Apple Watch users will need to recharge nightly, company still working to improve uptime before laun

1246713

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 242
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

     

    Not convinced at all. Many people don't charge their phones every night - I for example have it plugged in (charging / syncing ...) a lot during the day at work, and in the car when I travel. At weekend I charge at night.

    If Apple can get 2 or 3 days (modest usage) then fine, requiring nightly charge - not fine.


    The people that don't charge their phones every night are either the ones that don't need to (like you) or the ones that run out of power in the middle of the next day. I am a light to moderate phone user and I probably could just get by on 2 days but I would never risk it. If your routine is to charge it nightly (I suspect about 90% of iPhone users do) then your new routine would be to charge your phone and Apple watch nightly. It's not rocket science.

  • Reply 62 of 242
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    rogifan wrote: »
    And circular displays are?

    NO. not at all.

    When Steve Jobs announce the iPod he said it was more than just an MP3 player because it featured "Apple Design". That philosophy died yesterday.

    I was so excited before the reveal that I even drew a possible mockup. It was a flexible display that wraps around the top of your wrist like a balance bracelete.

    I guess I was expecting an iPod/iPhone/iPad-scale revolution.
  • Reply 63 of 242
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

     

    Bu the point is iPads are in a completely different battery class than iPhones and wearables. iPads have about 5x the battery so they need 5x less charging than phones and wearables.


     

     

    Which is why I believe that some people have far too high expectations for the battery life on a tiny smart watch.

  • Reply 64 of 242
    nhtnht Posts: 4,521member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Soundvision View Post

     

    I really want this watch and while I will probably get it, I'm really going to have to retrain myself on how I interact with my watch. Currently I have a kinetic Seiko and it never comes off. I wear it in the shower, I wear it in the ocean, sleeping, at the lake, out on the town, etc. It literally never comes off, it never needs to be charged, it just works. It's going to be next to impossible for smart watches to replace that simplicity, but you are also gaining a lot more capabilities with this watch, so there will be pros and cons.


     

    Buy 2.  Yes, that's a half joking.  But it would work for you although you'd have to take it off to switch...

  • Reply 65 of 242
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    cali wrote: »
    NO. not at all.

    When Steve Jobs announce the iPod he said it was more than just an MP3 player because it featured "Apple Design". That philosophy died yesterday.

    I was so excited before the reveal that I even drew a possible mockup. It was a flexible display that wraps around the top of your wrist like a balance bracelete.

    I guess I was expecting an iPod/iPhone/iPad-scale revolution.

    Your problem for setting expectations so high on a segment that's in its infancy. Plus I doubt we'll ever see an iPhone like revolution again.
  • Reply 66 of 242
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

     

    The people that don't charge their phones every night are either the ones that don't need to (like you) or the ones that run out of power in the middle of the next day. I am a light to moderate phone user and I probably could just get by on 2 days but I would never risk it. If your routine is to charge it nightly (I suspect about 90% of iPhone users do) then your new routine would be to charge your phone and Apple watch nightly. It's not rocket science.


    Rocket science isn't that difficult to comprehend - now rocket engineering can get pretty tricky...

    I think I can just about grasp that routines would have to change, they WOULD, thats obvious (not being rocket science and all) but my point is that having to do that to something strapped to your wrist, and having to take a charger every time you travelled is a big pain in the ass.

    I believe Apple will NOT ship, until that can get several days of moderate use between charges.

    Achieving that is akin to rocket science, but Apple are more than capable.

  • Reply 67 of 242

    I'd like to ask an obvious question.

     

    Why is this not solar powered? Solar cells can easily be placed under certain surfaces, like the black borders on screens.

     

    How do I know this? My current solar powered watch.

     

    Even if you are only able to fit a few photovoltaic cells, carrying it around with you should allow for a significant amount of power recharging or at the least minimize the DAILY charging requirement.

     

    Sorry Apple but this Revision 1 of your watch feels like a dud. Let's get with the advancements in solar energy technology.

  • Reply 68 of 242
    rwesrwes Posts: 191member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post





    Yeah good luck convincing you're bro to buy an AppleWatch. I see millions of people lusting over an AppleWatch but settling for a crappy Samsung Gear. If Rolex required ownership of a poodle to buy their watch I would see a lot of millionaires settling for less.

    Like you said, the problem could have been fixed easily, I personally don't have an AppleWatch compatible iPhone and wanted to be the first in my circle of friends to own one. I threw that idea out the window yesterday. WHY THE HELL CAN I NOT USE MY MAC to set it up!???



    I'm hoping gen 2 allows standalone play.



    Regarding battery life. I live in HOT a** Arizona. I run at night, I'd hate to be tracking my run only to have my battery die out. What a mess Apple!!

     

    I think Apples bet in this case is lots more people have compatible iPhones than do Macs (not PC's)? And the thing is, it wouldn't be difficult to convince him (so I'd need no luck). Lots of people arent anti-iOS or anti-Android; yes some pick based on price, but lots pick what works for them also (screen size, software flexibility ("cognitive headache")). He's an engineer. If he were to use an Apple watch next to Samsung Gear, I'd bet money he'd pick the Apple watch and not because he knows I'm heavily invested into Apple's ecosystem, but because he'd clearly see which is the more responsive, better optioned and better feeling device. I know that statement can't be said for all shoppers out there, but it can be said for some. However, it's no good to him currently; he doesn't have an iPhone.

     

    And gen 1 I'd bet can work alone (via some software update), *if* Apple wanted it to.

  • Reply 69 of 242
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post



     I see millions of people lusting over an AppleWatch but settling for a crappy Samsung Gear. 

     

    Those people are insignificant.

     

    Believe me, there are plenty of people who will be buying this ?Watch.

     

    And $349 is only for the cheapest model! People will be spending over a thousand for certain models I believe.

     

    This is a luxury item, a companion watch for an iPhone. 

  • Reply 70 of 242
    nhtnht Posts: 4,521member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

     

    sony NEX / Nikon cameras I do not charge every night


     

    Lol...then you aren't taking any/many pictures every day.  I have 3 batteries for my Nikon.  I've burned through 2 in a day.  One sits in the charger (its a smart one so it won't fry) in case I'm stupid and forget to charge after using my camera after grabbing my camera one day discovering it had a half charge and the spare was flat.  I had to use my phone after a bit.

  • Reply 71 of 242
    cali wrote: »
    NO. not at all.

    When Steve Jobs announce the iPod he said it was more than just an MP3 player because it featured "Apple Design". That philosophy died yesterday.

    I was so excited before the reveal that I even drew a possible mockup. It was a flexible display that wraps around the top of your wrist like a balance bracelete.

    I guess I was expecting an iPod/iPhone/iPad-scale revolution.

    Surely it's what it does that is of primary importance. Having a revolutionary form factor just to look different isn't a great idea. iPod may have looked totally different to it's predecessors, but even the oldest MP3 player wasn't more than a decade old, and when you get down to brass tacks it's not like it was utterly unrecognisable when measured against it's peers. Watched have had hundreds if years on our wrists, and thousands of design iterations in the past. It's sort of settled what a watch looks like, or rather, what a watch can look like. This watch just falls into the understood spectrum of watch design. Nothing wrong with that to me, having some weird and wacky bracelet is both a) not adding to functionality, and b) Star Trek territory in terms of being possible with today's tech.
  • Reply 72 of 242
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    I do. My iPads get heavy use during the day. I make it a habit to plug them in each night.


    My iPads get heavy use too. In fact we use iPads as document distribution for things we build and design. They are amazing for this ( good reader)   but they are plugged in enough while not being used, and simply not charged 7 nights a week, habitually like you do. 

    The watch is strapped to my wrist - so its not going to get plugged in to something as frequently - 

    if you can deal with charging a watch nightly - great - many people will dislike the pain.

  • Reply 73 of 242
    nhtnht Posts: 4,521member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

     

    I'd like to ask an obvious question.

     

    Why is this not solar powered? Solar cells can easily be placed under certain surfaces, like the black borders on screens.

     

    How do I know this? My current solar powered watch.

     

    Even if you are only able to fit a few photovoltaic cells, carrying it around with you should allow for a significant amount of power recharging or at the least minimize the DAILY charging requirement.

     

    Sorry Apple but this Revision 1 of your watch feels like a dud. Let's get with the advancements in solar energy technology.


     

    A) because it looks like ass

    B) because it generates so little power that it's meaningless.  Your solar powered watch uses practically no power. Smart watches with active displays (as opposed to eInk) are energy hogs.

  • Reply 74 of 242
    rwesrwes Posts: 191member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

     

    I'd like to ask an obvious question.

     

    Why is this not solar powered? Solar cells can easily be placed under certain surfaces, like the black borders on screens.

     

    How do I know this? My current solar powered watch.

     

    Even if you are only able to fit a few photovoltaic cells, carrying it around with you should allow for a significant amount of power recharging or at the least minimize the DAILY charging requirement.

     

    Sorry Apple but this Revision 1 of your watch feels like a dud. Let's get with the advancements in solar energy technology.


     

    The kinetic charging makes more sense that solar, no? You'd have to take your watch off an sit it in direct sunlight because sunlight doesn't hit your write that readily and you'd have to factor in the fact that electronics don't like heat.

     

    But for both kinetic or solar, you'd have to consider the electronics required to make it work and what that would do to the size of the device vs the amount of power that could be generated.

     

    They're not magicians?

  • Reply 75 of 242
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    ...having to take a charger every time you travelled is a big pain in the ass.

    If you hate devices that require regular top-ups then you must HATE your car.

    ;)
  • Reply 76 of 242
    As a potential consumer for this product, I would find less than a day battery life pretty off-putting. I take off my watch every night, so it's not as though I wouldn't be able to, it's just that I occasionally forget, and that's sort of a pain.

    Not sure if anyone mentioned it or not, but perhaps they are working on perfecting this:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/179837/apple-updates-solar-patent-to-include-multitouch-flexible-displays

    to help extend battery life. If so, that would be great and maybe offer a surprise in terms of battery longevity. We shall see...
  • Reply 77 of 242
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post

     

     

    Lol...then you aren't taking any/many pictures every day.  I have 3 batteries for my Nikon.  I've burned through 2 in a day.  One sits in the charger (its a smart one so it won't fry) in case I'm stupid and forget to charge after using my camera after grabbing my camera one day discovering it had a half charge and the spare was flat.  I had to use my phone after a bit.


    Thats true - most days I take NO pictures, somedays quite a few - and yes - I have extra batteries always on charge. SO what I don't have to do, is habitually plug in my cameras nightly. I can easily to away for the night, and now perhaps take my RX100, and don't have to remember a charger, or even a spare battery.

  • Reply 78 of 242
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post





    I owned square watches a decade ago. I used to collect watches back when I had money to spare. Point being, the design is not revolutionary in the slightest. Those concept watches made by Joe Schmo look so much more revolutionary.

    Perhaps the "revolution" such as it is: is in the actual functionality?

     

    Rather than rectangles?

     

    I do like the classic Cartier Tanks though, and that doesn't diminish the advances offered by the Apple Watch one bit.

  • Reply 79 of 242
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

     

    I dont - i use my iPad Ir frequently through the day, and evening, ( i have a couple) and I don't need to charge them nightly.

    When I go on a couple of day business trip, i too take my cordless toothbrush, but i don't need to take the charger.

    nightly charging of the ?watch would be ( & I doubt apple will let it happen) a reason that many people will either not buy, or buy, then neglect it in a draw after the novelty wears off


     

    And how many times a day do you brush your teeth?

  • Reply 80 of 242
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

     

    Rocket science isn't that difficult to comprehend - now rocket engineering can get pretty tricky...

    I think I can just about grasp that routines would have to change, they WOULD, thats obvious (not being rocket science and all) but my point is that having to do that to something strapped to your wrist, and having to take a charger every time you travelled is a big pain in the ass.

    I believe Apple will NOT ship, until that can get several days of moderate use between charges.

    Achieving that is akin to rocket science, but Apple are more than capable.


    I assumed it's just a USB cable on one end and a round magsafe on the other end. The AC power adapter is the same as the iPhone so only need to bring a cable with you to charge the watch too. Unless you buy the fancy Apple Watch Edition which has the jewelry case that doubles as a charger but no one would lug that around when they can just bring a cable.

Sign In or Register to comment.