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.
Lack of Always-On Screen
- Thread starter p3ntyne
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That kind of like telling somone "Don't worry about combing your hair. You won't see it unless you look in a mirror. Just pretend its combed."
As I mentioned earlier, I have a smartwatch with always-on capability. As an experiment, I turned it off today. It was astounding how many times I just glanced down at my watch, as usual, only to see a blank screen. And that's not because of the sensitivity/software but the fact that it's much more comfortable to move my eyes to check the time, rather than my arm. Also, it is much easier to sneak a look at the time without being rude when the screen requires no gesture to activate.
Do you ever see someone with a digital/mechanical watch lifting their arm to near eye level to check the time?
What's the point of the screen being always on, unless you want it to be seen by others when not looked at by you ? If that's the case then fine, go ahead and invent the battery for it
Your hair example doesn't make sense. Personal hygiene should be a part of your daily routine, as a bonus you will look good to others as well.
There are plenty of tasks that require the time to be constantly visible. If the watch face times out and goes blank, that is problematic.
The screen had better stay on when the watch is connected to power or I'll cancel my order. It makes no sense to have precise atomic time that disappears.
If nothing else, having the watch on a nightstand and having to jostle it or pick it up to view the time is a step backwards also. The first task this thing needs to address is simply displaying the accurate time. It sounds like it may fail at that!
I never lift my Digital or my Mechanical watches to my eye level to check the time because they use different technology to show the time.
I'm sure the delay to see the time will be much shorter than taking your iPhone out of your pocket and turning it on to see the time.
Let's hope the delay for the Apple Watch screen to turn on isn't bad.
The purpose of smartwatches are to make your life easier, more organised and to (arguably) keep you less distracted. Sure, people can and will wait for the time to appear after performing a gesture however, that's not a tradeoff that should be made on a watch which is, first and foremost, made to tell the time.
Ideally, that should've been Apple's priority rather than creepy handsignals and the ability to check if someone is still alive.
I don't think the point of the Apple watch is to tell time. I think the watch aspect is the crack in the door through which Apple is setting up their customers to normalize the idea of wearable technology. This device is designed to help you declutter the constant flow of information you are receiving. But again, from a strategic standpoint, there is no way that the watch is meant to be a timepiece "first and foremost."
It's a perfect example. If no one else was on Earth then why would you comb your hair? People who want to wear the AW as an actual watch should have the option to show a digital face at all times. Not too hard to comprehend.
Refrigerators with glass doors have lights that can be left on. I'm sure you can figure out the difference.
On the other end I hardly look at my mechanical watch for the time. I wear it more as a jewelry piece. I am on my phone and computer constantly, so I know the time.
I actually would not want this (in a dark room at night it would be pretty obtrusive), and I'd be pretty surprised if that were the case.
Going back to the question of notifications that we were talking about yesterday, I was listening to John Gruber's podcast and apparently the Watch already has a little red dot that comes on in the corner when you have received a notification. He compared it to the mail LED on a Blackberry. Apparently you can turn it off if you like.
My opinion about the lack of an always-on display? Good, I prefer that it doesn't stay on all the time.
Second question - not a power or battery expert, so I don't know.
That's cool that you wouldn't want it, but at least give the option. iPhone and iPad both have brightness controls as well as "screen always on" option.
This is why some think that Motorola nailed it on their 360, in two ways.
1. No magnetic snap on, or buying a third party stand, needed to recharge. Just lay the watch on its inductive charger stand.
2. It automatically switches to its nightstand mode while it charges.
I think that any turn-on delay (or even the need to turn on at all) will affect those who are used to wearing a regular watch that's always visible, most of all.
Everyone else is used to pulling out their phone, which is harder than wiggling the watch
I haven't kept up with Android Wear very closely, but from what I understand, no other watch with any kind of display has the resolution or 60 fps that the Apple Watch does. Is that incorrect? If so, it's an excellent question as to what is happening with Android Wear that cannot be done on the current Apple Watch.
Last edited:
This is literally the dumbest thing I have heard in all my life
I'd like to have an always on screen but the technology doesn't allow for it at this stage. Yes they can allow it but it won't last all day.
Your not thinking this out that's why your saying my comment is dumb. Telling the time is only part of the deal.
Chill out my friend, life is good
Well then, Apple have made a mistake. Even if the watch can perform other tasks, telling the time is probably still most important.
While Apple have made a slightly smaller smartwatch with a slightly higher resolution display, the OLED display should easily allow for at least a day with the screen (about 5% of pixels) always on.
The most pixel dense Android Wear watch is the G Watch R with a resolution of 320x320. The Apple Watch has a resolution of 242x340/312x390 however, it's a bit more complicated since the G Watch R's display is round, rather than rectangular. Despite this, the G Watch R has a pixel density of 348 ppi rather than 335 for both sizes of the Apple Watch therefore making the G Watch R's display better is terms of density. Also, since I believe LG makes the Apple Watch display, other aspects such as colour reproduciton should be pretty similar.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Android Wear animations all run in 60fps too, although some can stutter on the Moto 360's older processor.
So, I am also confused about how the G Watch can get up to 3 days with an always on screen (and it's 410mah battery) when the Apple Watch struggles to get one without the screen always on. Sure, the Apple Watch also has Apple Pay and the ability to send people gestures and heartbeats but that shouldn't make such a significant difference
Agree that there should be an "always on" option, with the known risk of shortened battery life. User's choice is not Apple's focus these days.
I haven't worn a watch in 20 years. I have been wearing a Nike Fuelband the past year and a half. It requires I press a button to see any info. So I'm inadvertently conditioned to potentially appreciate the Watch's lift-to-view feature. Come June.
I haven't worn a watch in 20 years. I have been wearing a Nike Fuelband the past year and a half. It requires I press a button to see any info. So I'm inadvertently conditioned to potentially appreciate the Watch's lift-to-view feature. Come June.
Why would any company, especially Apple, give an option to decrease the battery life to 3 hours? That's the kind of **** I expect from Android.
Why would any company, especially Apple, use the a battery than can only last 3 hours on, in a watch? As in, the sort of watch that is designed to tell time.
Also, your expectations of Android are very wrong. Yes, Android is known for pretty poor battery efficiency when compared to iOS, but Android Wear devices can last for days, permanently on.