Not being facetious here but what are the technological advances in batteries the last 20 years? Seems this is one area of technology that really hasn't kept pace. It was reported earlier this year that Apple had meetings with Elon Musk and Tesla. Could be about battery technology. The ?Watch could have been designed much thinner but the battery life would have sucked. Apple appears committed to getting this right and I'm sure that's why they are not ready to release. I don't know exactly when "early 2015" will be but I hope it's enough time for them to make improvements.
Speaking of "thinner" watch, I've seen a lot of negative comments about the ?Watch being too thick and bulky but have read many reviewers who had early "hands-on" with it remark that it looks much better in person.
mrboba1 wrote: »
Those talking about the need to charge the Watch each night obviously forgot about the first iPhone:
Everyone derided the fact that "what? I can't have it usable for 3-4 days on one charge?"
Now no one even remembers how long the little flip phones could last...
And to compare it to a fitbit with respect to sleeping with it on: when I wore a watch, I took it off every night. It wasn't good for a watch to stay on all night, it could/would get dinged up, and most (decent) watchmakers recommend that you take it off at night. Again, this is no different (as long as one can definitely make it through the day)
My reply to this was it was an odd point, you claim its a valid point. Is that supposed to be contradictory?
Simply - i dislike having to fill my car with gas, but I don't hate any of my cars. Thats just stupid.
But who flies of a handle when having to fill up - not sure of your point here
Thanks for your help in making me realize at one time we could not take our phones with me. I just checked wikipedia - it turns out there was even civilization before phones were invented. Who would have thought...
anyhow - im not flying of handles, hating on my cars or anything of the sort, and yes people adapt. NO, solar panels and other energy generating mechanism are not yet developed ( as far as commonly known in science and engineering) to help improve battery life. However, technology, is already with us that ought to be able to get this ?watch to last more than 24 hours, albeit with much of that in standby. Pebble did it - ugly but true - and yes, without an active display - so it depends how long in the 24 hours the display is lit up!
Anyone on these forums (any forums) can claim whatever they like about themselves, I'm the wrong side of 50, but i have designed an awful lot of (industrial) instruments. One of them for Scoliosis patients had to last 3 years. Simply not cleaning the PCB sufficiently would drain enough nA to make it fail.
last I'm not complaining - its my view, and it fits within this topic that having to charge every night will be inconvenient to the point where some potential buyers will not buy, and some buyers will stop wearing it every day.
Apparently, I free to leave my current location - so I may not get back to this thread until this evening
The Moto 360 was torn down, and found to have an outdated TI OMAP processor in it. We know Apple has made a custom SoC for the Apple Watch (called the S1), so you've gotta think that with Apples tight control over the hardware and software that they will have an advantage in this area compared to everyone else using off-the-shelf processors.
This article states it is getting about the same on-time as the other smart watches, so it would appear they don't have the advantage you claim
Everyone does it with every battery device they own…
Only if those devices are made by Apple.
mistergsf wrote: »
Not being facetious here but what are the technological advances in batteries the last 20 years? Seems this is one area of technology that really hasn't kept pace. It was reported earlier this year that Apple had meetings with Elon Musk and Tesla. Could be about battery technology. The ?Watch could have been designed much thinner but the battery life would have sucked. comments about the ?Watch being too thick and bulky but have read many reviewers who had early "hands-on" with it remark that it looks much better in person.
awilliams87 wrote: »
You're going to be smashed by the other Apple fans. I too was disappointed with what I saw. I was more excited by the Mac Cube than this watch.
In 2013, there wasn't a single Apple product I wouldn't want to buy. In just a few months, Apple manage to acquire three that I wouldn't possibly dream of getting: Beats headphones, Beats pill crap and now the Apple Watch. I want to pull out my phone to check on things. Why in the world people think it's better to default to a watch is just beyond me. I love the health aspect of the watch (I originally thought Apple would simply release a health/fitness wristband that would have a weeks battery life and track sleep), but the other features just doesn't make any sense to me. It's just a duplication of the functionality already present on your phone...
Maybe we simply lack imagination.
Yeah, see, it already has a touchscreen.
mrboba1 wrote: »
So because you didn't know what it does makes it bad? That seems to be a "you" problem, not a device problem. No one truly knows what it does, because no one out of Apple has actually used one.
The coolest thing that I remember is that it can tell you when and which way to turn while giving directions based on a directional tap.
They report share. They like more share when they get it. They don't chase share. Any long term apple fan is familiar with this.
They DO NOT CARE THEY CAN ONLY REACH 10% OF THE US SMARTPHONE MARKET. Even if that were a true statement. Because that 10% is the ones with the most disposable income to buy a luxury item.
Because you were whining about Apple only having 40% share in the US. Who has the rest? Android. So if you don't want Android support because it would be garbage what other phone would they have?
And an iPod touch is not a phone.
Why the hell would anyone listen to you anyway since you don't own an iPhone either?
The watch doesn't need touch ID to achieve 2 factor safety. Which you would understand if you had a clue.
And yes, its more important for the phone to have higher security because folks leave their phones behind all the time. So requiring a biometric key to pay is useful because the phone might be unlocked. An object literally attached to your wrist not so much. Even if that happens (you lose your watch) they cannot use your apple pay unless you are standing so close that it still is connected to your phone. Which is why touch ID is not required.
No. It's just there is no record of what you claim. From where I sit you're a concern troll.
"Charge nightly" or "about a day" mean absolutely nothing. I know of no agreed upon amount of time ascribed to those terms.
It will get about 12 hours of normal use when it ships, plus or minus an hour. The only question for me is will that include the screen being on all that time? A device like this only makes sense if I can glance down at it and see what it is telling me. If I have to "wake" it first, the watch is garbage.
Personally, any device of this type is a non-starter until it hits 18 hours of use with the screen on the entire time. I am guessing we are 3-4 years away from that.
If I read correctly, it sounds like the watch display is off until you raise your wrist to look at the time. Not sure if a simple turn of the wrist does that, too. You're right. If I need both hands to look at the time, then that's a big problem. That kind of two-handed operation reminds me of the old LED watches from the 1970s!
As for 12 hours, that definitely won't cut it. I feel confident Apple will get at least 24 hours out of the battery.
tallest skil wrote: »
Yeah, see, it already has a touchscreen.
Not being facetious here but what are the technological advances in batteries the last 20 years? Seems this is one area of technology that really hasn't kept pace. It was reported earlier this year that Apple had meetings with Elon Musk and Tesla. Could be about battery technology.
You are correct. To be fair, batteries have improved at larger sizes (think of NiCd, NiMH, Li-Ion), but we haven't seen the "next major leap" in the technology. There's definite research going on, but as I understand it, getting the right chemistry is challenging! The next major leap in batteries needs to use more abundant/common elements while providing the right power and longevity.
It's not the setting up that's the issue. The ?watch is in large part just a proxy display device for the iPhone. The phone contains the WiFi, Cellular and GPS transceivers. I doubt much at all except apps is stored on the watch itself. This thing needs an invisible bluetooth umbilical cord attached to something else otherwise about all it can do on it's own is tell the time and that your heart is still working.
Did you not watch the keynote?
What do you see when you take fat fingers and put them on a tiny display? You don't see crap, because 80% of the display is being hidden and obscured by fat fingers! The Digital Crown eliminates that problem, and users have a choice. When you use the crown, you get to see 100% of what is visible on the display, not just a tiny fraction.
And it's not just a touch screen, but it's also pressure sensitive! Even the iPhone and iPad doesn't have that yet.
The ?watch is in large part just a proxy display device for the iPhone.
Yep, the ?Watch is not a stand alone device. It's a companion piece for the iPhone.