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

[phpmaven]

Regarding the battery life..
How long are you expecting to be using it every day? Holding your arm up to look at whatever is on the display for an extended amount of time will cause fatigue. It is intended for quick glances at information and some basic interactions. Also, the display is small enough that most would not want to be doing anything serious with it considering there is an iPhone in their pocket or bag that is much easier on the eyes to complete tasks. Most 3rd party apps will likely act as advanced notifications or remotes that are complementary to the iPhone app.
Sleep tracking is also likely to come in the near future. Considering how small the battery is, it will likely be able to be fully charged between 30mins to 1hr. So you can charge it while having breakfast or on a lunch break and enjoy using it for the rest of the day and night.
The beauty of Watch is that it takes something that people used to only use for time and fashion then goes a huge step further by providing more relevant info to the user, allowing the user to keep in touch with others in new and fun ways, and get the user to be more active and health-conscious. I for one can't wait for April!

I don't get all this whining about the battery life either. So you have to put it on a charger every night. Don't we all do that with our devices already?

 

[richwoodrocket]

Apple will sell millions because they're Apple.
I'm pretty sure they're doing the right thing announcing it and not being clear about release date, causing more anticipation and greater demand, like they did with the mac pro.

 

[sulpfiction]

What they are also saying that they want people to buy new watches at least once in two years and to make their pockets deeper. Pardon me, I honestly don't like any of the apple products except the iPhone. Now the Silicon Valley has adopted the Mac as the cool de'facto and I do one the Macbook pro myself, I can't be happier running windows 7 on it.

You don't like any Apple product except the iPhone..But when you need a computer you buy an MBp (which you don't like) to run windows on it?

 

[Mike MA]

This smart watch trend is BS!

We actually don't know that yet to be fair. Only time and the potential success will tell.

 

[Keirasplace]

Like how the 6 plus lasts longer than the Note 4... Oh wait, it doesn't. Apple had no more tech than the other offerings out there. I think the 19 hour rumor is actually optimistic. This device is meant to be tethered to your iPhone. The tethering aspect alone will nibble at the battery constantly, not only on the watch end, but the phone end as well. I'm hoping they copy Android and utilize turbo charging. My sons phone charges well over half way in 10 minutes, which he says gives him around 8 extra hours of usage.

Right.,.. except reviews proves it lasts just as long as Apple claims (as usual). So, should I call you a liar? A fabulist? Probably.

Tethering uses insignificant power if its Bluetooth LE and the phone is close and the handshake for notification has a very low throughput. This is just a few byte of text, not exactly a deluge to transfer. Little micro-devices of the IOT with minuscule batteries can transfer this kind of info for quite a long bit of time.

This uses way way less power than if you had a WIFI or a cell connection. A smart watch with a cell connection would use a lot more power to keep its connection up, especially in bad reception areas. So, how is tethering to the phone using more power? If anything, it uses LESS power that way.

What uses power in a smart watch is seemingly the high refresh screen, high DPI screen and the GPU to power it. Just like on a phone. Notice that all smart devices that last a long time have very limited screens (refresh rate, color or resolution).

 

[viorelgn]

Is there a product (not just the software) that does them all, and does them well, that will interact with the rest of one's technology to enhance the user experience? I am asking because I don't know, not because I think the answer is no. The problem in the Android community has been the disconnect between the software and hardware manufacturers, between what is promised and what is delivered in the final product. I hear people say that the Android phone experience has improved significantly, but that tablets, and now (presumably) watches are having the same difficulties the phones did initially. Recent market share assessments (which Apple doesn't care about) also provide food for thought about the long-term loyalty of users to Android phones that has been touted in the past.

 

[Elvergun]

Why don't you spend some time and think a bit here.

19 hours (according to your previous post) is a complete day and more. It would mean that you could wake up, go to work, spend a nice evening outside and charge it overnight.

Well, here on Planet Earth a complete day has 24 hours.

A 29 hour watch would not be any better. Look at what would happen. You spend the same day, evening, don’t charge it overnight because it still has juice, and suddenly the watch is empty when you are ready to go to work. Bitching and moaning ensues.

Wow...this is the worst argument I've read in a long time. So now the bad battery life is actually a feature? Apple has the technology to power the watch for more than a day, but they are afraid that their users are going to forget to charge it in the morning, so instead they give us 19 hours. Is that just about right? Wow, just wow.

It hasn't been released yet.

What an incredible amount of nonsense...

There are not enough rolling eyes smilies on the planet for these kinds of comments.

This is macrumors...many of the discussions here revolve around rumors. Rumor has it that the watch will last 19 hours with moderate use, and around 4 hours of heavy use. I'm not making these numbers up, I'm just quoting an article posted in this site. How can you argue in favor of the battery time if it hasn't been released yet? At least some of us are talking about the numbers specified in a macrumors article. You, on the other hand, are saying that a product that has not been released is just about perfect for anyone's needs. You are basing your assumptions on thin air and...errr...a gut feeling, right? Here is a smiley for you:

 

[0098386]

I'd expect the same thing that happens when Apple no longer supports an iPhone, iPad, or computer. Eventually you get a new one. The one thing I believe apple does an outstanding job on is support. Compared to other companies Apple does a better job at supporting their products, and for longer periods of time than the standard 2 years with other companies.

Oh my yes.
However when comparing the price difference between a smart watch and regular watch you have to factor in that a £200 may be a fort-yearly purchase just to keep up to date with rapidly changing tech.

 

[samcraig]

Anybody who knows anything about watches knows that $349 is chump change for watch.

But are those that value high end watched in the market for an Apple Watch?

 

[iSee]

Or even more better, skip the MagSafe disc altogether and charge directly with a Lightning port in the side of the watch itself - - especially since the Lightning port was already designed to be waterproof.

No that's worse! The nice thing about the Apple Watch charger is that you only need to get the disc somewhere near the watch in any rotational orientation and it will snap home and work. As the marketing blurb says, it's easy to do even in the dark when you're half asleep. Lightning connectors aren't bad, but this is better.

Even better would be to have a Lightning port in the disc so you could use the same cable.

You typically need to charge them both around the same time (while sleeping), so that would be only a small benefit. Would be great for frequent travelers, though, who want to travel as lightly as possible -- and who doesn't want to do that?

 

[0098386]

The watch can also sync info/music/calendar (so says Apple's web site), collect heartbeat, accelerometer data (or whatever other info) and also sync it. you can play music untethered from the phone through bluetooth, so not sure why you think it is doing less than the Ipod.

The watch will store music? I haven't heard about that. You might have to provide a link. From what I've seen it'll be a closed unit with no headphone port. Syncing contacts and calendars is great, equal functionality to the 2003 iPod there. Once you're untethered it then acts like one of those (much cheaper) fitness bands.

 

[MH01]

Tim, you need to spent less time with Ives.....

 

[bobob]

There's only so much is going to fit into a wrist-worn device... In fact, very little will fit in a watch form-factor. Apple -- or any other company -- has to be very selective about what's included.

To add GPS they have to take something else away -- there'd be an impact on battery life, or size, weight, screen, etc. Or any combination of those. Considering that the watch is normally paired with a phone, adding GPS on-board only supports a few more use-cases. Yet it would have a big impact on its other properties.

We'll see if Apple has chosen wisely.

Well said! I'm surprised more people here can't grasp the tradeoffs required for engineering. Apple has been working on their watch for more than three years now, so you know they've thought long and hard about the balance which they are aiming for.

And if Apple Watch's mix of features and performance doesn't meet your particular needs, then lucky for you there's a whole spectrum of competing products available! For example, Timex's Iron Man One GPS+ looks like an interesting product for those who really need GPS, and intriguingly it also claims to provide phone-free communication - - with both a GPS antenna and some sort of cell atenna too, it should be interesting to see how they deal with battery resources.

 

[MH01]

The watch will store music? I haven't heard about that. You might have to provide a link. From what I've seen it'll be a closed unit with no headphone port. Syncing contacts and calendars is great, equal functionality to the 2003 iPod there. Once you're untethered it then acts like one of those (much cheaper) fitness bands.

though my cheaper nike band last about a week between charges

 

[peterdevries]

Dear Tim,

You're there to accumulate trillions of $$$$ offshore where its doing nothing useful and moreover avoiding taxes in the US and other economies where the products are sold.

There is no other Company in the World that sells the best "Ever" i-gadget ever other year (so the one that was the best ever before, wasn't actually that good, was it?) on the premise it's making my life better!

The iPhone may have been revolutionary back then, but it's just a phone, an expensive phone, with an Apple Badge.

The Apple watch isn't a watch, it's a $350 gadget that won't tell the time when the battery runs out, and if you spend as much time looking at it in the car (like you do with your iPhone) you'll realise that crashing can be expensive.

Your Apple Watch gadget will only every do what your iPhone already does, and poorly with that tiny little screen, and rubbish battery life - but you'll probably buy one because you think it looks cool.

Well coolio, you are really quite stupid, as you just spent $350 on something quite pointless!

Wow, just wow. A great addition to my ignore list...

 

[diipii]

Way too long in the Apple "up its own arse" bubble.

 

[AppleScruff1]

But are those that value high end watched in the market for an Apple Watch?

Everyone is in the market for an Apple watch! I'm in the process of changing my life now so that when I get my Apple watch it will be able to change my life. Currently the watch won't change my life so I need to make adjustments here and there.

 

[Fishrrman]

I won't be owning an Apple watch (I don't like wristwatches), so I guess my life won't be changed.

Maybe if they came out with a "Apple Pocket Watch"?

Aside:
Don't own an iPhone (or any smartphone), no iPad, either.

Strictly a neanderthal here on a desktop Mac...

 

[Chupa Chupa]

One thing is true: people have placed their bets.

Morgan Stanley predicts 26M sold in 2015 and upped it's target of AAPL to $145. It's not the only firm predicting that kind of opening salvo.

Many at MR suggest that's way too ambitious and the watch is a flop out of the gate. Time will give us our prediction winner but if past predictions are any indication of future accuracy then Morgan Stanley, et. al. wins by default because MR has never been happy or right about any all-new non-Mac Apple gadget.

All of these were declared DOA duds by MR readers when announced:
iPod (Another MP3 player? And $400!)
iPod Mini (It's nearly as expensive as an iPod but with a fraction of the storage)
iPod Nano (Even less storage than the mini!
iPad (A big iPod Touch - who needs that?)
To some extent the iPhone because it was EDGE not 3G
MacBook Air (Not enough ports.)

Heck I remember when the first MacBook Pro was announced and people were livid it didn't have a built-in modem and declared it would flop because pros needed a dial-up modem.

If the Watch does all I think it will do (I can't say for sure because Apple hasn't told me yet everything it will do) out of the gate I'm with MS. But I find it bizarre that the idea of Apple's watch get's so many people irate. Why?

 

[peterdevries]

This is macrumors...many of the discussions here revolve around rumors. Rumor has it that the watch will last 19 hours with moderate use, and around 4 hours of heavy use. I'm not making these numbers up, I'm just quoting an article posted in this site. How can you argue in favor of the battery time if it hasn't been released yet? At least some of us are talking about the numbers specified in a macrumors article. You, on the other hand, are saying that a product that has not been released is just about perfect for anyone's needs. You are basing your assumptions on thin air and...errr...a gut feeling, right? Here is a smiley for you:

I never argued in favour of the battery time and I never made any of these statements. I merely said that we know nothing until it has been released, which is a fact and logically correct.

 

[topmounter]

that's a bold statement

Reminds me of Dean Kamen's bold proclamations leading up to the Segway launch.

 

[samcraig]

One thing is true: people have placed their bets.

Morgan Stanley predicts 26M sold in 2015 and upped it's target of AAPL to $145. It's not the only firm predicting that kind of opening salvo.

Many at MR suggest that's way too ambitious and the watch is a flop out of the gate. Time will give us our prediction winner but if past predictions are any indication of future accuracy then Morgan Stanley, et. al. wins by default because MR has never been happy or right about any all-new non-Mac Apple gadget.

All of these were declared DOA duds by MR readers when announced:
iPod (Another MP3 player? And $400!)
iPod Mini (It's nearly as expensive as an iPod but with a fraction of the storage)
iPod Nano (Even less storage than the mini!
iPad (A big iPod Touch - who needs that?)
To some extent the iPhone because it was EDGE not 3G
MacBook Air (Not enough ports.)

Heck I remember when the first MacBook Pro was announced and people were livid it didn't have a built-in modem and declared it would flop because pros needed a dial-up modem.

If the Watch does all I think it will do (I can't say for sure because Apple hasn't told me yet everything it will do) out of the gate I'm with MS. But I find it bizarre that the idea of Apple's watch get's so many people irate. Why?

For the record - I called Ping when it was announced

Oh - and here is why some people might be itching for a smart watch

http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/08/schools-ban-watches-from-exams/

 

[peterdevries]

Well, here on Planet Earth a complete day has 24 hours.

Are you here to talk about the real essence of what we are discussing or to talk this kind of nonsense? You know that I'm referring to a normal person awake-day.

Wow...this is the worst argument I've read in a long time. So now the bad battery life is actually a feature? Apple has the technology technology to power the watch for more than a day, but they are afraid that their users are going to forget to charge it in the morning, so instead they give us 19 hours. Is that just about right? Wow, just wow.

I see you failed in reading comprehension. I'm talking about use-cases and never stated that Apple reduces the battery life (how can you even conclude that from what I'm writing?) for whatever reason. The point I'm making is that from a usage perspective a 19 hour battery life is not much better than a 29 hour life, because you still end up charging it overnight on the same moment.

Let that sink in for a moment and think logically before you fabricate more nonsense about what people write.

 

[Rogifan]

So you think that Apple is trying to "game" (so to speak) the competition by eliminating functionality to best them on battery life. I say that tongue in cheek. I think Apple will add GPS in the future - whether or not they improve battery life greatly. I do think they (based on the lack of available APIs for developers) are doing everything they can to make sure that at launch, the battery life is as best it can be (best case scenario) for all the reviews and early adopters. I think once people start using the device more and more, they will "accept" less battery life when given greater functionality through apps and V2 with GPS, etc. It's easier to justify

Um, those were completely separate comments responding to different people. No where did I ever say Apple left out GPS to best the competiton on battery life.

 

[chitoac]

It is going to be interesting to see the comments on here after people get their hands on the watch. Think about what happens when you acquire a new device you spend every minute on it learning about its features and trying different things and generally playing. When you discover the battery is dead after 2.5 hours of constant use some might start having buyers remorse.

the same happeend when i first got the iphone, but actually i was exited