Sidebar Sidebar
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'

MB97 said:
oh come on i was hoping for a little more... :\
Click to expand...

And people are hoping for less : people are hoping for it to have its own WiFi, 3G, 4G and LTE antennas, digital compass, gyroscope and GPS. All of this consumes a lot of battery life.

The fact that it's linked to the iPhone probably doubles or triples the battery life, which brings it to 19 hours.
 
LordVic said:
19 hours is not exceptional. At all. And the time it takes to charge is irrelevant if you're not in a place you can charge it.
Click to expand...
Like, your home?
Unlike your phone, it will require its own dock to charge. That means if you're stuck in an airport for 20 hours, your watch isn't getting charged. it means that this product is going to be a non-starter for many people who know they are frequently away from home base for more than a day.

The same does apply for other smartwatches too who have the same < 1 day battery life.

I was just recently on a european trip. My flight from Amsterdam to Copenhagen got cancelled. My phone battery died. I was stuck in the airport then running around amsterdam for an additional day with no hotel or home to plug anything in. My watch though, kept me going with the time. I never had to think about it. thats the purpose of a good quality watch. that and fashion.
Click to expand...
How many times in your life has this happened? Once, twice? Plus, how many people does this happen to? It's a small risk of happening, and a small consequence. That's the reason that I am not using this to not purchase an
blackapple.png
Watch. (yes, that's a double negative; I'm getting one.)
neither the Apple watch is going to hit. This is going to put it into the same category as every other 1 day smart watch maker. Your average geek will wear it. but thats about it.
Click to expand...
As I have stated in other :apple:Watch threads, the first gen will be geeks/fanboys, and the 2nd will be people more interested, and the 3rd gen will be common acceptance.
 
man, why an A5 class CPU on a watch?
couldn't they have made it an A4 class cpu and have double the battery life?
A4 powered phones and Apple Tvs not too long ago.
 
Regardless of whether or not this is going to be the best smart watch on the market - and even if Apple are five years ahead of the competition - this is a terrible product.

I haven't seen a single compelling reason to buy one.
 
Aniseedvan said:
I thought the watch would display the watch face all the time with the other functionality starting either from a push from the phone or when the user interacts with it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the screen stays off until the watch is raised into a viewing position (though I'm interested to see how well that works). So that would definitely conserve power, though makes the custom watchface option somewhat pointless.

Totalkharnage said:
Nothing mentioned about tracking sleep.
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't remember hearing anything directly from apple on this, but I'd have to imagine it's something developers are looking to provide, especially since competing wearable products can do this.


19 hours doesn't sound as terrible as some are making it out to be, but it doesn't sound impressive either. I think it is what it is. The current limits for a first gen product. I'm not a power user on my phone so I don't have to charge it every night. I probably wouldn't mind too much if I had to. I could charge a watch every night, but I don't want to, especially since it's an additional cable I have to plug in/carry around. Especially if the aforementioned sleep tracking comes into play. Wireless charging (for both the phone and watch) seems like the proper goal.

As for the watch itself, I still have a only middling interest in it. Until I see it in person, I still have mixed feelings on the design depending on the image I'm looking at. I'm rarely in situations where it would be difficult to just pull out a phone instead. If anything, I think I would look into it for the health/fitness features alone, but there are competitors in that realm and ideally I'd rather have a device that didn't require a phone to be tethered to it. As for regular usage, I think I still just prefer the look of a nice mechanical watch.
 
teknikal90 said:
man, why an A5 class CPU on a watch?
couldn't they have made it an A4 class cpu and have double the battery life?
A4 powered phones and Apple Tvs not too long ago.
Click to expand...

Maybe it wouldn't have made that much of a difference. An 8088 processor uses a lot more power than a Haswell. Also consider that apart from the original iPad mini and iPod Touch (neither one exactly best sellers these days) no current Apple products use A5-class processors.
 
As long as it runs all day long under normal usage, it would be fine. Charging at night is not a big deal. However, it would be nice if you could wear it for days without charging.

I'd love to get one just to see what it can do, but I'll probably wait for the 2.0 version. I'm guessing it will have more battery life, be smaller and much more refined.
 
teknikal90 said:
man, why an A5 class CPU on a watch?
couldn't they have made it an A4 class cpu and have double the battery life?
A4 powered phones and Apple Tvs not too long ago.
Click to expand...

Apple must have their reasons for it. They don't typically add crazy hardware specs for the heck of it. I wonder if Pay requires a more advanced processor?
 
teslo said:
people are disappointed that after 4-5 years you can now wear an iPad 2 on your wrist - but you have to charge it OVER NIGHT??!?

i do believe those thinking this isn't enough juice have vastly overestimated how much they'll be using it. oh no, you're stuck in a situation where you can't charge it til tomorrow?! how is this different than your phone a couple years ago? sure, day and half or two now, but people - when a company offers a new entry to the industry, the first gen is always underpowered. i'm guessing most of you complaining never worked in any type of tech/design development teams. you get about 75% of what you're aiming for. then comes the Q&A.
Click to expand...

I spend around 2 hours training each morning . Losing 50% of the battery by 0900 is not going to get me through to 2000 when I get home. Unless I plan not to use it for anything but time..... Might as well just wear my watch and use this as a very battery inefficient fitness tracker? Maybe... Problem is that there are Much better fitness trackers for the price that don't have awful battery life.

I've worked in development for over 15 years, there is no 75% what you aim for. Also Q&A does not come last, it's part of the process from the start, they define your acceptance criteria.
 
handsome pete said:
I'm pretty sure the screen stays off until the watch is raised into a viewing position (though I'm interested to see how well that works).
Click to expand...

wow is this true? - not a great thing to wear trying to sneak around at night if you ever have to raise your arm.
 
BornAgainMac said:
Gen 2 will be thinner with the same battery life. That is the Apple way.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Apple likes to keep the same iPhone design for 2 years. I suspect they will not drastically change the Apple Watch design every year, either. They might make superficial changes, but I think they settled on a size they thought was good first, and then did everything they could to make sure they could achieve the desired combination of battery life and functionality.
 
s1m said:
I am not an athlete it is the other things that I am looking for. Apple pay when it hits Oz for a start will be great on the Apple watch. Notifications when I am in a shopping centre - wife calls be and I can't hear over the noise but will feel the notification on my wrist. A quick look at my wrist when on my way to a meeting to check the meeting room. A notification on my wrist of an email whilst in a meeting - much more discreet than pulling out my phone. Getting a call when my phone is on my desk but I am sat at meeting table not next to it - if it is an important caller I might take the call. Again a slightly more subtle intrusion.

None of these are huge life changing things - but for $500 I don't expect my life to changed. I am looking a kickstarter project that is basically a glamourous universal remote. Do I need a single remote - No. Will it change my life - no! Will it remove some clutter from the lounge? Yes - and that is worth it.
Click to expand...

I think you make some good points, and I really don't expect a device to change my life, but it should add something substantial for $350, since i will probably need to updated it every few years to stay compatible with my phone.

Also, most of the time, I feel comfortable placing my phone on the conference table during meetings with ringer off. If it lights up, I might steal a glance....really no worse than looking at a watch, which has a connotation of being bored or wanting to leave.

The smartphone was a real game changer because it gave people continuous access to mail, messages, calendars, directions, documents, web, etc.. It really changed the workflow of business, and it has changed my life and the way I interact with people. (I am not saying it is a substitute for personal interaction) However, I see the smart watch as more of a convenience item that is really tethered to the smart phone, which makes it less of a game changer.
 
MH01 said:
I spend around 2 hours training each morning . Losing 50% of the battery by 0900 is not going to get me through to 2000 when I get home. Unless I plan not to use it for anything but time..... Might as well just wear my watch and use this as a very battery inefficient fitness tracker? Maybe... Problem is that there are Much better fitness trackers for the price that don't have awful battery life.

I've worked in development for over 15 years, there is no 75% what you aim for. Also Q&A does not come last, it's part of the process from the start, they define your acceptance criteria.
Click to expand...

You won't have the screen on at all times utilizing an app while working out. So clearly you won't have 50% battery life left after working out.
 
Rogifan said:
Apple must have their reasons for it. They don't typically add crazy hardware specs for the heck of it. I wonder if Pay requires a more advanced processor?
Click to expand...

If that were the case, drop apple pay in the first generation, as you have the phone with you anyway.
 
The issue is no one will be using it as a watch, why would anyone buy it to just tell time? Will I be able to track your steps etc... For 19 hours or is it more like 6 or 7?
 
19 hours is plenty to make it through the day. Wake up at 7 am, 19 hours would put you at 10 pm. By that time you're likely winding down during the work week anyhow.

People need to stop thinking of the watch like a smartphone. I doubt people will look at their watch for more than an hour or two throughout the day. It's not like using a phone for 6-7 hours.

The watch is for quick glances, no prolonged use. Seems like a reasonable start.
 
haha....That's more than any laptop currently, Mac or PC..


Is Apple suggesting that a smart watch capable for push notifications and maybe puzzle games, can get 19 hours of mixed usage ? and what usage exactly ? Its limited.

That's like saying the moon will crack. It's a long shot. Even I don't believe that one.
 
sw1tcher said:
I know lawyers who sometimes work close to 24 hours. Ambulance drivers/EMT's and doctors frequently work 20+ hours.

My longest work shift was from 6 AM (up at 5 AM) to 9:30 PM. Went to bed close to mid-night. That's almost 19 hours of being up right there.
Click to expand...
I think this watch isn't going to be for everyone year one...
 
awful lot of complaining about charging a device that should only take about 45 minutes to charge.

you won't even need to "charge it at night with everything else."

So get home from work, put your watch on the charger, go take a crap, make dinner, eat it, and resume your watch wearing until tomorrow.
 
Fenez said:
The issue is no one will be using it as a watch, why would anyone buy it to just tell time? Will I be able to track your steps etc... For 19 hours or is it more like 6 or 7?
Click to expand...

Running a display is the big battery eater. The motion processor doesn't eat up any battery life. Hence why dedicated step trackers with far smaller batteries can last days, even weeks.

The behind the scenes stuff won't drain the battery - Apple will make sure of it. Background/standby battery life is something Apple excels at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back