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

Keirasplace said:
How long are you're workouts? I used to train in track at the national level and I rarely exceeded 2h (and that included long technical training).

If you're training for ultra-marathons, yes I guess this watch would not be for you ;-).
Click to expand...

I'm a mountain biker and our rides often last in excess of four hours so it looks like it might not be much use to me and other cyclists.

Screen Shot 2015-01-25 at 10.07.32.png

It also shows walking as one of the fitness categories and most hikers are going to be out even longer.

Nothing is confirmed so I'm not going to dismiss it just yet but less than 4 hours of fitness tracking will be a deal breaker for many people if it is true.
 
Elvergun said:
...incorporating solar or kinetic technologies (in addition to the battery) so that the watch could last longer than 4 to 19 hours. ...
Click to expand...

grahamperrin said:
Massive upvote.
Click to expand...

Solar and kinetic energy generation is fine for regular LCD watches which have miniscule power demands, however a smartwatch such as Apple's with a beautiful screen and real connected functionality uses orders of magnitude more power.

If the most efficient solar and kinetic generators were added to the Apple Watch, the 19 hours maximum battery life would likely be extended at best to 19 hours and 1 minute.
 
OllyW said:
I'm a mountain biker and our rides often last in excess of four hours so it looks like it might not be much use to me and other cyclists.

View attachment 526516

It also shows walking as one of the fitness categories and most hikers are going to be out even longer.

Nothing is confirmed so I'm not going to dismiss it just yet but less than 4 hours of fitness tracking will be a deal breaker for many people if it is true.
Click to expand...

My fitness routines, either cardio/karate or running can last longer the 3 hours. My hiking lasts in excess of 8 hours.

FWIW, my Fitbit surge with the GPS enabled will only last 5 hours, which doesn't help me with my hikes.
 
19?!?!?!?

I think 19 hrs (which will probably turn into 11 or 9 in real use) is pretty useless! As many before me have said, you only need to get caught out traveling or even just be on a long haul flight and your latest iThing says bye bye.

I have an Omega Seamaster that is an automatic (no battery) so why can't apple employ something similar just to be able to give a minimum amount of juice just to allow basic functions, exotic stuff you know, like, TELLING THE TIME . . . . imagine that on a watch! I'm not expecting anywhere near full functionality but hay!

But face it, Apple watch is still a slave device to your iPhone, so you really need to keep both charged and available to make any use of the watch.
 
12?!?!?!?

I think 12 hrs (which will probably turn into 9 or 7 in real use) is pretty useless! As many before me have said, you only need to get caught out traveling or even just be on a long haul flight and your latest iThing says bye bye.

(I'm referrring to the iPhone 6+.)
 
odedia said:
I think that's "Standby time". The article clearly distinguishes between "Standby time" and "Idle Time". Active time is when the screen is actually on and you're tapping things, looking at glances, getting tactic feedback during navigation etc.

Of course, this is all assumptions, no one knows at this point a lot about this thing.
Click to expand...

No "Standby" time is when the watch is literally idle, just like your phone. To define "Active Time," as only when the screen is on and user interfacing with the device would include background activities like streaming music as "standby," which is factually incorrect.

Standby is just that, when the device is 100% in sleep mode, however that mode is defined for that gadget.
 
bobob said:
Solar and kinetic energy generation is fine for regular LCD watches which have miniscule power demands, however a smartwatch such as Apple's with a beautiful screen and real connected functionality uses orders of magnitude more power.

If the most efficient solar and kinetic generators were added to the Apple Watch, the 19 hours maximum battery life would likely be extended at best to 19 hours and 1 minute.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Did you research this before you posted or are you writing down random thoughts that come to your mind (don't answer this...I know the answer already).

I have some complicated Japanese watches that run on solar power. Sure, they don't have a beautiful screen, but isn't the screen of the iWatch off most of the time? The Pebble can last for days with the screen always on (I know the Pebble e-page technology is really efficient), yet the Apple watch only last 19 hours even though the screen is off most of the time. Solar technology can run my normal watches (Casio, Citizen) with many complications for years, yet solar or kinetic can only add 1 minute to an iWatch? I don't buy your estimate...I think you are pulling numbers from thin air.
 
Last edited:
One more thing... battery extender straps?

I can see the video now:

Jon Ive, in a soothing voiceover: "Due to our extensive research into health issues, we have discovered that staying up more than 19 hours a day is bad for you. Therefore we have precisely engineered our Watch to fit that limit."


Seriously though, I'm hoping that Apple will offer optional flexible battery-filled straps (with different capacities) for those who need to use their watch for longer times. This could be their ace in the hole, their "bam!" moment.

Tim Cook: "Okay, I hear the sighs out there. Nineteen hours isn't enough? Well, how about the option of FIVE DAYS?!!!"
 
Elvergun said:
How do you know this? Did you research this before you posted or are you writing down random thoughts that come to your mind (don't answer this...I know the answer already).

I have some complicated Japanese watches that run on solar power. Sure, they don't have a beautiful screen, but isn't the screen of the iWatch off most of the time? The Pebble can last for days with the screen always on (I know the Pebble e-page technology is really efficient), yet the Apple watch only last 19 hours even though the screen is off most of the time. Solar technology can run my normal watches (Casio, Citizen) with many complications for years, yet solar or kinetic can only add 1 minute to an iWatch? I don't buy your estimate...I think you are pulling numbers from thin air.
Click to expand...

The one pulling the number out of the air with no clue is you.

There's a very fast CPU (as fast as in Iphone 4S), Bluetooth, health sensors, accelerometer and this HD, high refresh rate, color touch screen.

All of this sips way way more power you can shake or get with solar.

19h is if you're actually looking at it, playing with it a few hours a day, Got that. If you glance at it a few times, like a watch... It would last several days.
 
Keirasplace said:
The one pulling the number out of the air with no clue is you.
Click to expand...
What numbers am I pulling out of the air?

Keirasplace said:
There's a very fast CPU (as fast as in Iphone 4S), Bluetooth, health sensors, accelerometer and this HD, high refresh rate, color touch screen.
Click to expand...
And that is why the battery time sucks. Both Apple and Samsung packed too much technology in their watches and crappy battery time was the result.




Keirasplace said:
All of this sips way way more power you can shake or get with solar.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the watch should be solar, yet any improvement would have been welcomed (adding some kind of technology to augment the battery). Apple would have been praised for innovating. Instead, they gave us the same horrible battery time of the Samsung and Motorola offerings -- all the Gear S and Moto 360 reviews mention the abysmal battery time of those watches.


Keirasplace said:
19h is if you're actually looking at it, playing with it a few hours a day, Got that. If you glance at it a few times, like a watch... It would last several days.
Click to expand...
No. Playing with it a few hours is basically all you can do with it (2.5 to 4 hours). You don't know how long it will last if you only glance at it a few times (admittedly, neither do I). But if that is all you are going to do with this watch (so it will last several days) why do we need to bother with the Apple Watch? I can do that now with my normal watches...and I don't even need to charge them after several days.
 
Last edited:
Elvergun said:
LOL...what a horrible solution you offer. Better yet, leave the watch home if you are going to take a long flight, right?

The solution for the terrible battery time of the iWatch: Don't use it!!! :eek:


"You are not holding your iPhone right...and you are also not using your iWatch right. The right way to use your watch is to switch it off" :confused:
Click to expand...

It is A solution. other solution is to carry a car battery strapped to your back. Take your pick.
 
kdarling said:
Tim Cook: "Okay, I hear the sighs out there. Nineteen hours isn't enough? Well, how about the option of FIVE DAYS?!!!"
Click to expand...
That would be fantastic. Maybe a bit uncomfortable - my Pebble is a whole lot nicer to wear than my fuelband. But a rigid wrist band option might be their way out of this.
 
The charger is inductive - could it charge through the watch so place it on the face when at the computer - no need to take it off?
 
Putting active on time into perspective...
LG-G-Watch-R.001-980x720.png

Rumors say Apple won't be any better than the Moto360... The other devices on the list can last for a nearly a full work day with the always display on. Which is a feature Apple probably won't even have.
 
there some genuine concerns here In this thread, about the battery life of the Apple watch. But I don't think we can fairly compair the apple watch with say my citizens Eco drive Aqualand, Invicta's. all of my watches are over $500 and they don't do notifications, send text or HRM etc, and with all the App they will developed for the Apple watch. That we don't know about yet, I am curious to see what kind of App they would have for a watch.

The apple watch will serve my active life style well, between cycling and gym maybe even more. But it's hard to say until I give it a test run. But I can definitely see the use for it when out cycling & gym. As for the battery lasting 19 hours I don't think its to bad taking into consideration all the things the watch will do. I don't go to bed with either of my watches. So it wouldn't be hard to plug it up after taking it off. All my watches are for different occasions anway, so the apple watch is not something I would use every day even though I could. So for me 19 hours battery life wouldn't be an issue. But for someone else where Apple watch will be there only watch, would have to plug there watch up more frequently maybe? Depending on how much they use it.

In the end I am willing to give it a chance, and then make my final judgment of it. Hey I never really knew how much of an great user experience I would have from my first iPhone & Mac book pro with out giving it a chance. So this is the way I am going to approach the Apple Watch by giving it chance.
 
Hmm so do you guys think the pulse sensor won't be always on and it's only meant for tracking during exercise?
 
diamond.g said:
Putting active on time into perspective...
Image
Rumors say Apple won't be any better than the Moto360... The other devices on the list can last for a nearly a full work day with the always display on. Which is a feature Apple probably won't even have.
Click to expand...


There's so kind of comedy in what people write here...
You do know there is TWO APPLE WATCHES sizes coming.

So, which one are you talking about hey!
Just for fun, here are some stats

The largest Apple Watch is 13% smaller than the G Watch
The smallest Apple Watch is 40% smaller than the G Watch..

So, what Watch does the 19h apply too?
Which watch did they have to really work on to get to 19h...
Well, Its a pretty decent guess that the smallest one would be the one giving the trouble.

More impressive then hey, especially considering that in the small watch, there's very little space for any battery (most of it is filled with the same electronics as the big one).

Doesn't quite fit your narrative doesn't it?

Also, the G watch's screen resolution is substantially less than than the big watch and doesn't even match the small one. I could go do this watch, by watch but what would be the point. You make graphs... That obviously trumps "everything" (sic).
 
Last edited:
Keirasplace said:
The largest Apple Watch is 13% smaller than the G Watch
The smallest Apple Watch is 40% smaller than the G Watch..

So, what Watch does the 19h apply too?
Which watch did they have to really work on to get to 19h...
Well, Its a pretty decent guess that the smallest one would be the one giving the trouble.

More impressive then hey, especially considering that in the small watch, there's very little space for any battery (most of it is filled with the same electronics as the big one).
Click to expand...

The screen on the smaller Apple Watch is 25% smaller, and that is the biggest power draw.

B2x_v08CEAE4eYK.png:large
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top