Apple Watch Battery Designed to Last 1000 Complete Charge Cycles

[darcyf]

Just about every quartz watch on the market will be dead after 3 years and need it's battery replaced. This one will actually still be going strong at 80% of original capacity. Seems pretty comparable to me.

----------



No, it doesn't. Read the article rather than making things up. After 3 years it will be working just fine (as the battery will still be able to retain 80% of the charge it originally was able to).

Yeah just keep in mind the time it takes to get from 100% to 80% capacity is a lot longer than going from 80% to 60%.

Once you hit 80% it's a pretty steady slide down to 0%. Which you'll never actually reach because a watch that only lasts 60% as long as it did originally will lose its novelty pretty quickly.

 

[firewood]

Is that another way of saying the Apple Watch was designed to die within 3 years ?

Have you ever priced how much it cost for regular servicing of a mid-luxury watch, such as a Rolex or Tag? Last estimate I got, many years ago, it was almost as much as buying a new Apple watch.

And, in spite of the "only" 3 years of battery life, I have an 2009 vintage iPhone 3Gs that seems to still work just fine in 2015.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

sounds great. and before anyone complains, after a few years you bring it in to have the battery replaced -- very similar to the occasional servicing of mechanical watches.

I have several mechanical watches. One is an Omega Speedmaster that I got in 1996. It can be send in for service but I never did. Btw that service would cost me as much as a new Apple watch. To this date the Speedmaster works just fine.

 

[tipoo]

Interesting for another reason, I had assumed the iPad and iPhone lasted less charge cycles than the MacBooks for having smaller batteries that there could be less load sharing on, but if the tiniest battery of the Watch can last 1000, what's preventing longer lasting iPad and iPhone batteries?

 

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

Thread from the dead.

It's not the size of the batteries that affect the number of charge cycles they last (a cycle is a cycle), it's the battery chemistry. Apple's Lithium-ion batteries have been typically identified as being capable of around 1000 full cycles (that's from fully charged to fully discharged 1000 times), before they are down to about 80% of their original capacity.

That's pretty good. Many other chemistries are 500x, 300x, or even less (look up lead-acid, for example). It was when Apple crossed the 1000-cycle barrier that they decided to release the MBPros with the integrated battery instead of the removable one (which was only good for about 300 cycles).

Companies like Tesla are starting to see 2000 cycles with only 2% degradation, but they are (literally) cheating. How, you ask? By limiting the top and bottom of charge limits and artificially reducing capacity to begin with.

For LI, the most degradation occurs when the cells are fully charged and fully discharged. By preventing the battery from going to those levels by your charge controller, you reduce wear on the cells. However, you have to make the battery that much bigger to never use its full capacity. It's a concession Apple does not make on it's already thin devices. It makes more sense on a $65k-125K vehicle that should last 10 years, but not on a $1000-2000 piece of tech that is obsolete and slow in 2-3 years and going to replaced anyway.

tl;DR: Charge cycles are limited by the battery chemistry, not their size/capacity.

 

[tipoo]

tl;DR: Charge cycles are limited by the battery chemistry, not their size/capacity.

That's why I said my initial assumption about size was wrong, and it still doesn't answer why the Watch benefits from the 1000 cycle life and the iPads and iPhones are limited to half of that.

And leaving a larger reserve as you mentioned would again go back to the battery size indeed - and the Apple Watch is the smallest of them.

Anywho, just hoping for 1000 charge cycle iPhones and iPads, as their batteries do tend to flake out sooner than one may want to replace it. If the cheaper Watch can have the longer cycle life, I don't see why they shouldn't work towards that for the iPads and iPhones.

 

[Negan Lannister]

That's why I said my initial assumption about size was wrong, and it still doesn't answer why the Watch benefits from the 1000 cycle life and the iPads and iPhones are limited to half of that.

Anywho, just hoping for 1000 charge cycle iPhones and iPads, as their batteries do tend to flake out sooner than one may want to replace it. If the cheaper Watch can have the longer cycle life, I don't see why they shouldn't work towards that for the iPads and iPhones.

My iPad 2 from 2011 has 1000 charge cycles. Over 5+ years old and the battery still works like new. It was barely used. Loves Mac. Likes iPad. Not into iPhones since their battery break down faster.

Apple may never offer us 1000 charge cycle iPhones as that is their bread and butter for planned obsolescence. They want us to update and dispose the older one faster than you can say "e-waste" or "shut up and take my money" for the newest iPhone.

 

[tipoo]

.

 

[Exile714]

I still get from about 6:30am to 11:00PM on my original day-1 Apple Watch on days I don’t use it for workout tracking.

Also, hello from the future!