Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Takes Two Hours to Charge, Only Delivers Notifications While on the Wrist
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The main spring in a normal automatic watch stores around 0.2J, and it takes around 30 minutes of walking to charge it from empty to full. That's 0.4 J per hour or 6.4J in a 16 hour day (assuming a device that makes use of all that energy without reaching its limit). That's 1.8mWh. Or slightly less than 0.5mAh assuming a3.82 V battery, just to convert it to familiar units.
That's just a rounding error compared to any realistic battery capacity for the Apple Watch. For comparison the Moto 360 has a 300mAh battery.
So how does the regular analogue watch get away with it? By drawing less than a microwatt of power, compared to the several milliwatts we can expect from a smartwatch.
Wow... how about you guys actually read my posts? I have made it perfectly clear, including in the very one you are quoting, that I am fine with people being content with it. What I am NOT okay with is being belittled for personally wanting more battery life, which is what some of the people I quoted were doing.
Last edited:
accessory band providing power?
I suppose someone may have beaten me to posting this but couldn't the band be made with battery modules to provide extra power? I could see the mass available would provide potentially 2 days of power?
Or how about a solar watch band? Flexible solar tech has been available for years.
I suppose someone may have beaten me to posting this but couldn't the band be made with battery modules to provide extra power? I could see the mass available would provide potentially 2 days of power?
Or how about a solar watch band? Flexible solar tech has been available for years.
You'll get over that. Ten years ago, when I was rocking a Treo, most cell phone users found the prospect of using a smartphone with a one-day battery life inconceivable. Today it's the opposite. Most people aren't willing to give up the affordances of a smartphone for a full week of battery. Watch developments will parallel this arc. Some people will stick to watches with less functionality in exchange for more battery, but most people won't.
If something stops working perfectly at some points in time and yet the thing is still considered functional, I guess you didn't really need the product in the first place. And that's my main issue with the Apple Watch. I don't feel the need to have something on my wrist that would give me 15% better experience than my phone.
We don't yet know if it's configurable. Still, I can't see a use case where I'd want a notification on a watch that isn't on my wrist. That's what my phone is for.
I'm not preaching anything. People do what they like.
----------
Any link for that?
please enlighten me
and meanwhile
The iPhone was allowed to be limited by battery performance because mobile phones are expected to be limited in this way
If an iWatch was being a computer in a plastic bangle - perhaps battery life could be overlooked.
An iWatch that tries to go for the luxury watch market is going to be inferior by comparison due to 'ingrained' expectations of those customers
it will always be a clever and gimmicky, expensive watch that needs charging a lot - UNTIL the energy problems can be solved in a way that isn't a GIANT step backward.
Again, Apple isn't for give you all the options, usually.
----------
And you are capable of judge a device yet to be released.
Interesting.
----------
Before the iPhone, phone could last 4-5 days on a battery charge.
The iPhone had to be charged daily.
That's because it is a SMARTphone, not a phone.
The same logic applies for the Apple watch, that is a SMARTwatch.
You compare the iPhone only to other smartphones, whereas you compare the Apple Watch to all types of watches, not just smartwatches.
The Apple Watch will be this year's best smartwatch and the best overall watch, but the parameters by which it may be compared to mechanical watches becomes so broad that it becomes meaningless (a common parlor trick lately on the forums).
That's why the iPhone will NEVER take off. Everyone knows this. It was a problem looking for a solution, and a niche product.
A very, very, very, very big niche, but a niche nonetheless.
Oh, and Apple is doomed.
No it doesn't.
Your argument is that SMART=20% battery life of non-smart.
Well the average battery-powered watch lasts 5 years before needing a new battery.
So by your reasoning, the Apple SMART watch should last one year on a single battery charge...
Yes, that's what I think an apple watch should do too...!
That's not entirely accurate. Though idle time was longer on older phones, since they didn't have much background activity, usage time... And call time in particular... Actually tended to be much shorter than modern smartphones.
Can you see the error in logic you made there?
Apple are aiming way above smartwatch - they're aiming to reinvent the watch.
Unfortunately, the product is 'just' a very well made and expensive smartwatch and will continue to be until the incredibly fat 'elephant in the room' of not enough energy is solved.
I just can't see this replacing my normal watch. It's a solid looking product, but the battery life seems very unimpressive to me. I wear my Tag nearly 24/7 (save for when I'm showering or swimming). I can count on a single hand how many times the battery has run out (automatic).
Apple didn't re-invent the media player, or the phone.
What Apple did was make a media player and a smart phone that were stylish and accessible, so people who had been intimidated by or dismissive of the ones that already existed could see that these devices could fit into their lives.
Apple isn't re-inventing the watch, either. Others have already done that (to very little effect). Apple's contribution (it hopes) will be to make the smart watch accessible and stylish. People who don't think they want a smart watch or think that a smart watch would be more trouble than it was worth, will see how it can fit into their daily routine.
If the Apple Watch doesn't sell, the naysayers will enjoy saying they told us so. But if it flies off the shelves, the naysayers will be in the uncomfortable position they've often found themselves in: trying to rationalize how their prediction of failure was somehow right, even though it was clearly wrong.
----------
It's not going to replace my normal watch, either. My normal watch has been in a drawer for the past ten years (since the battery ran out and it didn't seem worth the trouble to replace it). The Apple Watch will be on my wrist.
ah - that'll be the alternative reality where Jonny Ive designed new cases for a sansdisk mp3 player and a blackberry
sorry, I cannot continue - please find someone else's life to waste .
So your position is that Apple isn't just AIMING to reinvent the watch, but they actually HAVE done so. Whether or not the reinvention has commercial success doesn't matter. It's already done.
Man I was hoping since the battery was so small that it would only take 15-20mins to charge, so I could charge it while taking a shower and getting ready for work. Guess I was hoping for to much...