Apple Watch Takes Two Hours to Charge, Only Delivers Notifications While on the Wrist

[Knowimagination]

I think the smartwatch action this year will be between The Apple Smartwatch and the new Pebble Time watch.

The Pebble Time smartwatch has over $16 million dollars for it's kickstarter fund, and growing. That's a lot of interest in a smartwatch that isn't being advertised that extensively unlike the Apple Smartwatch

Fun times ahead for us, the public.

I really don't think that the Pebble Time will be more than a drop in the smartwatch bucket.

Let's say that apple sells 1.5 million watches the first weekend, and lets say we use a pretty low average sale of $500 thats 750 million in the first weekend. Pebble Time doesn't stand a chance of being a major player in my opinion, especially since I think I am being extremely conservative with my first weekend sales numbers in this example. (I personally think it will be more like 3-4 million sold first weekend, which would put them well over a billion in sales)

So all these people complaining about the "small" 4" iPhone screen that just bought an expensive iPhone 6+ are now happier to use a smaller screen for more money to NOT use their 5.5" screens.

This defies logic.

Honestly I love my 6 Plus but as I am not a watch wearer currently it gets really old pulling out such a large phone just to glance at the time or see if that buzz in my pocket is important or not. I love the extra screen when I am actively using the phone, but for just checking on time and importance of notifications the watch will be fantastic.

 

[samcraig]

Interact with real people. Talk to them face to face. Life doesn't revolve around Facebook, Twitter, etc. Being connected for the sake of being connected has it's drawbacks, IMO. And I'm not talking about people who are using it for their jobs, etc. Playing with a phone has become a way of life for many. And now Apple is convincing people that they can't live without a watch to do the same thing as their phone does.

Everyday, we inch closer to Solaria:

 

[mi7chy]

Five hours of use at less than 10 secs per use at what interval, every hour, half hour, what is it? Seem very restrictive.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Five hours of use at less than 10 secs per use at what interval, every hour, half hour, what is it? Seem very restrictive.

IMO, if someone spends 5 hours a day using their watch they have far greater problems than battery life.

 

[Neodym]

Kinetic recharging would take significant shaking to recharge, I don't think you want to look like your seizing for 30+ minutes.

By simple walking you can generate enough kinetic energy to power a normal analogue watch on your wrist. It may not be enough to fully recharge a Smartwatch the caliber of Apple's watch, but could've provided a nice battery boost. I guess it was only the added bulk that prevented Apple from adding it to the watch.

 

[NT1440]

By simple walking you can generate enough kinetic energy to power a normal analogue watch on your wrist. It may not be enough to fully recharge a Smartwatch the caliber of Apple's watch, but could've provided a nice battery boost. I guess it was only the added bulk that prevented Apple from adding it to the watch.

I don't think it would boost battery life more than a few minutes...if that.

As power consumption continues to drop, it will make sense some day, but we are certainly years away from that.

 

[Gameboy70]

Can someone explain to me how a smart watch will be useful for someone like me who doesn't like to wear jewelry in the first place?

I'm stumped, just like I was in trying to explain the appeal of meat to vegetarians.

I've worn watches my entire life. The few times I've tried using my phone as my only timepiece, I found it irritating. It's like eating with chopsticks when you're used to a fork. Anything that dramatically cuts down on the number of times I need to take my phone out of my pocket is tremendously welcome.

That said, I know plenty of people who don't like wearing watches, just like I don't like wearing rings or hats.

If you don't like wearing watches, I think you'll get by just fine without a smartwatch.

 

[Mainsail]

I think it is easy to forget that smartwatchs are basically accessories and companion devices that are largely dependent on having a smartphone connected to perform much of their functionality. Most people are not going to be performing lengthy operations on their watches when they have a large screen phone in their pocket that is so much more capable. Smart watches are for quick glance notifications and rapid response plus senors for exercise and health tracking. 5 hours of use seems like a lot to me.

I recently bought a simple Pebble Watch ($99 at BB), and the only two things it does on its own is tell time and track steps....which is ok for me. Paired with my phone, it will also provide notifications for messages and events, show sports scores, display weather info, provide stock quotes, etc... Basically, it acts as a repeater for the stuff on your smartphone notification screen. I get a lot of family email, so I appreciate the convenience of not taking out me phone to read all of these notifications, but it's just convenience.

The Pebble has a 5-7 day battery life, which is great, but it also has limited sensors and functionality. I wanted something simple and inexpensive for my first smart watch, so the limitations are ok by me. I accept the fact that adding functionality will increase cost and reduce battery life. So, it's a trade-off.

If you buy an watch, you are willing to make this trade-off, which might make perfect sense for your use case. For future iterations, I suspect battery life will improve significantly.

My primary concern with these devices (i.e. smartwatchs in general) is that I have a feeling they will become obsolete pretty quickly, since they are dependent on OS compatibility with a smartphone. Also, they are worn on the wrist, so they are going to be more susceptible to breakage.

 

[Gameboy70]

So now people will be fiddling with their watches instead of their phones and talking to their wrists. I suppose some will see that as progress.

I didn't read the TC article that way. It sounded like most of the users could get by with just glancing at notifications most of the time. The small screen doesn't encourage heavy interaction, whereas smartphones are more immersive and tend to lure users into serial distractions. That's why I prefer to read ebooks on an E Ink reader rather than a smartphone or tablet.

----------

Dumb design decision.

why can't it send notification when I don't wear it? What if I take it off at work to charge it, so i won't get any alert?

it just doesn't make any sense. how about let the consumer decide when to get notification for once?

You'll get the alert on your phone.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Five hours of use at less than 10 secs per use at what interval, every hour, half hour, what is it? Seem very restrictive.

What is restrictive is your understanding of the TOTAL battery life. The battery will last all day INCLUDING 5 hours of "intensive." But there are 18,000 seconds in 5 hours. Please tell me you wouldn't be pecking at your watch 1,800 times in 5 hours. If you honestly say "yes," you need to be evaluated for obsessive-compulsive disorder. No joke.

 

[Max(IT)]

I would think the instances where someone needs to get information on their watch without it being on their wrist are minimal. And in those cases you have your phone, no?

Agree. Especially if that helps to preserve battery life.

 

[FelixAng]

People are complaining because the battery life doesn't make it seem worthwhile. Here's a watch that does all these things, but it does have serious limitations. A week ago people were saying the gold version might go for 20k US. Well, Apple would be serious audacious to attempt this because the battery doesn't match the value of the gold. Without power, the gold on that watch isn't even a piece of jewelry---it's a gold brick.

 

[joshlalonde]

Lol, people are complete nitwits at times.
They really, really believe in the Apple Watch and have unwavering belief that Apple did its best.

But I'm not going to complain. That's a good thing. Even if the Apple Watch is terrible, or not as good as I'd like it to be, (IN MY OPINION) as long as other people like it then that's good. Apple will win, and eventually release a product that's better since they'll have more money and more resources to make a product that works for people like me.

I think there was something they could have done better.
That's my belief.

It's stupid to say, oh yeah sure they should just change physics for you, huh.

That kind of comment is unwarranted. I don't know the entirety of it, but nor do you. In fact, some of you probably know less than I do about the matter. I'm a programmer. I live and breathe computers. I've been interested in electronics and programming since a very young age.

But I don't know everything. Yet, still, I believe, there was something they could have done better.

Is that so hard to understand? I don't know what it was. Maybe they really did make a perfect product. Who knows? Certainly not you, and certainly not I.

In any case, there's no real point in replying anymore. You people irk me, and I don't really like any of you rude, obnoxious and ignorant people who think this is the best thing in the world and that Apple has made the perfect smart watch and Apple this, Apple that and that anyone who says otherwise should be told off.

I like Apple, but I'm not religious about it either.
But, to each his own.

 

[wigby]

I think 5 hours of normal/heavy usage is great but I think people are reacting negatively more to the future than the present specs. We all know that battery technology will not be getting much better in the next 5 years. And we also know that the Apple Watch will only be getting smaller and thinner in the next 5 years. We also know that more and more Apple Watch apps will be using more power and require more of our time and input over the next 5 years. This can only mean that battery life can only get worse with each generation of Apple Watch. I don't think even Apple is capable of beating physics at its own game.

 

[Gameboy70]

But it won't be glances. People will be fiddling and replying, maybe not in a strict work environment, but out in public? I'm guessing we're going to see a new way for people to be distracted as they walk around oblivious to their surroundings.

Most of the fiddling I see with smartphones is web browsing or Facebook; most of the interactions I see with Pebble and Android Wear are momentary. As I alluded to in a previous post in this thread, that's the main reason I've always preferred wearing a watch rather than using my smartphone as my sole timepiece. I can just check the time without getting sucked into other diversions.

 

[mr.steevo]

I've never heard so much complaining in my life, and the product isn't even out yet.

You've never been on a road trip with children have you.

Personally, I'm waiting for the 3rd or 4th generation before I would consider this.

 

[Gameboy70]

Yet prototyping didn't uncover the iPhone 4 signal problems before it hit the public or the scratch proneness of the iPhone 5.

That would have required a sufficiently large sample size of smartphone users who don't use cases, which is about 25% of the user base.

 

[bbeagle]

They really, really believe in the Apple Watch and have unwavering belief that Apple did its best.

Yes, I truly believe Apple did it's best to release a watch in 2015 at the price they're releasing them at and the state of batteries today.

What? Did Apple INTENTIONALLY not do it's best? I doubt that. It's not the watch you'll see in 2020, but that cannot be made today.

Just like the iPhone released in 2007 is not the same as one today, or the iPod released in 2001 is not the same one as in 2010.

 

[wigby]

People are complaining because the battery life doesn't make it seem worthwhile. Here's a watch that does all these things, but it does have serious limitations. A week ago people were saying the gold version might go for 20k US. Well, Apple would be serious audacious to attempt this because the battery doesn't match the value of the gold. Without power, the gold on that watch isn't even a piece of jewelry---it's a gold brick.

No one that buys Apple Watch Edition are thinking of functionality and value. Apple is targeting the same people that buy $20k Rolexes every other year. Those same people all carry phones and probably check the time on their phones more than their watch. The only time you check time on your Rolex is when you want someone to see you check time on your Rolex.

 

[bobob]

By simple walking you can generate enough kinetic energy to power a normal analogue watch on your wrist. It may not be enough to fully recharge a Smartwatch the caliber of Apple's watch, but could've provided a nice battery boost. I guess it was only the added bulk that prevented Apple from adding it to the watch.

If by "nice" you meant adding less than 5 seconds of battery life per day of use, I agree!

Kinetic wristwatches consume infinitesimal amounts of power compared to a smartwatch - - for example the Seiko Kinetic claims an energy consumption of 0.9 microwatts.

 

[Gameboy70]

my Nike Fuelband last a week, sure it's not a smart watch

Pretty accurate so far. In other news, flip phones also last a week.

 

[samcraig]

Agree. Especially if that helps to preserve battery life.

Having the option does not force you to reduce battery life.

 

[kettle]

Same thing happened before the iPad launched....and what a failure that was!

It's not the same thing. A watch isn't a device that requires charging everyday - call it an iBangle and side step the precedence for a self powering, low maintenance clock.

At least introduce a standby mode where it'll tell the time for a week - the iWatch is a highly polished turd - hopefully Apple will still make a HUGE profit as is but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that kind of brand association.

----------

Yes, I truly believe Apple did it's best to release a watch in 2015 at the price they're releasing them at and the state of batteries today.

What? Did Apple INTENTIONALLY not do it's best? I doubt that. It's not the watch you'll see in 2020, but that cannot be made today.

Just like the iPhone released in 2007 is not the same as one today, or the iPod released in 2001 is not the same one as in 2010.

I think you're missing the point - all the other smart phones had the same weakness.

The same can not be said for high end wrist watches.

the iPhone was the best smart phone - the Apple watch is not the best watch

All it goes to show is batteries - even apple's really expensive ones - are not fit for purpose.

The iWatch is superficial and the iPhone was not.

 

[bobob]

the iPhone was the best smart phone - the Apple watch is not the best watch

Can you see the error in logic you made there?

 

[wigby]

By simple walking you can generate enough kinetic energy to power a normal analogue watch on your wrist. It may not be enough to fully recharge a Smartwatch the caliber of Apple's watch, but could've provided a nice battery boost. I guess it was only the added bulk that prevented Apple from adding it to the watch.

There's a huge difference between powering an analog watch and an Apple Watch with CPU, screen and constant wireless connection to iPhone. Kinetic energy from walking all day would not add more than 5% battery boost.