Apple's made it fairly clear across several generations that 18 hours is their design target for battery life on the non-Ultra AW.
Why are you expecting something different from that signaling?
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
Apple's made it fairly clear across several generations that 18 hours is their design target for battery life on the non-Ultra AW.
Why are you expecting something different from that signaling?
They are not moot point but exactly the direct reason why Venu 3 can have longer battery life because it is not capable of doing everything that AW can. Apple’s Watches are a lot more powerful than any Garmin, allowing for more visually rich and complicated apps.
Last edited:
Reviews I've seen say the battery life on the Venu 3 is closer to 3-4 days if you use the always-on display and lots of workouts will knock that down even further, which puts it closer to the Apple Watch Ultra territory.
Obviously, Apple isn't focusing purely on battery life, but if that's a major concern for you then you should probably just get the Garmin.
While I'd love for the regular Apple Watch to get some of that Apple Watch Ultra battery life (there's no way I can justify the price of the Ultra) but I've never had my Series 3 or Series 7 die on my wrist. I think I've gotten to 2.5 days on my Series 7 including some workouts, and putting on the battery-saver mode towards the end to get me to a charger, which is plenty for my needs.
I think it’s just a combo of consumers still buying Apple Watch in droves despite the 18 hours battery life.
And then increased battery life is also a feature Apple knows they always can pull out their sleeves if they ever need to push sales one year.
And, in fairnes, the up to 2000 nits display has to be the reason why Series 9 keeps the 18 hours.
2000 nits is twice as bright. And I suspect one can actually get a good bit better battery life on S9 compared to S8 and older if you dial the brightness down.
The battery is probably bigger this year. It’s just the display that’s 2x brighter. 🤷♂️
To me, as long as it lasts a full day, it doesn’t matter if it’s one day or seven days. I’m charging it every night unless it goes months or years on a charge.
I have both an S8 and an Ultra. The S8 can easily get me through ~22-23 hours including a 1.5 hour WiFi-only workout not tethered to my phone while streaming music to my AirPods. And I shower right before bed, so a quick 30-45 minutes and it’s back up to charge for my sleep tracking. The Ultra, of course, goes longer, about 1.5 days (not *quite* 2 full days). I could wear it to sleep at 100%, get through the next day with a workout, wear it to sleep again, and pop it on the charger in the morning while I have my breakfast and coffee and get ready for the day.
Is popping the watch on the charger too much for people once a day to once every other day? My charger is right at my bedside and I have another in a dock at our apartment entryway and it seems to do the trick with either watch. Other smartwatches don’t allow for full music streaming from a platform with offline sync, not to mention the robust ecosystem support (homepod controls, apartment smarthome controls, etc.) so I’m going to expect a trade-off.
Is popping the watch on the charger too much for people once a day to once every other day? My charger is right at my bedside and I have another in a dock at our apartment entryway and it seems to do the trick with either watch. Other smartwatches don’t allow for full music streaming from a platform with offline sync, not to mention the robust ecosystem support (homepod controls, apartment smarthome controls, etc.) so I’m going to expect a trade-off.
Yeah, what I realized years ago with some of the early smartwatches, like the Pebble, was that it was more of a pain to keep track of irregular charging intervals, so I ended up just charging it every night with my phone, anyways. Sure, I wouldn’t mind a longer battery duration, but I like the trade off of more features, as long as I get a solid day out of it.
Interesting. Yes of course real world usage is different than specs on a page. I already have a Garmin but not the Venu 3 which I find intriguing. I know the AW can do more, but if you compare the core basic features, there are similarities.
But I'm not going to rehash this. I was simply trying to have a discussion on where the huge gap in battery times. But people got triggered and threw insults. I just put them on ignore.
Yes, no argument about its popularity.
Look, I enjoy my AW but just wish they'd bump up the battery times. Personally, I would have preferred a longer battery over a higher nit count.
Is it really a higher resolution? The Garmin display is circular, not rectangular.
AW: 484 x 396 = 191,664
Garmin: pi x r^2. r = 454/2 = 227. pi x 227^2 = 161,878
Then bump up the battery times by turning off features that the Garmin doesn't have on by default and use it less often like Garmin recommends. Use low power mode, drop the display brightness, don't play music, use a watch face with fewer lit pixels, reduce notifications.
Somehow funny how Garmin fans have a big urge to tell Apple users how bad the battery life of an Apple Watch is and why they would never buy an Apple Watch for „real sports“.
Well, ok.
Well, ok.
The key difference is that the AW is running a full 64bit computer general purpose operating system while the Garmin is likely running a very specialized operating system narrowly tailored for its specific functions.
I'm fairly certain WatchOS runs on top of Darwin on top of XNU just like iOS, though with less ancilliary stuff, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Just like how iOS was designed as a shrunk down macOS. So it's an even more shrunk down version of a shrunk down macOS.
Whereas the Garmin OS is probably closer to a beefed up iPod nano if you had to pick an Apple product.
I'm fairly certain WatchOS runs on top of Darwin on top of XNU just like iOS, though with less ancilliary stuff, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Just like how iOS was designed as a shrunk down macOS. So it's an even more shrunk down version of a shrunk down macOS.
Whereas the Garmin OS is probably closer to a beefed up iPod nano if you had to pick an Apple product.
Three pages in & OP has challenged everything that has been posted so far. He's clearly not looking for any answer that doesn't support his theory. I think it's safe to say you guys are wasting your time.
Garmin samples HRV CONTINUOUSLY and AW takes 3 overnight readings. (Yes I know about afib.) Garmin also samples HR EVERY second and AW about every 10 minutes. And STILL way way more battery life.
If you gonna turn off extra features, you could just get a Garmin. Why bother making AW another garmin.
HRV every second is more or less meaningless, it’s mostly about trends. I have used HRV with Garmin/Polar going back to the straps. It was mostly for recovery after intense trainings, mostly overnight HRV trends and changes. My coach sometimes used to give an extra day off, based on overnight HRV or change hydration.
In a clinical setting HRV can be used to see effect of diet, but that needs an ECG, unfortunately wearables can’t reliably detect those changes.
My guess is that Apple's data shows that battery life is not a key differentiator between a customer choosing an Apple Watch vs a competing brand like Garmin. Yes, it might matter to some people, but by and large, most customers choose the Apple Watch based on other reasons, from ecosystem advantage to increase functionality. Users are generally comfortable charging their watch nightly alongside their phone, tablet, AirPods and other peripherals.
What this means is that Apple is comfortable sticking with the magic number of 18 hours as their baseline, and any additional battery life improvements to be had from say, a more efficient processor, is instead funnelled towards powering other features like a larger display, which they believe will matter more than more battery life that users on a nightly charging routine might not even notice.
And if you want more, that's where the Apple Watch ultra comes in.
What's going on is that Apple probably knows what appeals more to their user base, than users themselves.
Right ?
I am looking at the Ultra 2 and the battery life impresses me compared to my S7.
But the price tag is that of an iPhone 15; which I am not upgrading this year.
Can't justify the $800 price tag for a watch - and I don't dive, snorkel, workout nor high adventure...
Cool. Is it running a fully fledged OS like watchOS? The watch has far and away more capability than a fitness watch.
If all you want is a pure fitness watch, by all means go with Garmin, I’ve heard they’re top notch.
Part of the price hike is due to the mandatory cellular capabilities. Otherwise, it's not that different from the stainless steel models, and at least you are getting more functionality and not just a different material.
Which is whyI ditched my Ultra for my Garmin 965. For me, it IS about the fitness, not the smartwatch functions.
Exactly. The Apple Watch *can* be an extremely good fitness tracker with the right apps that cater to a users needs, but something specifically designed for those of us who want the nitty gritty stats and care about that level of tracking first and foremost…should buy the product that’s explicitly designed for that.
I’m not sure Garmin watches are a direct comparator with AW. The Garmin devices I have/have used are heavily focused on activity and giving a ton of metrics with superb GPS. AW, no slouch in activity tracking, is a more rounded device for everyday life.
I use AW SE2 and have a Forerunner 520, which is a great sports watch with unreal battery but much more limited in everyday living features. Integration with Apple products and superior UI is a reasonable trade off for battery. I run, walk/hike and cycle a lot but I’m not an ultra runner or a taking on epic adventure. I can get around 24 hours from my SE2.
I use AW SE2 and have a Forerunner 520, which is a great sports watch with unreal battery but much more limited in everyday living features. Integration with Apple products and superior UI is a reasonable trade off for battery. I run, walk/hike and cycle a lot but I’m not an ultra runner or a taking on epic adventure. I can get around 24 hours from my SE2.
Another possibility for the non-Ultra Watch at least is that Apple could have made the battery life longer this year but deliberately didn’t. GMshadow suggested that jokingly earlier in this thread because “it gives Tim a thrill” but I’m suggesting it seriously, not because it gives Tim a thrill but because Apple is always thinking a few years ahead.
As already mentioned at least the non-Ultra watches are targeted at a much broader range of customers than the Garmin as evidenced by fancy straps, fancy watch faces, gold finish. Some people wear their Apple Watch for all occasions including ones where they want it to pass off as a dress watch. With that in mind one theory I would like to suggest is that sometime in the next few years Apple is planning to make the non-Ultra models a bit thinner to increase its appeal in that “fancy watch” segment of the market and it wants to do that while maintaining the quoted 18 hour battery life figure even though it knows it will have to use a smaller capacity battery because the battery will have to get thinner.
If this is what is on the road map then one way for Apple to pull off the trick is to, even if Apple could have bumped the battery life spec up from 18 hours to 24 hours this year by using a bigger battery or more power optimisations for various components, it deliberately didn’t do that so that it didn’t then have to drop the spec back down to 18 hours next year (or whenever) when it releases a thinner watch.
Some planned feature making Apple hold back on battery life improvements this year might not necessarily be making the Watch thinner, it could be anything that is likely to put extra strain on battery life in the future, I just used thinner as the most obvious example.
As already mentioned at least the non-Ultra watches are targeted at a much broader range of customers than the Garmin as evidenced by fancy straps, fancy watch faces, gold finish. Some people wear their Apple Watch for all occasions including ones where they want it to pass off as a dress watch. With that in mind one theory I would like to suggest is that sometime in the next few years Apple is planning to make the non-Ultra models a bit thinner to increase its appeal in that “fancy watch” segment of the market and it wants to do that while maintaining the quoted 18 hour battery life figure even though it knows it will have to use a smaller capacity battery because the battery will have to get thinner.
If this is what is on the road map then one way for Apple to pull off the trick is to, even if Apple could have bumped the battery life spec up from 18 hours to 24 hours this year by using a bigger battery or more power optimisations for various components, it deliberately didn’t do that so that it didn’t then have to drop the spec back down to 18 hours next year (or whenever) when it releases a thinner watch.
Some planned feature making Apple hold back on battery life improvements this year might not necessarily be making the Watch thinner, it could be anything that is likely to put extra strain on battery life in the future, I just used thinner as the most obvious example.