, why are stars more visible in the country than in the city? In both cases the answer is that the light they produce is much dimmer (from the perspective of the earth), and therefor is overpowered by the more local light source. Transmissive and emissive displays similarly face the issue of being overpowered by brighter sources of light. The only way around this is to crank up their own brightness, significantly increasing energy usage in the process, and even then they usually appear "washed out".

Reflective displays don't have this problem. They thrive in high ambient light conditions. And the inclusion of a backlight or frontlight makes them quite usable in the dark as well.

Bluetooth 4.0, 802.11AC, capacitive touch screens, and Gorilla glass were all pretty "green" technologies when Apple chose to implant them.

As for OLED vs LCD
- Oled is better read at bad angles
- Oled has a wider color gamut, which is in fact not that great for movies or photos (since they have a restricted gamut).
- But is great for a striking watch face.
- Oled has a high contrast which improves reading smaller print.
- Oled uses less power if screen is mostly dark.

Anyway, anything you can do that others can't is a major sales point.

-Modern LCDs... Not counting the really cheap ones... Have viewing angles that are pretty much on par with OLED.
- Actually the problem is that manufacturers tend to calibrate their devices to exaggerate colors, in order to make them stand out more from LCDs. Properly calibrated, OLED is fine for movies and photos.
- Resolution is arguably more important for small print that contrast. And regardless, not everyone can read small print... Typically older people of course... So it would be unwise for developers to make their text too small.
- Yes, but conversely OLED can use more power when mostly bright.

 

[nick42983]

You seem to be completely ignoring people who actually.. kinda do. What I mean by that is what about the frequent traveler. Many journeys across the globe can take upwards of 24 hours between catching flights, the flight itself lay overs etc. Point is, you can find yourself many times in situations where it is not realistic or convenient to pause to tie your arm to the closet power plug you can find to charge your watch, all the while staring at said watch in desperation as you see your boarding time drawing near.

That's just one example. Long bus trips is another.. etc etc.

Your case is 1 in 1000 at best, not a priority for Apple when planning to sell tens of millions of units. While flying you're not going to have cell service and wont be using your watch for its intended purpose of receiving and replying to notifications, tracking exercise, etc.

On my last flight from SFO to Frankfurt my iPhone 6+ was all I needed. You're not going to read Kindle books on your watch, not going to play games for 10 hours, not going to send heartbeat doodles to loved ones. Who wants to stare at a tiny screen for more than a minute every hour? If having an uncharged watch leaves you with a sense of "desperation" your priorities are out of whack. You act as if the damn thing is a critical part of your work before its even been released.

 

[Keirasplace]

Emissive and transmissive technically aren't the same thing. But either way, saying it makes it easier to read no matter the lighting conditions is quite inaccurate. Any display that has to output its own light will, by definition, need to "compete" with external light sources. To prove this all you have to do is look at the day sky. Why is it only one star (the sun) is visible, when there are so many at night? For that matter, why are stars more visible in the country than in the city? In both cases the answer is that the light they produce is much dimmer (from the perspective of the earth), and therefor is overpowered by the more local light source. Transmissive and emissive displays similarly face the issue of being overpowered by brighter sources of light. The only way around this is to crank up their own brightness, significantly increasing energy usage in the process, and even then they usually appear "washed out".

Reflective displays don't have this problem. They thrive in high ambient light conditions. And the inclusion of a backlight or frontlight makes them quite usable in the dark as well.

Bluetooth 4.0, 802.11AC, capacitive touch screens, and Gorilla glass were all pretty "green" technologies when Apple chose to implant them.


-Modern LCDs... Not counting the really cheap ones... Have viewing angles that are pretty much on par with OLED.
- Actually the problem is that manufacturers tend to calibrate their devices to exaggerate colors, in order to make them stand out more from LCDs. Properly calibrated, OLED is fine for movies and photos.
- Resolution is arguably more important for small print that contrast. And regardless, not everyone can read small print... Typically older people of course... So it would be unwise for developers to make their text too small.
- Yes, but conversely OLED can use more power when mostly bright.

Of course, but use case dictates why a certain screen, like OLED, will be used.

Contrast sensitivity also declines with age. The resolution of the screen will be high enough that is the points of the font that will determine legibility rather than the resolution of the screen. They won't put fonts smaller than on a cell phone that's for sure; they'll probably be significantly larger because of the increase distance of use.

I've read about reflective to see if it could be used now in a watch. I don't think it can. Summer 2014 is the first hint of a tech that would be maybe good enough for use. But, by then I'm sure Apple was already well into the development if their watch and it would have been unlikely that they could use this tech even if it was competitive. Currently limitations in refresh rate makes it unlikely it would be used since Apple will seemingly want to run highly interactive apps on the watch. I'm sure some watch with a less aggressive refresh need will eventually use this tech.

As for OLED, reality has a wider gamut than what is seen in movies in photos, the problem usually was that movies calibrated for the TV didn't come out right on an OLED screen. For a non media face, this isn't issue, it can be as saturated as it wants to be ;-).

As for viewing angles, Displaymate still says that there is significant difference in the viewing angle of LCD and OLED's. I haven't seen any LCD with as good viewing angle as a plasma yet. Not exactly same tech, but similar results.

 

[jwbrobst]

I was really excited for the "taptic" silent alarm functions...It sounds like the only chance to use that is to begin charging the watch at around 5-6 each evening then put it on just before bed.

Not that I expected fantastic battery life, but it's a shame they have to complicate some great features.

 

[SMIDG3T]

What a idiotic remark. Isn't the behavior obvious to everyone reading the post? Sheesh, the future looks grim.

Wow, really? You're funny.

 

[APlotdevice]

Of course, but use case dictates why a certain screen, like OLED, will be used.

Contrast sensitivity also declines with age. The resolution of the screen will be high enough that is the points of the font that will determine legibility rather than the resolution of the screen. They won't put fonts smaller than on a cell phone that's for sure; they'll probably be significantly larger because of the increase distance of use.

I've read about reflective to see if it could be used now in a watch. I don't think it can. Summer 2014 is the first hint of a tech that would be maybe good enough for use. But, by then I'm sure Apple was already well into the development if their watch and it would have been unlikely that they could use this tech even if it was competitive. Currently limitations in refresh rate makes it unlikely it would be used since Apple will seemingly want to run highly interactive apps on the watch. I'm sure some watch with a less aggressive refresh need will eventually use this tech.

As for OLED, reality has a wider gamut than what is seen in movies in photos, the problem usually was that movies calibrated for the TV didn't come out right on an OLED screen. For a non media face, this isn't issue, it can be as saturated as it wants to be ;-).

As for viewing angles, Displaymate still says that there is significant difference in the viewing angle of LCD and OLED's. I haven't seen any LCD with as good viewing angle as a plasma yet. Not exactly same tech, but similar results.

TBH, I feel the choice of display tech had much more to do with first impressions. The first time most people are going to probably see the Apple Watch in person is going to be in a store. Though store lights can be bright, they're not as bright as the sun, so they won't notice the screen being washed out. Furthermore they won't be using it for very long, and it will likely be plugged in, so they won't get a grasp of the battery life. What they will see is the vivid colors that the OLED produces, which we humans just seem to be instinctually attracted to. When this is all a person has to go by, of course the competing device with the dull looking reflective display next to it is going to seem inferior.

What exactly are people going to be doing on a watch that demands a high refresh rate (especially the 60 FPS that is being reported)?

I'm not talking about adjusting the movie. How the screen displays a particular color has a lot to do with the software/firmware. Usually there are multiple color profiles built into the monitor's firmware. (With computers you have a lot of freedom here, which is good since custom color profiles are practically essential for professional media editors.)

 

[majkom]

I was really excited for the "taptic" silent alarm functions...It sounds like the only chance to use that is to begin charging the watch at around 5-6 each evening then put it on just before bed.

Not that I expected fantastic battery life, but it's a shame they have to complicate some great features.

buy activite, lasts 8 months, does have same alarm function.. apple watch is bad joke

 

[lowendlinux]

No, OLED the lowest powered light emitting display. It still consumes way more power than a light reflecting display, especially when used in areas with high ambient light. (Most notably outside in sunlight)

Sure, emissive displays can produce more vivid color can reflective ones, but frankly so what? It's not like you're not going to be watching videos on your watch.

Now the choice of oled is one thing. What I really don't understand is why they would think this thing needs to run at a smooth 60 frames per second. (Especially when the AppleTV apparently can't even do that!)

Probably so the second hand on analogue watch faces runs smoothly

 

[bobob]

Didn't Ive mention something about the watch waking you up with the haptic version of an alarm or something? Doesn't seem like a useful feature if you are expected to take it off to charge every night. Unless you are talking about small naps at work...

I was really excited for the "taptic" silent alarm functions...It sounds like the only chance to use that is to begin charging the watch at around 5-6 each evening then put it on just before bed.

Not that I expected fantastic battery life, but it's a shame they have to complicate some great features.

How long do you think it will take to recharge the tiny battery that can fit in the Apple Watch?

Based on the maximum available volume for a battery inside the Apple Watch, I estimate it will have a capacity of ~350mAh.

I'm basing my estimate of recharge time for the Apple Watch on the fact that the the iPhone 6 with a 1810 mAh battery only takes 2.28 hours to recharge.

The Apple Watch will likely be able to be fully recharged in less than an hour, so you can take it off while you eat dinner and have a shower and be good to go for your sleep tracking and morning taptic alarm!

 

[Zxxv]

Didn't Ive mention something about the watch waking you up with the haptic version of an alarm or something? Doesn't seem like a useful feature if you are expected to take it off to charge every night. Unless you are talking about small naps at work...

What I think he meant is its using a geofence so when Tim Cook gets close it wakes him up so he doesn't get caught napping on the job.

 

[grahamperrin]

How hard is it for people to wait for the product to be released and reviews to come out?

Publication of reviews began on the day of Apple's press release:

• Apple Watch review: Beauty first, tech second as smart watch launched alongside iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus by Tim Cook - News - Gadgets and Tech - The Independent
• Video: Hands-on review of Apple Watch: was it worth the wait? - Telegraph

– and so on. Apple didn't wait; reviewers didn't wait.

Commentary and discussion needn't wait, most of it is harmless, some of it's educational. At least: where so many before us have failed; this topic might successfully lead to planet-wide dissemination of knowledge of how to spell Jony Ive.

 

[Rogifan]

Publication of reviews began on the day of Apple's press release:

• Apple Watch review: Beauty first, tech second as smart watch launched alongside iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus by Tim Cook - News - Gadgets and Tech - The Independent
• Video: Hands-on review of Apple Watch: was it worth the wait? - Telegraph

– and so on. Apple didn't wait; reviewers didn't wait.

Commentary and discussion needn't wait, most of it is harmless, some of it's educational. At least: where so many before us have failed; this topic might successfully lead to planet-wide dissemination of knowledge of how to spell Jony Ive.

Yes but those were not real reviews of the product. They were basically first impressions. All the watches were running canned demo software. Nobody actually got to use the product.

 

[bobob]

Not just that but it is not waterproof. Big miss there. Any quality watch you can jump in the pool or go to the beach, etc without the need to worry about water breaking or damaging it.

As the hardcore Watchies in these threads will remind you - - no watch is waterproof. There are only varying degrees of water-resistance.

...and given Apple's own promotional images of the watch being used for sports, I find it difficult to believe that the Apple Watch won't have a reasonable degree of water-resistance.

 

[Aniseedvan]

There are a lot of replies - too many for this guy to read - and I apologize if someone said this already.

I can see myself getting extra charging cables for this the same way I have extra charging cables for my iPads and iPhones. I don't see any problem with charging this watch while I'm doing something at work. I may be in the minority, but there are actually times during my day when I am busy enough to leave my iPhone alone for an hour.

Something else to think about (I'm not sure if it has been mentioned) is competing devices. If this is truly going to be a companion to use with my iPhone, there will be times when I will use the watch instead of my iPhone and iPhone instead of my watch. For me there will even be times when I want a bigger screen and will pull my iPad out of my bag. All of that will extend the battery life of the iPhone and watch.

My last point is about accessories. I have really been looking for a reason to get a good battery pack to charge my iDevices on the go. This may be the device that pushes me over the top. Or, we know that some vendors will make a battery > cable > watch charger device. That will be something for people to charge at home and carry in their bag.

I am more concerned about how this will wear (pun intended) for someone that wants to wear it during workouts. Over time will sweat mess the watch up, will it get super nasty, etc. I hope they continue to improve the health app so people like me can use less intrusive devices like the Withings Pulse or Jawbone Up Move during workouts.

I already have three batteries, two by Anker and one "built in" to a bag I use for work.

On another point about competing devices, My iPhone6 bluetooth stack crashes now on occasion with three devices connected. Adding the watch may really upset it!

+1 they keep working on the health app, I hope third party input won't wither once this comes out.

 

[MarkusL]

How long do you think it will take to recharge the tiny battery that can fit in the Apple Watch?

Based on the maximum available volume for a battery inside the Apple Watch, I estimate it will have a capacity of ~350mAh.

I'm basing my estimate of recharge time for the Apple Watch on the fact that the the iPhone 6 with a 1810 mAh battery only takes 2.28 hours to recharge.

The Apple Watch will likely be able to be fully recharged in less than an hour, so you can take it off while you eat dinner and have a shower and be good to go for your sleep tracking and morning taptic alarm!

By "5-6 every evening" he likely means that's when the battery runs out if you put it on before you went to bed the night before. If you always wear it for 19 hours and then immediately charge it for one hour, and then wear it for 19 hours again, you're going to offset the charging occasion by four hours every time. So either you leave it in the charger beyond the time needed to fill up the battery, or you charge it twice a day.

But claiming that this watch needs to be charged twice a day is the worst kind of heresy, so we end up with the conclusion that it gets to sit in the charger about 24-19=5 hours.

 

[bobob]

Here's a timelapse movie showing the length of time it takes for one of the Apple Watch's "competitors" to recharge.