Cellular connectivity zaps a lot of energy among all the other radio-related connectivity methods. As I can see, Venu doesn't have cellular connectivity.
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.
Is 18 hours battery life (AW9) the best Apple can do?
- Thread starter satchmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
since YOU brought up the comparison, please do us all a favor and do a side-by-side comparison of those two, every feature and share with us.
I have no interest in a Garmin whatever model, nor interest comparing features.
to you original thread: 18hrs has been spec'd by Apple since the S0, I have never had an issue with that, never had any of my S0/3/4/7/U not make it through the day, had a few times in the 1 digit battery life remaining.
Apple markets it as "all day usage, charge at night", or now with fast charging, you can use it for sleep tracking too and charge while taking a shower... Apple far outsells Garmin, they don't need to "match" anything
So what is your REAL question here? why the comparison to Garmin?
I'm someone who went from Garmin (and I had 3 different ones!) to Apple Watch because I much prefer the Apple Watch UI and its overall integration and functionality. The one aspect I do not like about the Watch with the exception of Ultra is the lack of Action button which solves a lot of touchscreen issues while exercising.
Maybe you think that others aren't realizing that there are other options out there other than Apple Watch? I beg to differ. I think people know. For many people, the battery life of 18 hours is not a problem because they just plug the Watch to charge overnight; many don't even care to track their sleep. But what they do really like is the functionality of what the Watch provides from receiving phone calls, reading emails, writing emails and texts etc. independent of having connectivity to a phone.
I live that ability of being able to be independent of the phone. I can use my Watch to text when I'm out and I can listen to podcasts and music while I'm doing my runs and walks without my phone, etc.
Man, I haven't seen this level of willful ignorance in awhile. We're done here folks.
Would creating a Shortcut be helpful to you?
That said, I don't find I have to go through pages of text to turn on lower power mode. Swipe up from the app screen to get the Control panel screen, then click on the oval for battery percentage left, you can then click on low power mode. Or are you feeling that's too many pages?
As I said, everyone has their wants and needs. I don't care one way or another what people buy or who sells more. I'm not a Garmin troll or Apple fanboy.
It appears many here won't or can't accept facts or chose to change products to suit their argument.
Instead people get all hostile because their brand has been insulted? Please.
I'm simply trying to objectively to understand battery life of similarly spec'd watches. I chose Garmin Venu 3 because it has similar specs as an AW9.
Both are smartwatches with AMOLED displays.
Both do not have cellular features (AW9 non-cellular version)
Both can play music and have notifications through the iPhone.
Both have a ton of health and fitness features and sensors.
Yet one has a significant advantage in battery life.
There are different use cases for sure and one excels over the other in certain areas.
For example, I use my AW for sleep tracking accuracy...much better than Garmin.
But I prefer the Garmin for running and the added buttons (can't afford an Ultra).
Do you think Apple is just deliberately kneecapping battery life? That they can really offer 2 weeks but aren't because it gives Tim a thrill?
What's going on is that Apple values battery life differently that you do. They decided to base the design and features around an 18 hour battery life, because they feel it's the best trade off.
For example, your 14 days with Garmin Venu 3 does not include an always on display, it has a much smaller screen and a bigger case. And it costs more. Those are all trade offs. And they make perfect sense for someone that spends a lot of time in the outdoors. Apple is targeting a wider demographic.
Venu - Battery Life Information
| Up to 5 days | Smartwatch mode with activity tracking and 24/7 wrist-based heart rate monitoring |
|---|---|
| Up to 7.5 hr. | Smartwatch mode with music playback |
| Up to 20 hr. | GPS mode |
So my guess is Apple watch is always in what Garmin calls "GPS mode." I couldn't quickly find what Garmin means by GPS mode, and I'm not spending more time to hunt down that info.
In making this comparison are you OK with suggesting that the Venu 3 has nearly anywhere the feature/function of the AW? Because that is the implication that is implicit in what you're saying, whether you mean it or not (that they're even remotely comparable).
Look I'm no expert. I'm just trying to understand where the difference in battery life is.
The Venu 3 does have an always on display mode which as @NightSpring just posted is 5 days.
And while it has a smaller screen (maybe that's where they save power?), it's also driving more pixels than an AW.
Venu - Battery Life Information
www8.garmin.com
Up to 5 days Smartwatch mode with activity tracking and 24/7 wrist-based heart rate monitoring Up to 7.5 hr. Smartwatch mode with music playback Up to 20 hr. GPS mode
So my guess is Apple watch is always in what Garmin calls "GPS mode." I couldn't quickly find what Garmin means by GPS mode, and I'm not spending more time to hunt down that info.
Here's a more detail and accurate list of how Garmin determines battery times on the Venu 3.
And I gave you three significant factors. In addition, Garmin's assumptions are based on far fewer interactions with your watch than Apple. As pointed out a few posts ago, music playback significantly reduces Garmin battery life, so Garmin assumes that you never play music.
Here's Apple:
90 time checks, 90 notifications, 45 minutes of app use, and a 60-minute workout with music playback from Apple Watch via Bluetooth, over the course of 18 hours; Apple Watch Series 9 (GPS) usage includes connection to iPhone via Bluetooth during the entire 18-hour test
Here's Garmin:
| Smartwatch Mode Usage Assumptions | |
| Notifications per Day | 50 |
| Number of Interactions per Day | 32 |
| Device-Generated Alerts per Day (Move or Goal Alerts) | 10 |
| Hours per Day Outside of Bluetooth Range of Phone | 1 |
| Display Brightness & Timeout | Default Settings |
| Watch Face¹ | Default |
| Number of Gestures per Day | 750 |
| Pulse Ox Mode | Disabled by Default |
| Number of Minutes of Music Streaming | 0 |
| Number of Timed Activities | 0 |
But that page doesn't have any details about GPS mode, which is what we need to know to figure out if GPS mode is comparable to how Apple watch works.
As a garmin user from early forerunner and other so called garmin smart watches. Garmin is glorified fitness watch. AW lets me keep up with messages, even phone calls, Apple Pay, authenticate other devices. I moved on from Garmin after AW6, sure Garmin may give some geeky metrics. But in the end, AW is much more invaluable for me.
Exactly. To me charging my AW 6 every day before shower or bed 10-20 mins is worth for what use my AW for daily.
My Apple Watch Ultra lasts more than two days no problem. I can go a full three-day weekend trip without recharging it if I use a "less constantly refreshing data" watch face. And I even wear it to bed for sleep tracking. Apple only claims 36 hours battery life for the Ultra. My wife can go over 24 hours on her Series 7.
Apple's watch battery estimates are *SUPER* conservative. And have been since the very original Apple Watch. My Series 0 claimed 18 hours; I could go 24+ hours no problem.
Apple's watch battery estimates are *SUPER* conservative. And have been since the very original Apple Watch. My Series 0 claimed 18 hours; I could go 24+ hours no problem.
You asked “Is 18 hours batter life (AW9) the best Apple can do?” My short answer is ”yeah…it’s the best they can do”. I’m sure if they could get more than 18 hours battery life out of the AW they’d do it. But something would have to give.
You really need to pose this question to the Apple Watch developers. My guess is they’re having to balance a lot of factors (slim/sleek design, bright/always on display and all of the functionality of a full featured smart watch)….and they’re making the compromises they need based on the design/functional/technical choices they’re making. They’re selling a lot of them…so they must be doing something right!
Last edited:
It's worth noting watchOS 2.0 actually unlocked a lot more horsepower on the original model solely because Apple genuinely wasn't sure how the watch would go in the real world, so they'd been conservative on power draw.
For me personally, the background refresh was killing the battery charge. I disabled it and allow only very select apps. I can get by charging when I hit the showers in the morning.