Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Review: Kanex's GoPower Watch Battery Provides Six Full Apple Watch Charges in a Small Package

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
67,105
36,976



Although Apple remains conservative regarding the battery life of the Apple Watch, many users have noted that the wearable device makes it through one day with plenty of charge left over in its 18-hour estimated life. Still, third-party power banks and portable chargers have been popular mainstays in the Apple Watch accessory line, and recently Kanex launched its own charging device for the Apple Watch, called the GoPower Watch.

Kanex's charger is packed with a 4,000 mAh battery and a claim that, on a full charge, it can recharge the Apple Watch up to six times with an integrated inductive charger. As a bonus, the GoPower Watch also includes a USB port, letting you charge your iPhone (or any USB-powered device) simultaneously with the Apple Watch. There's also priority charging, so your devices charge first and the battery pack second.

Design

Kanex's GoPower Watch meets the form and function that any successful portable battery pack needs to be used on a daily basis. Its small 3-inch square will fit comfortably in a backpack, and the quartered LED lights -- surrounding the only button on the housing -- provide quick and easy reminders of how much juice is left in the pack.

Kanex-Review-4-800x204.jpg

The slightly raised inductive charger is surrounded by a smooth Space Gray material (admittedly, a few shades darker than Apple's definition of Space Gray), that feels sturdy despite the small frame of the GoPower Watch. Interestingly, the actual inductive charger on Kanex's device is a bit larger than Apple's own inductive charger, but its added 1/4 of an inch appears negligible and doesn't affect the charging of the device.

Kanex-Review-8-800x452.jpg
GoPower Watch compared with Apple's Magnetic Charger​


Otherwise, the design is no-frills. The front and rear of the pack are made up of a black, plastic-type material that's a bit more fingerprint-attractive than the Space Gray of the rest of the device. On the back users will find the micro-USB port to charge up the battery pack, and the USB Type-A port for smartphone charging. Anyone opposed to large branding on their products probably won't like the prevalent Kanex logo on the front of the unit, however.


Click here to read more...

Article Link: Review: Kanex's GoPower Watch Battery Provides Six Full Apple Watch Charges in a Small Package
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/review/kanex-gopower-watch/
For the cost, the Apple charger should have a battery. Can't understand why apple hasn't done that. Seems like a great use for their new conforming battery tech.
 
A guy walks with two really heavy, 80lb suitcases. A passer by asks him what time it is. The guy puts down both suitcases, rolls up his sleeve, looks at his watch and heavily breathing tells the time. The other guy is astonished seeing he has a digital watch and asks what else his watch can do. After learning about all the features, he expresses his surprise that the battery must be very powerful and long lasting. The owner of the watch replies: "Well, now with these two bad boys added - pointing to his suitcases - I get a full 1 hour of usage."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Oxard
Guess I've never had a need for such things. My watch lasts the day without issue even when I workout for 2-3 hours a day.

I spent 4 days in Idaho about 10 miles from the Canadian boarder recently. With a power pack smaller than that thing I kept the watch charged fully each night and it cost less than $20 compared to the $99 of this device.
[doublepost=1474497593][/doublepost]
keysofanxiety said:
Remember when you had to pay for iOS iPhone OS updates?
Click to expand...

That was 1 update and only for iPod Touches back in 2008. The paid requirement was due to legal reasons as it offered functionality not originally offered on the iPod Touch (Mail, Maps, Stocks, Weather, and Notes). It's an accounting requirement that if you upgrade a device that’s not on a subscription, you have to charge.

Other than that 1 little product and 1 time, iOS upgrades have always been free to the vast majority of users.
 
Charging batteries to charge batteries... Is there not some kind of inefficiency and loss of energy with this?
 
Kaibelf said:
Another article, another opinion about how Apple should give away something for free that they currently don't and instead realize the difference as profit.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about giving it away for free? There's money to be had in volume by making the thing actually appealing to purchase. I had forgotten it even existed until this comment. It's basically their $29 2m cable with a plastic weighted disc around it that somehow makes it worth an extra $50, even though it doesn't look very appealing. I can't imagine they sell that many of them. It's better design if the weight was instead a battery, and brings a better value proposition to the table through better design. I mean, for crying out loud, their iPhone docks are solid aluminum anodized to match the device color, and feature audio pass-through to stereo audio jack, and they cost $30 less. The pricing of this item is not consistent with their other accessories, which are already priced towards the top end of the consumer electronics market. I get charging more for superior design, but there is little to be found in this particular accessory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnApples
For some, this would be useful, but I usually have a charger near me when needed. I'm waiting for the day when the Apple Watch will wirelessly charge.
 
smacrumon said:
Charging batteries to charge batteries... Is there not some kind of inefficiency and loss of energy with this?
Click to expand...

Of course, there is. However, we aren't talking a lot of power loss for an occasional use device like this and the energy loss to alternatives like going to where a charger could be plugged in is probably much greater.
 
OldSchoolMacGuy said:
That was 1 update and only for iPod Touches back in 2008. The paid requirement was due to legal reasons as it offered functionality not originally offered on the iPod Touch (Mail, Maps, Stocks, Weather, and Notes). It's an accounting requirement that if you upgrade a device that’s not on a subscription, you have to charge.

Other than that 1 little product and 1 time, iOS upgrades have always been free to the vast majority of users.
Click to expand...

It was Apple's choice how much they charged. They decided to charge iPod touch customers $20 for what was a free update to other users.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1131991/ipodtouch.html

Both at the time and searching quickly now, I haven't seen anywhere that says Apple was forced not to count the iPod touch as subscription based, even though it counted the iPhone and AppleTV as being subscription-based.

It appears to me that they chose to, probably at least in part so they could charge for the updates and blame it on accounting rules. Any refutation of this? I would be happy to be corrected.
 
How long before there is a watch battery band?

Because we really need more watch band articles... we haven't seen 1 on MacRumors for a couple days. Must be a record
 
Almost every stand or battery pack that I have see for the watch has not been designed for the watche's nightstand mode. This one included. Is there some royalty to Apple for watchstqnd mode that prevents these makers from building support into their product? I just find this strange.

I have the link band (aka a closed loop band) which is also not supported by many of these makers. And again ridiculous.
 
autrefois said:
It was Apple's choice how much they charged. They decided to charge iPod touch customers $20 for what was a free update to other users.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1131991/ipodtouch.html

Both at the time and searching quickly now, I haven't seen anywhere that says Apple was forced not to count the iPod touch as subscription based, even though it counted the iPhone and AppleTV as being subscription-based.

It appears to me that they chose to, probably at least in part so they could charge for the updates and blame it on accounting rules. Any refutation of this? I would be happy to be corrected.
Click to expand...

The money they made from the iPod Touch was minimal. You're talking about one of their least popular products at the time. If they wanted to make money they would have done it for all devices.

They did charge for the upgrade to other products too, once again, cause the laws required them to do so. They charged for a wifi update to a Intel Macs and cited court requirements to do so.

“The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products,” said Teresa Brewer, Apple’s Mac hardware public relations manager.
Click to expand...

http://www.macworld.com/article/1054948/80211nfee.html

The iPhone is a subscription service as you pay your carrier monthly to use it. Apple gets a cut of your monthly carrier payment too.

As for the Apple TV:

According to the company’s February 1 quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, “For both Apple TV and iPhone, [Apple] indicated it may from time-to-time provide future unspecified features and additional software products free of charge to customers. Therefore, sales of Apple TV and iPhone handsets are recognized under subscription accounting in accordance with SOP No. 97-2.”
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes I think Apple purposely makes internal batteries smaller or less powerful to allow 3rd party businesses to make aftermarket products. This goes for iPhones and iWatches
 
OldSchoolMacGuy said:
The money they made from the iPod Touch was minimal. You're talking about one of their least popular products at the time. If they wanted to make money they would have done it for all devices.
Click to expand...

I think you made my point for me. They didn't make much from the iPod Touch (low prices and low sales), so this was a way to pick up some money.

They did charge for the upgrade to other products too, once again, cause the laws required them to do so. They charged for a wifi update to a Intel Macs and cited court requirements to do so.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1054948/80211nfee.html
Click to expand...

And people argued at the time about why that specific update was major enough that it required charges whereas hundreds of others didn't. Think of the past few years, where OS upgrades for the entire operating system are now free.

The iPhone is a subscription service as you pay your carrier monthly to use it. Apple gets a cut of your monthly carrier payment too.

As for the Apple TV:

According to the company’s February 1 quarterly filingwith the Securities and Exchange Commission, “For both Apple TV and iPhone, [Apple] indicated it may from time-to-time provide future unspecified features and additional software products free of charge to customers. Therefore, sales of Apple TV and iPhone handsets are recognized under subscription accounting in accordance with SOP No. 97-2.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So why did they choose not to indicate that they may, from time to time provide future items free of charge like they did for Apple TV and the iPhone? Did they just forget to and gosh darn it, they have to charge iPod touch users to upgrade?

I've never owned and never plan to own an iPod touch, but it just seems dishonest to me for them to say they have to when they definitely had a choice in terms of how much to charge, and likely had some choice as to whether or not to charge at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back