Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,733
39,680



Despite rumors suggesting the Apple Watch Series 2 models would feature longer battery life than the original Apple Watch models, technical specifications for the new devices shared by Apple suggest the Apple Watch Series 2 will continue to offer up to 18 hours of battery life -- the same as Apple Watch Series 1.

Part leaks indicate the Apple Watch Series 2 may indeed have a larger battery built into it, but it appears any increase in battery capacity is being consumed by the new GPS chip introduced in the Series 2. GPS, which will bring better location tracking to the Apple Watch, can drain a significant amount of battery.

apple-watch-series-2-2.jpg

Apple didn't mention the battery life of the Apple Watch Series 2 on stage or point towards any battery improvements, so we will need to wait for a device teardown to see exactly what's inside.

In addition to a new GPS chip, the Apple Watch Series 2 features a more water resistant casing suitable for swimming, a display that's brighter in direct sunlight, and a second-generation dual-core S2 system-on-a-chip that offers 2x faster graphics performance and 50 percent faster CPU performance. Power drawn by the GPS chip may also be mitigated by the new S2.

Article Link: Apple Watch Series 2 Continues to Offer Same Battery Life as Original Apple Watch
 
I may consider it when it has a 10 day battery life like my Jawbone UP2 has.
 

AKA Not very good.
[doublepost=1473285855][/doublepost]
I guess Apple should have check with you before selling millions of Apple Watches. Would have saved them a lot of heartache.

Have they sold millions of them?
 
I may consider it when it has a 10 day battery life like my Jawbone UP2 has.
Why do people still make an argument of this? I mean, I definitely think it would bring some benefits if the Apple Watch did offer improved battery life. But I have no complaints myself whatsoever. Heck, since watchOS 2.2 or something I've had easily over 50% left after a full work day (07:00 to 00:00). And I put it on the charger every night, so I don't really see why it should be better. Maybe if you go camping or something...?
 
Why do people still make an argument of this? I mean, I definitely think it would bring some benefits if the Apple Watch did offer improved battery life. But I have no complaints myself whatsoever. Heck, since watchOS 2.2 or something I've had easily over 50% left after a full work day (07:00 to 00:00). And I put it on the charger every night, so I don't really see why it should be better. Maybe if you go camping or something...?

Because I often do weekend or 3 or 4 day trips and I love to forget chargers at home, or worse in hotels. One less charger to worry about.
 
Why do people still make an argument of this? I mean, I definitely think it would bring some benefits if the Apple Watch did offer improved battery life. But I have no complaints myself whatsoever. Heck, since watchOS 2.2 or something I've had easily over 50% left after a full work day (07:00 to 00:00). And I put it on the charger every night, so I don't really see why it should be better. Maybe if you go camping or something...?
Because, during heavy use of my phone I can plug it in anywhere - car, desk, home, and it's still a 100% effective and useful as a phone. If, after heavy usage, you have to take off the watch to charge it, it's no longer effective or useful as a watch. That's why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wondercow
That's fine. We've got three great features. Water-resistant up to 50m, faster performance and GPS.

I only care about the fast performance but that can be found in the cheaper Series One. So I'm all good. No way I'm paying $400 for a 42mm Series Two. Seeing how the first gen watches will nose dive in value there is no way I'm going to pay that much.
 
I see no reason to upgrade from gen 1. They made far too much a thing of it being water resistant. Though not specified many people swam with the original fine.

Even GPS is a minor feature to me over better battery life as it is poor on the aapple Watch. I would much rather gen 3 keep the thickness and give decent battery life
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
I don't swim and I always have my phone on me, so GPS -- although nice -- isn't a must for me. Since they updated the processor, am I alone in thinking the Series 1 is a good entry for the Apple Watch? At that price, I may finally take the plunge.
 
It's pretty obvious it has a bigger battery. With gps off it says it can due continuos hear rate monitoring for 8 hrs. 1st Apple Watch can only do 5hrs.
[doublepost=1473287013][/doublepost]
I only care about the fast performance but that can be found in the cheaper Series One. So I'm all good. No way I'm paying $400 for a 42mm Series Two. Seeing how the first gen watches will nose dive in value there is no way I'm going to pay that much.

Yeah I guess it comes down to if you think gps, water proofness and brighter display is worth $100. I think I might wait for Black Friday sale. Sucks that my Apple Watch is now basically worthless, but I guess that's what being an early adopter gets you.
 
Last edited:
I was hoping to buy this but it needs to have better battery life at least 1 extra full day and also be thinner in design. So I'll wait for next year.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.