Apple Watch Fulfills Promise of All-Day Battery Life in Early Reviews

[peterdevries]

I seen no scientific proof/testing like what Apple did in the reviewer testing.
So the reviewer battery life is moot without any real data/proof to back up EXACTLY the functions performed and the battery duration.

That is a very good point and a very valid post. Agreed 100%.

There will be no scientific proof or testing. What matters is how close the reviewers get to a representative day that is close to the average use of a normal user. Some reviewers such as the Verge have tried to do that. But the best estimation of normal use can only be made by yourself.

 

[bawbac]

There will be no scientific proof or testing. What matters is how close the reviewers get to a representative day that is close to the average use of a normal user. Some reviewers such as the Verge have tried to do that. But the best estimation of normal use can only be made by yourself.

Exactly. What is "average" and what is "normal" is like asking someone their level of understanding of common sense.

 

[Keirasplace]

My usage is typical usage. Not just charging it and then leaving on a desk but actually using it as a watch. Notifications buzzing now and then, walking (yesterday i did about 8,000 steps) using three step counters on the watch, checking the time, alarm going off at the end of my breaks/lunch time at work, google now and travel notifications, having a play with it now and then.

And it cost me £77 brand new/sealed.

I love Apple products. I use both Android and Apple. I have a Pebble also. But let's be realistic. The price Apple want for the Watch (not including some fancy strap) for the battery life you receive, is a bit rubbish. Yes, it looks nice but on a watch battery life is important.

And your typical usage is LIGHT, so basically the Apple watch for you would be at 50%+ at night. That's it.

 

[NT1440]

And your typical usage is LIGHT, so basically the Apple watch for you would be at 50%+ at night. That's it.

How do you personally classify different levels of usage? What are your criteria?

 

[Keirasplace]

How do you personally classify different levels of usage? What are your criteria?

I actually read the two previous post of that person (who also said LG watch barely was used in one day, that gives you a clue) and compared to Apple's definition of average. Voila!

 

[chris975d]

I will give credit to Rolex for the brainwashing, they should have a chat with Apple.



If you buy a Submariner today it costs $8500. Plus tax. If you look on eBay, good ones from ten years ago cost $5900. Bad ones considerably less.



I'm looking now on eBay and there's some from the 1980s as much as $5100. Which sure is more than they probably cost in the 1980s. But they are old, scratched, the lume has discolored. I can't really imagine why anyone would be wanting to wear this aging watch today.



Let us not forget the cost of servicing it every five years, any repairs that may have been necessary too. I'm thinking at least an average of $150 a year.



Then if the owner insured it, there's a cost to that. A cost if they ever damaged it and needed it repaired. And the reality that if they had invested that money in something more sensible than a watch, what would that money be worth after thirty years?



So yeah, I think that when people talking about buying a mass produced watch as an 'investment' I think they are often times ignoring the hidden costs and using this excuse to justify a purchase that really isn't that necessary.

----------





A decent mechanical watch is going to have a power reserve of about 40-50 hours or so when fully wound.



There is a small weight inside that can spin freely when the watch is moved, and this is what tops up the power reserve.



Even a lazy slob is going to move around enough during the day to keep it topped up. But if they are so lazy and so sedentary that the watch runs out of power, you can unscrew the crown and wind it the old fashioned way.

Let's just take those Subs from the '80s that are selling for $5000...actually $5000-8000, depending on condition. eBay isn't the place to buy a watch...most people don't trust them. Chrono24, TRF forums, or timeline are where trusted sellers are. Those '80s Submariners cost new anywhere from $950 (1980) to $2500 (what they had risen to in 1989). Those have been worn for up to 35 years, and can fetch up to, and sometimes exceeding 5 times what they sold for? That's not bad at all. A Rolex factory service at 7 years is about $600-700, considerably less if you use a Rolex certified local watch smith. Insurance is approx $9-10 per $1000 of replacement value, per year.

And to answer your question as to why the older ones sell, that's actually pretty typical for Rolex. The "purists" among the Rolex crowd like the older styles, before they became upsized (thicker crown guards, maxi dials, etc). It's a pretty polarizing divide among us Rolex fans. Im of the newer set that likes the modern materials (ceramic bezels, etc) in my Rolexes, but many don't. I can see both sides. The older case shapes and lines are much more elegant and classy, but older materials. It's probably about 50/50 divide, classic to modern.

 

[rowspaxe]

I would assume a flop would be based only on sales - right? If every review was positive and raved and it only sold 100 units, that is a flop. If every review was bad and it sold 100mm it isn't a flop no matter what the reviews say or the rationale for smart watches.

So, by you saying it is a flop for the reasons you gave makes your statement a flop to be honest.

If they sell 240 million iphones this year--what rate of watch adoption makes it a success? 10 million?

 

[ZCT]

Let's just take those Subs from the '80s that are selling for $5000...actually $5000-8000, depending on condition. eBay isn't the place to buy a watch...most people don't trust them. Chrono24, TRF forums, or timeline are where trusted sellers are. Those '80s Submariners cost new anywhere from $950 (1980) to $2500 (what they had risen to in 1989). Those have been worn for up to 35 years, and can fetch up to, and sometimes exceeding 5 times what they sold for? That's not bad at all. A Rolex factory service at 7 years is about $600-700, considerably less if you use a Rolex certified local watch smith. Insurance is approx $9-10 per $1000 of replacement value, per year.

And to answer your question as to why the older ones sell, that's actually pretty typical for Rolex. The "purists" among the Rolex crowd like the older styles, before they became upsized (thicker crown guards, maxi dials, etc). It's a pretty polarizing divide among us Rolex fans. Im of the newer set that likes the modern materials (ceramic bezels, etc) in my Rolexes, but many don't. I can see both sides. The older case shapes and lines are much more elegant and classy, but older materials. It's probably about 50/50 divide, classic to modern.

I cannot fathom why someone would buy a 1980s Submariner for $8000 as you claim, when you can buy a brand new one for $500 more.

I also cannot fathom why someone would prefer the pre-2010 design without the ceramic. But more importantly pre-2010 those poorly made jangly hollow bracelets were terrible. I've seen infinitely nicer bracelets on Tag or even dare I say it a Seiko.

You clearly are far more into it than me, but I personally wouldn't pay $500 for such an old watch with a terrible bracelet.

As for comparing price, that's a little tough. The cost of living has changed massively since 1980.

Cost of a new home: $76,400.00
Median Household Income: $17,710.00
Cost of a first-class stamp: $0.15
Cost of a gallon of regular gas: $1.25
Cost of a dozen eggs: $0.91
Cost of a gallon of Milk: $2.16

Given that Rolex are now churning out as many watches as they do each year, and that fewer and fewer younger people have any interest in even wearing a watch, much less one that is worth more than their car, I question how long Rolex can continue jacking their prices year on year and get away with it.

Also as they continue ramping production, and more and more used watches flood the market, that should start to push prices down eventually.

To each their own. I think Rolex is a bit of an old man's watch, and the price of admission is far too high and artificially controlled by Rolex. I'm an Omega guy, and other than dabbling in the Apple Watch, I think I'm going to stay that way.

 

[chris975d]

Apple Watch Fulfills Promise of All-Day Battery Life in Early Reviews

I cannot fathom why someone would buy a 1980s Submariner for $8000 as you claim, when you can buy a brand new one for $500 more.



I also cannot fathom why someone would prefer the pre-2010 design without the ceramic. But more importantly pre-2010 those poorly made jangly hollow bracelets were terrible. I've seen infinitely nicer bracelets on Tag or even dare I say it a Seiko.



You clearly are far more into it than me, but I personally wouldn't pay $500 for such an old watch with a terrible bracelet.



As for comparing price, that's a little tough. The cost of living has changed massively since 1980.



Cost of a new home: $76,400.00

Median Household Income: $17,710.00

Cost of a first-class stamp: $0.15

Cost of a gallon of regular gas: $1.25

Cost of a dozen eggs: $0.91

Cost of a gallon of Milk: $2.16



Given that Rolex are now churning out as many watches as they do each year, and that fewer and fewer younger people have any interest in even wearing a watch, much less one that is worth more than their car, I question how long Rolex can continue jacking their prices year on year and get away with it.



Also as they continue ramping production, and more and more used watches flood the market, that should start to push prices down eventually.



To each their own. I think Rolex is a bit of an old man's watch, and the price of admission is far too high and artificially controlled by Rolex. I'm an Omega guy, and other than dabbling in the Apple Watch, I think I'm going to stay that way.

And that's why there are many different brands of watches. Not everyone has the same taste. But, to Rolex's credit, the higher they push their prices, the MORE watches they sell. Each year. With months and years long waiting lists for some of the more popular models. (Daytona, BLNR, LV Sub, a few others). And they've reinvigorated their lower price point ($3000-$6000) Tudor brand over the past 4 years and have them actually hotter sellers with the younger demographic than they've ever been. Now that they are back in the US, they stay sold out of the popular models. So Rolex has positioned themselves well across many price ranges.

I can't really get into Omega. Bought several over the past few years, but don't keep them. Omega/Swatch shoot themselves in the foot with that brand so many times.

But, that's really a topic for TRF or TZ, and not MacRumors or this thread. But I love talking watches if you ever care to PM me.

 

[AleXXXa]

If they sell 240 million iphones this year--what rate of watch adoption makes it a success? 10 million?

I'd say anything over 5% is a success. 5%=12m.

 

[ZCT]

Its a flop because even sympathetic reviewers are saying wait until the next version. Its a flop because after the long awaited entry of apple into the smart watch category, some reviewers are questioning the rational for smart watches, generally. Its a flop because apple fanbois are taking the rejection of "apples most personal device"...personally!

I swear I wish I had a dollar for each negative post I'd seen by naysayers who think they know better than the hundreds of experts that Apple hire.

Let's get one thing clear. It isn't even out yet, so you don't get to call it a flop. A flop is something you can call, say a year from tonight. If the sales are soft.

Many reviews questioned the need for an iPad when they came out, now they are everywhere. And many other manufacturers have copied.

As for the 'next version' argument, it may simply be because we've become a bit jaded with electronics. We have simply come to expect that every year or so companies like Apple will make a faster, sleeker, smoother, more capable, and more advanced version.

But if the public had simply laughed at the first iPhone, first iPod, first iPad, first Apple laptop, and said, "Let's just wait for version 2.0, there never would be a version 2.0."

I think the success of this product will depend on whether it does enough things well for people to want to wear it.

I'm going to order a couple tonight, and if they suck, I'll be making use of Apple's return policy.

But why anyone would have the time to visit an Apple-centric forum just to pour scorn on an unreleased product and get ready to declare a time of death, all without facts, experience, information, or even seeing one of these things is kind of bizarre. Don't want a smart watch in your life? Don't buy one. So simple. Want to try one, that's fine too.

I don't come around your house and tell you that your choice of decor, car, computer, job, and pet suck? So why do you feel the need to do it to others?

 

[rowspaxe]

I'd say anything over 5% is a success. 5%=12m.

Agreed. Now here's the thing--they can sell 12m plus but if the user reaction is negative--I feel it deprecates apple's brand. If people fiddling with apple watches becomes a punchline--then the problem is bigger. Of course,the watch might find an enthusiastic audience. We'll see...

----------

But most of them are saying "do not buy this" or "buy the cheapest version only", "wait for Apple Watch 2", etc.

The big takeaway I got from all the reviews was there's really nothing new here. This is just an extension of your phone but you can already do everything without it. Nothing new. I now have doubts on buying this.

Wasn't this all apparent in the keynote?

 

[honglong1976]

And your typical usage is LIGHT, so basically the Apple watch for you would be at 50%+ at night. That's it.

Well, we don't actually know that do we (without testing against an Apple Watch). Don't forget I have 3 step counters running and bluetooth'ing stats to my phone. If I purely used Google Fit I would have even more battery life left.

You buy the Apple watch, go away for the weekend, take a hike/walk, forget your charger. Damn! Monday you check and you only have stats for one day. I don't want to have a watch where I NEED to carry my charger with me all the time.

Android Wear love it or hate it works for 2-3 days (light-heavy usage). Why doesn't the Apple Watch?

 

[pee jay bee]

I love MacRumors... but it seemingly becoming more and more pro-Apple. Headlines like "Apple Watch Fulfills Promise of All-Day Battery Life in Early Reviews" and "Apple Watch Review Roundup: The 'World's Best Smartwatch" ... makes the site feel more like a 'fanboy community', not an impartial news source.

MR is still the best for Mac news, but I just fear things may start looking a bit 'bias', and I may go elsewhere.

All the reviews said it's the best smartwatch available, so that's factual based on those reviews.

 

[beanbaguk]

That's what great about opinions, we all have them and we have "different" ones. After watching several of the video reviews and reading everything from USA Today's positive spin and the Verge's so-so review, I definitely want an Apple Watch and will be ordering it at 12:01a.m. Friday.

I've never worn a watch in my life, but the health app benefits, the Apple Pay feature (use this all the time with my phone but now just need my Watch, how cool!), notifications so i can leave my iPhone in my bag or pocket, and then of course all the apps that will be created for the Apple Watch make this a pretty awesome device to have and I will get the $350 Sports version so not that much in my opinion.

What health benefits?! This is a total misconception and superb product advertising from Apple. They are one of the leaders in this game. You don't gain any health benefits from wearing an Apple Watch, but it will tell you how active / lazy you are if you monitor the app daily.

The iPhone does exactly the same. It will even accurately read your heart rate for you using a multitude of apps if that's what you are missing in your life.

On top of this, you still have to do exercise, eat right and lead a healthy lifestyle. You can do this with or without an Apple Watch. But you can do it with an iPhone (and you need that anyway to make an Apple Watch work in the first place).

----------

So that's a straight up lie. The Verge is the most negative review I've seen but still had plenty of positive stuff to say.

I don't think the Verge was a lie. That's pretty hard to accept.

I think it was quite balanced and set the record straight. The Apple Watch isn't for everybody.

----------

hey you know whats funny? people like you have been saying the same thing about each of apple's new products -- the II, the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad...and always the same, exact, thing: "It's just a toy!" and yet in every single instance, they were wrong. they were all tools, that offer value to those who find them useful.

must be nice to be in such company, tho.

Very presumptuous on your part.

But you're right. I'm a funny kind of guy; Seeing as I have owned four iPhones (all of which I love), three MacBook's, two Apple TV's, one AirPort Extreme, one TimeCapsule, five iPad's and I'm gagging to find out more about the up and coming iPhone 6S which will replace my 5S.

----------

If you've never used a smart watch you just won't understand. Or maybe it just doesn't fit into your lifestyle. My Pebble and now my Fitbit Surge fit perfectly into my daily routine. My only issues with them are based mainly on what they lack.

Pebble lacks; HRM and a decent activity tracking software (both Misfit and UP are pretty bad) I prefer Fitbit's tracking hardware and software on the iOS. Killer for working out. Surge even has GPS built it which is very nice.

Fitbit Surge Lacks; everything that the Pebble is great at, so cool looking watch faces, notifications are lazily implemented on the Surge, ie you can't answer calls from the watch, if you have your headphones plugged into your phone. If I'm already plugged in, I'd like to just hit a button on my watch to answer. Though I could just hit the button on the headphones too. Reviewing previous texts is clunky and an impossibility if you're in the middle of an activity, say on a walk. You need to turn off the activity before you can access your texts again. Lastly; no other notifications, so no twitter, no email, no hangouts, no facebook messenger.

I'm hoping Apple Watch will resolve the issues that I found that the Pebble lacked, as it's the better Smart Watch of the two I've used.

The saddest part about the Surge is that it has the best hardware and sensors of any smartwatch. It's a LOT faster than the Pebble, most likely contains more storage and RAM and has an independent GPS. The problem with the Surge is that the software writers haven't been able to think past the fitness portion of the device and it's lacking the intuitive features you'd expect from smart watches.

Nilay's review of the Apple Watch isn't negative as it is more a warning to early adopters that this is not the "iPad 2" of smart watches, it's the same as every first gen Apple Product.

Unfortunately for you I have tried a couple of smart watches and have used a fitbit regularly.

The Apple Watch is simply something you don't need.

You could argue the same about an iPhone but everything you can do on an Apple Watch can be done on an iPhone, and I continue to be able to wear my beautiful Swiss timepiece, or I can wear a Withings Activité which I would love to replace my fitbit with. It looks classy, tells me the time and the battery lasts a whole year. This is a smartwatch I could get my mitts into.

 

[roadbloc]

Get back to me when it can do a week and I'll consider getting a smartwatch. Until then, the good old 10 year battery life Casio it is.

 

[beanbaguk]

Brits sure love slating things. Try positivity - it works.

What do you even mean by that? It also shows total ignorance on my background....

----------

Actually, the watch expands Apple Pay capability beyond the iPhone 6, according to Apple's site:

Apple Pay is compatible with Apple Watch when paired with iPhone 5 or later.

Even to the 'umble 5c.

So basically it's a £300 upgrade to make Apple Pay (which is pretty clunky at the best of time), work on an old iPhone?

I've tried and tested Apple Pay. While it's certainly developing and continuing to evolve, it's just not ready yet. Plus most places simply don't accept it.

----------

Perhaps unlike you, what with your allowance and all not being raised even though you graduated from the 10th grade with mostly As and Bs, some of us can actually afford a $500 or $1000 toy. In fact, maybe I have a $35,000 toy in my driveway too, only used on weekends in nice weather. And really, an iPhone is mostly a toy for most people as they actually use it. Who is to say a "toy" is not worth its price? Only someone who can't afford it. Why do you care what I pay for my toys? (OK, hypothetical, since I don't plan to by an Apple Watch at the moment, but if I wanted one I'd buy it and not care that much about it being more than a Pebble or costing nearly what a base iPhone costs).

There's nothing wrong with toys. I also have plenty. I'm guilty of buying too many at times and if the Apple Watch brings you enjoyment, go for it. I've paid £350 for a Garmin Edge GPS for my road bike which some would say is insane. And in reality it is. My colleague will quite happily spunk £500 on a belt by Hermes because it makes him happy. Good for him I say.

But my point is this is nothing revolutionary. It's a toy. Perfect for some and not for others. My opinion is the Apple Watch simply isn't ready for the majority of consumers. It doesn't offer anything unique. It's just an extension of the iPhone on my wrist and I don't think it's really that attractive. (This is very personal I agree).

I still think it's pretty useless but I'll have fun playing around with it for 5-10 minutes once my colleague receives his.

----------

Take any reviews with a grain of salt, especially if there are mixed reviews. Some will love it to death, and some with hate it to death, too. Fortunately general consensus suggest there are more of the former, while the later is just a smaller group. Unfortunately though, the naysayers are always the loudest ones, and their comments are always provoking. There are a lot of fashion experts praised Apple Watch but some people have to pathetically look at the small group that say otherwise.

Most reviews come from techie groups and self-confessed geeks. In reality, I've yet to read a review or article from a fashion house proclaiming the Apple Watch.

I'm all ears...

----------

19 likes for this one. #MacRumorsUsers

I believe it's 27 now, but elaborate on what you're trying to say...

----------

The entire industry said the same thing about the iPad.

No. Microsoft did. I didn't!

 

[pee jay bee]

I'll hold off as these are most of the comments from the reviews.

"The Apple Watch ... is kind of slow."

"Sometimes apps take forever to load, and sometimes third-party apps never really load at all. Sometimes it’s just unresponsive for a few seconds while it thinks and then it comes back."

"It’s also surprisingly heavy."

"[The] side button is extraordinarily confusing."

"In the first of many moments where the Watch felt underpowered, I found that the screen lit up a couple of ticks too slowly: I’d raise my wrist, wait a beat, and then the screen would turn on."

"Having a screen that constantly flips on and off is definitely behind the curve."

"There’s no particularly great digital face, and there’s no ability to load up your own watch faces or buy new ones from the store."

"There’s no master switch to turn all notifications on and off, which is a huge pain."

"By the end of each day, I was hyper-aware of how low the Apple Watch battery had gotten."

"You only get a charging cable, which is lame. For $700, you should a nice charging stand, like you get with the $249 Moto 360."

"There’s virtually nothing I can’t do faster or better with access to a laptop or a phone except perhaps check the time."

Now post a list of all the positive stuff. You know, to be fair.

 

[ksuyen]

What do you even mean by that? It also shows total ignorance on my background....

----------



So basically it's a £300 upgrade to make Apple Pay (which is pretty clunky at the best of time), work on an old iPhone?

I've tried and tested Apple Pay. While it's certainly developing and continuing to evolve, it's just not ready yet. Plus most places simply don't accept it.

----------



There's nothing wrong with toys. I also have plenty. I'm guilty of buying too many at times and if the Apple Watch brings you enjoyment, go for it. I've paid £350 for a Garmin Edge GPS for my road bike which some would say is insane. And in reality it is. My colleague will quite happily spunk £500 on a belt by Hermes because it makes him happy. Good for him I say.

But my point is this is nothing revolutionary. It's a toy. Perfect for some and not for others. My opinion is the Apple Watch simply isn't ready for the majority of consumers. It doesn't offer anything unique. It's just an extension of the iPhone on my wrist and I don't think it's really that attractive. (This is very personal I agree).

I still think it's pretty useless but I'll have fun playing around with it for 5-10 minutes once my colleague receives his.

----------



Most reviews come from techie groups and self-confessed geeks. In reality, I've yet to read a review or article from a fashion house proclaiming the Apple Watch.

I'm all ears...

----------



I believe it's 27 now, but elaborate on what you're trying to say...

----------



No. Microsoft did. I didn't!

What I read are bla bla nonsense. Dude, you need chill pill, If Apple Watch make you wasted so much time hating the product. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

 

[beanbaguk]

What I read are bla bla nonsense. Dude, you need chill pill, If Apple Watch make you wasted so much time hating the product. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

Nah, just a bit bored at the moment and figured I'd justify those who quoted my view. Anyway, I was reprimanded for bleeting at a member. There's a lot of sensitive people on here. I just need to be sure never to talk in "sheep" again.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

In light of the secretly water resistant body of the Apple Watch, I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping Apple was being pessimistic and that it it gets more than 18 hours. 25% by midnight would've been much better. Hopefully a software patch will improve battery life.