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

Tim Cook: Our Objective With Apple Watch Is to Change the Way People Live Their Lives

Dave245 said:
At the moment the battery life is just a rumour, but even if true, the Watch will not be used every second of every day. We don't walk around constantly looking at our watches. I don't mind charging at night time it's when i charge my phone anyway, i don't need my devices when i'm asleep. Let's just see what :apple: have for us first, after all there are a few things that are still secret.
Click to expand...

Its not a rumor. You know the size of the thing, so unless its star trek hour battery life will suck balls.
 
thekeyring said:
The thing is until it's actually tested in real world use, or even until Apple actually announce a battery life more than "you'll wind up charing it daily" we don't know. So to say it has a "massive drawback" because it won't last all day is pessimistic, or at the very least, premature.

If the rumours are 19 hour battery life, but really it's 15, that still takes you from a 6am start to 9pm.
Click to expand...

You can kil your smart phone in 10h now, so what is the point, that there is an usage that will kill the battery in 15h, well there is... I'm sure there are usage that will kill it in 10h... Just like cell phones.. Guess I'm throwing my cell away now... Or maybe my usage gets it to 30h, or it least to the evening... Wow, no need to trash my cell phone... I'm so happy about that.
There is so mental dishonesty coming from people who drone incessantly about the battery.

.
 
tkermit said:
People (myself among them) gladly paid $399 for an MP3 player in 2001. Why wouldn't they spend less than that for something that does a lot more today?
Click to expand...

Interesting point. Few observations though. Apple probably wouldn't be happy about 2001 iPod sales numbers for iWatch. Also at the moment many of iWatch features are already available on other devices from Apple or some other companies. In that sense competition is way different than it was for iPod in 2001.

Having said that I do think iWatch will sell a lot. More than iPod in it's first year anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#mediaviewer/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg
 
maflynn said:
So, I get up at 6, go to work, use my watch, and then decide to go out to the movies, and a dinner. The watch dies at 9:00pm.

Doesn't seem too good, not for a 400 or 500 dollar watch.

I don't understand how so many people accept such a short life span on a very expensive product. Yes, so far its only rumors, but its on topic, because it hard to have a life changing product when said product may not last the entire day.
Click to expand...

Its not a rumor if you have basic deduction skills and some common sense.
 
maflynn said:
So, I get up at 6, go to work, use my watch, and then decide to go out to the movies, and a dinner. The watch dies at 9:00pm.

Doesn't seem too good, not for a 400 or 500 dollar watch.

I don't understand how so many people accept such a short life span on a very expensive product. Yes, so far its only rumors, but its on topic, because it hard to have a life changing product when said product may not last the entire day.
Click to expand...

What hasn't been said is how long it takes to charge. Are we talking 20 min? An hour? 3 hours? That's also a factor I believe.

Keirasplace said:
You can kil your smart phone in 10h now, so what is the point, that there is an usage that will kill the battery in 15h, well there is... I'm sure there are usage that will kill it in 10h... Just like cell phones.. Guess I'm throwing my cell away now... Or maybe my usage gets it to 30h, or it least to the evening... Wow, no need to trash my cell phone... I'm so happy about that.
There is so mental dishonesty coming from people who drone incessantly about the battery.

.
Click to expand...

People keep posting similar thoughts - but it's pretty irrelevant. It's possible to have different desires/expectations from one device and not another. They aren't the same devices.

However - what I will say is that ultimately, this shouldn't be a surprise. Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc - all of them have a similar battery capacity and run for about the same time (give or take). Why people think Apple would be radically different is beyond me. This is where the tech is at this stage.
 
maflynn said:
So, I get up at 6, go to work, use my watch, and then decide to go out to the movies, and a dinner.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're that guy texting on his watch throughout the entire movie in the seat in front of me!
 
samcraig said:
What hasn't been said is how long it takes to charge. Are we talking 20 min? An hour? 3 hours? That's also a factor I believe.



People keep posting similar thoughts - but it's pretty irrelevant. It's possible to have different desires/expectations from one device and not another. They aren't the same devices.

However - what I will say is that ultimately, this shouldn't be a surprise. Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc - all of them have a similar battery capacity and run for about the same time (give or take). Why people think Apple would be radically different is beyond me. This is where the tech is at this stage.
Click to expand...

My retina MBP charges in 3 hours. This thing will charge inside an hour.
 
samcraig said:
What hasn't been said is how long it takes to charge. Are we talking 20 min? An hour? 3 hours? That's also a factor I believe.
Click to expand...
Indeed it would be. Wireless charging would be a plus as well. I'm not familair with how it would charge and time to charge.

My Fitbit Surge charges fairly quickly but not 20 minutes. That battery is rated for a week, but I use the GPS for running so that drastically reduces the lifespan. I think after an hour of charging its nearly back full.
 
maflynn said:
Indeed it would be. Wireless charging would be a plus as well. I'm not familair with how it would charge and time to charge.

My Fitbit Surge charges fairly quickly but not 20 minutes. That battery is rated for a week, but I use the GPS for running so that drastically reduces the lifespan. I think after an hour of charging its nearly back full.
Click to expand...

And people wonder why Watch doesn't have GPS.

----------
BvizioN said:
I thought that would be your answer (since you don't have the answer)
Click to expand...

Isn't there a slight possibility that Apple will low-ball battery estimates to make actual usage looks better?
 
samcraig said:
What hasn't been said is how long it takes to charge. Are we talking 20 min? An hour? 3 hours? That's also a factor I believe.



People keep posting similar thoughts - but it's pretty irrelevant. It's possible to have different desires/expectations from one device and not another. They aren't the same devices.

However - what I will say is that ultimately, this shouldn't be a surprise. Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc - all of them have a similar battery capacity and run for about the same time (give or take). Why people think Apple would be radically different is beyond me. This is where the tech is at this stage.
Click to expand...

Actually, Apple's device are smaller (you can calculate the volume yourself if you have spare time :) than any of the competition, especially the smallest one (about 40% smaller than the Gear). Considering that their chip is custom and possibly on smaller process (except maybe Samsung, on the same) and highly integrated with the OS, going just the same time as the competition with the same usage is improbable. They may not have a big advantage, but there should be some advantage.

If they indeed do a good day with the small one. That would be very interesting indeed. Having a brick on your wrist is a big reason those things are laughed at. Having them smaller opens a whole new market.

The small one is obviously aimed at women and men who want something discreet on their wrist and don't mind just doing the day. The bigger one would be for men (and women) with a more heavy usage pattern.
 
MacrumoursUser said:
Its not a rumor. You know the size of the thing, so unless its star trek hour battery life will suck balls.
Click to expand...

Until someone gets their hands on one and tears it down, we won't know how much is filled with battery.

Also, we don't know how much power it uses. The custom OS seems to be designed to use as little power as possible to maximise battery life.

So... we don't actually *know* anything.
 
AdonisSMU said:
All those features aren't coming with Gen 1. Apple will piece mail them to us depending upon how fast Samsung and various other Android vendors can copy the features.
Click to expand...

Copy? Android smart watches and Samsungs 3G version have been out there for a while.
 
fitshaced said:
The iPhone 3GS didn't last very long battery wise and you had to ration your use in order for it to stay alive for the day. It's true of this watch but the iPhone not only survived but prospered in spite of the poor battery. Other phones lasted much longer for their main purpose of being a phone. The iPhone had been critters on its battery life up to the 5S but still sold in the millions and people didn't just use them, think them as gimmicky and throw them away.

The benefit of an iPhone was more apparent when it was first announced than the Apple Watch is today. However, the iPhone didn't have a physical keyboard which people thought ridiculous and a deal breaker. It also didn't do 3G when most top of the line phones did at the time. It was successful amongst it's limitations. That's what the Apple Watch will be.

It is a new device that offers something people won't have an immediate use. But as Tim Cook said, the iPod wasn't a requirement. Mini disk didn't skip, you could carry a large collection of music around without being limited to the disk capacity on an MP3 (which usually only held about 1-2gb). The iPod offered more as does the Apple Watch over the other smart watches.

Version 2 should be called Apple Watch Marathon if it can last the distance of a slow marathon runner without a tether to an iPhone. I'm talking about my own needs here as I will be running a slow marathon this year and would prefer to not bring my massive iPhone 6 plus with me.
Click to expand...

I think the 3GS is a bad comparison, consider:
1. It was not first gen device
2. It's battery life for all the phone did, was superior to any other phone on the market at the time. Battery tech has come a long way since then! And it was great for it's time

iPod is being used to create buzz for a product that is entering a product category that so far has been a failure... but comparing it to the iPod is not relevant.

Yeah, there were bad mp3 players before the iPod.... but the Smart watches out in the wild now are not bad. They have great interfaces, pretty much all the features of the Apple Watch less Apple pay (and Google Wallet is coming in the next round), and their battery lives are already superior to the projections on the iWatch in many models.

This is a contest... and the winner won't be Apple or Google... it will be the developers who take boring tech with lots of potential, and bring that potential to life just like they did with the iPhone and Android phones.

Android wear already has a growing catalogue of apps http://www.androidauthority.com/best-android-wear-apps-535742/
But I do think developers will follow the trend and put out the show stoppers with Apple (once they get a usable SDK.)

Then those Apps will hit competing OS-es, and that's when we'll see if the smart watch category is going to be the next iPod in terms of a hit... or if it will be the next gimmick that we all find at Big lots for $25 in two years.
 
AdonisSMU said:
Thats the point. People regularly spend hundreds of dollars on less. Apple watch isnt even close to being rolex expensive.
Click to expand...

The point is, in the most part I don't even think it is the money

I have to be honest, I don't feel I would even buy one for $99.
Probably not even for $49

Why?

Because it's not good enough as a product at any price, FOR ME.

If it WAS good enough for me, I'd easy spend over $500
 
'They were fundamentally hard to use -- the user interface was bad and you almost needed a PhD to use them'

Been a while since Cook was sarcastic. A PhD, ha ha ha
 
Rogifan said:
And people wonder why Watch doesn't have GPS.
Click to expand...
I am disappointed but yes, the battery consumption on the GPS is huge. The battery is rated for 5 hours of straight GPS usage which isn't enough for use with hiking or marathons. I love my Fitbit Surge, and the battery is good in that it lasts a long time (compared to MS Band) but I can understand on one level why Apple chose not to include it.

For me though that killed any hope of my getting the apple watch. I use the Fitbit to track my running, I don't want to carry my iPhone 6+ on a run which is why I have the Fitbit. Apple's answer for tracking my running is to carry the iPhone, which kind of defeats the purpose (at least for me).
 
maflynn said:
So, I get up at 6, go to work, use my watch, and then decide to go out to the movies, and a dinner. The watch dies at 9:00pm.

Doesn't seem too good, not for a 400 or 500 dollar watch.

I don't understand how so many people accept such a short life span on a very expensive product. Yes, so far its only rumors, but its on topic, because it hard to have a life changing product when said product may not last the entire day.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a great point. Will it last when you have a very long day?

If it lasts "all day" then a Friday when you're up early and out late might reach 20 hours of use.

When your phones running low after a day at work and you're headed straight out, you can bring a charger to the office. If people have to do the same for their watch, that will be a pain. We'll see what Apple do... :)
 
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