7 ms·

It's just over half of what some Android Wear devices are doing, and I'd characterize them as having short battery lifes. It's 15-20% of what the Pebble gets.

It's just over half of what some Android Wear devices are doing, and I'd characterize them as having short battery lifes. It's 15-20% of what the Pebble gets. In my book, that adds up to extremely short.

gress 11y ago
Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. Calling it 'extremely short'is misrepresentative.
- commandar 11y ago
  >Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. An electric flying car with a two mile range may have drastically different functionality than an old diesel hatchback with a 15 gallon tank, but that doesn't mean that the electric flying car has sufficient range to meet the needs of more people. See? I can do hyperbole, too. >For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. The fact that expectations were low doesn't change the fact that the battery life is still very limited. I think smartwatches have potential to be highly useful devices. I think that usefulness is also significantly curtailed by current battery life. The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day would lead me to call the battery life extremely short regardless of other wearables are doing. The fact that it's being outpaced by those other options just exacerbates it.
  - gress 11y ago
    Actually you've walked back some of your hyperbole. The fact is that battery life that satisfies the needs of the vast majority of users cannot reasonably be called 'extremely short'. The Apple watch can clearly be relied on to remain useful for a single 24 hour day. Your statement to the contrary is flatly false, and is contradicted by both Apple's testing and reviewers experience. I am not convinced at all that not supporting sleep tracking is a valid reason for wanting longer battery life for the Apple watch. It has to be charged at some point, so what happens then? Sleep tracking is certainly valuable, but why is the watch the right hardware for that? Many people don't like wearing watches in bed, and sleep tracking can be done with much simpler hardware than the Apple Watch. Why not do it using a $30 headless sensor instead?
    - commandar 11y ago
      > Your statement to the contrary is flatly false Apple themselves only rate the watch for 18 hours. So you're contending that Apple is intentionally listing a battery 50% lower than what the device can actually do? ....or it can't be relied to remain useful for a continuous 24 hour period. So where's the flatly false statement here? >Sleep tracking is certainly valuable, but why is the watch the right hardware for that? Many people don't like wearing watches in bed, and sleep tracking can be done with much simpler hardware than the Apple Watch. Why not do it using a $30 headless sensor instead? Sleep tracking is just a single, obvious use where it makes a difference now. What I'm contending is that wearables that require the use to actively think about battery life aren't going to live up to the potential of the devices as a class. I went absurd with the flying car thing because I feel like you're being kind of ridiculous here, but electric cars actually do highlight exactly what I'm talking about. Electric cars didn't become viable for the vast majority of people until ranges got to the point that they could easily exceed the distances people travel on a regular basis. And because you still don't seem to understand what I mean by "extremely short" and want to keep harping on it - if the rumor mill thought an electric car was going to launch with a 5 mile range and it launched with a 10 mile range, it might be exceeding expectations, but I'd still call that "extremely short" and feel it worthy of criticism. It may be better than what people were expecting and it may even do things its competitors don't, but it's still a fundamental problem. I will say this again: I'm interested in wearables, I think they have a ton of potential, and I think you're insane if you don't think 18 hours of battery life drastically limits their realistic utility.
      - gress 11y ago
        You said originally: > The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day... This statement is false. Apple's 18 hour battery claim clearly supports that, because the vast majority of humans sleep for 6 hours or more. In your reply you added the word 'continuous' to your earlier statement to create: "...or it can't be relied on to remain useful for a continuous 24 hour period." That's not what you originally stated, and it's irrelevant anyway because humans don't need 24 hours of continuous use from devices. Charging a device every night while you sleep requires you to actively think about battery life less than a device that only needs to be on some nights because for those devices you have to think about whether to charge them or not. Of course you can always mitigate this by charging every night. Therefore, if not having to think about battery life is an important criterion, the Apple watch does live up to the potential of the devices as a class every bit as much as a device with longer battery life. Of course a device with longer battery life does have advantages - e.g. Going camping away from power for a few days, etc. but this just illustrates the point that longer battery life supports less common use cases, and is without question not a 'fundamental problem'. Lack of support for uncommon use cases cannot be reasonably said to 'drastically limit realistic utility'. Like I said, I agree that longer battery life provides an improvement, but it is a marginal one. Claims like 'extremely short' and 'drastically limited' are exaggerations.

gress 11y ago

Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. Calling it 'extremely short'is misrepresentative.

commandar 11y ago
>Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. An electric flying car with a two mile range may have drastically different functionality than an old diesel hatchback with a 15 gallon tank, but that doesn't mean that the electric flying car has sufficient range to meet the needs of more people. See? I can do hyperbole, too. >For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. The fact that expectations were low doesn't change the fact that the battery life is still very limited. I think smartwatches have potential to be highly useful devices. I think that usefulness is also significantly curtailed by current battery life. The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day would lead me to call the battery life extremely short regardless of other wearables are doing. The fact that it's being outpaced by those other options just exacerbates it.
- gress 11y ago
  Actually you've walked back some of your hyperbole. The fact is that battery life that satisfies the needs of the vast majority of users cannot reasonably be called 'extremely short'. The Apple watch can clearly be relied on to remain useful for a single 24 hour day. Your statement to the contrary is flatly false, and is contradicted by both Apple's testing and reviewers experience. I am not convinced at all that not supporting sleep tracking is a valid reason for wanting longer battery life for the Apple watch. It has to be charged at some point, so what happens then? Sleep tracking is certainly valuable, but why is the watch the right hardware for that? Many people don't like wearing watches in bed, and sleep tracking can be done with much simpler hardware than the Apple Watch. Why not do it using a $30 headless sensor instead?
  - commandar 11y ago
    > Your statement to the contrary is flatly false Apple themselves only rate the watch for 18 hours. So you're contending that Apple is intentionally listing a battery 50% lower than what the device can actually do? ....or it can't be relied to remain useful for a continuous 24 hour period. So where's the flatly false statement here? >Sleep tracking is certainly valuable, but why is the watch the right hardware for that? Many people don't like wearing watches in bed, and sleep tracking can be done with much simpler hardware than the Apple Watch. Why not do it using a $30 headless sensor instead? Sleep tracking is just a single, obvious use where it makes a difference now. What I'm contending is that wearables that require the use to actively think about battery life aren't going to live up to the potential of the devices as a class. I went absurd with the flying car thing because I feel like you're being kind of ridiculous here, but electric cars actually do highlight exactly what I'm talking about. Electric cars didn't become viable for the vast majority of people until ranges got to the point that they could easily exceed the distances people travel on a regular basis. And because you still don't seem to understand what I mean by "extremely short" and want to keep harping on it - if the rumor mill thought an electric car was going to launch with a 5 mile range and it launched with a 10 mile range, it might be exceeding expectations, but I'd still call that "extremely short" and feel it worthy of criticism. It may be better than what people were expecting and it may even do things its competitors don't, but it's still a fundamental problem. I will say this again: I'm interested in wearables, I think they have a ton of potential, and I think you're insane if you don't think 18 hours of battery life drastically limits their realistic utility.
    - gress 11y ago
      You said originally: > The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day... This statement is false. Apple's 18 hour battery claim clearly supports that, because the vast majority of humans sleep for 6 hours or more. In your reply you added the word 'continuous' to your earlier statement to create: "...or it can't be relied on to remain useful for a continuous 24 hour period." That's not what you originally stated, and it's irrelevant anyway because humans don't need 24 hours of continuous use from devices. Charging a device every night while you sleep requires you to actively think about battery life less than a device that only needs to be on some nights because for those devices you have to think about whether to charge them or not. Of course you can always mitigate this by charging every night. Therefore, if not having to think about battery life is an important criterion, the Apple watch does live up to the potential of the devices as a class every bit as much as a device with longer battery life. Of course a device with longer battery life does have advantages - e.g. Going camping away from power for a few days, etc. but this just illustrates the point that longer battery life supports less common use cases, and is without question not a 'fundamental problem'. Lack of support for uncommon use cases cannot be reasonably said to 'drastically limit realistic utility'. Like I said, I agree that longer battery life provides an improvement, but it is a marginal one. Claims like 'extremely short' and 'drastically limited' are exaggerations.