Apple Watch will likely require daily charging, Cook says

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 96
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,293member
    I know we the battery wouldn't last more than 2 days. Apple can't break the laws of physics. A lot of people were saying that the Apple Watch would last longer than all others on the market. Not so much.
  • Reply 22 of 96
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Sad. Whoever wrote that this is Apple's Edsel wasn't far off. I can't imagine anyone wanting this after that remark. Not only is it unattractive but needs to be charged daily? :no:
  • Reply 23 of 96
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,695member
    peteo wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/183085/apple-watch-will-likely-require-daily-charging-cook-says#post_2628473" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>TheWhiteFalcon</strong> <a href="/t/183085/apple-watch-will-likely-require-daily-charging-cook-says#post_2628473"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/>The only disappointing element in that is that you won't be able to use it as a sleep tracker, but given its cost I'm not sure I would have anyway. That being said, I charge my iPhone and iPad nightly, so why not add a third device?</div></div><p> </p>

    If they could get it to charge in 15-20 mins maybe you could take it off before taking a shower to charge it.
    Google nexus 6 phone can get 6 hours with a 15 min charge time (has a 3,200 mAh battery)

    How about a massive induction charger on the wall of the shower, so powerful it works while you wear it in the shower ? ;)
  • Reply 24 of 96
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    What you don't want is a battery that only lasts part of the day, and then you get a lot of people walking around at 4 or 5pm with these dead Apple Watches on their wrists, and it becomes like a running gag about the Apple Watch, with stand up comedians joking about everyone having a dead watch. Most people sleep 7-8 hours so the battery life should be 16 or 17.

  • Reply 25 of 96
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    The only disappointing element in that is that you won't be able to use it as a sleep tracker, but given its cost I'm not sure I would have anyway. That being said, I charge my iPhone and iPad nightly, so why not add a third device?

    Global warming?
  • Reply 26 of 96
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    No questions about Apple's takeover of Beats- vedy interesting.
  • Reply 27 of 96
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    sirlance99 wrote: »
    I know we the battery wouldn't last more than 2 days. Apple can't break the laws of physics. A lot of people were saying that the Apple Watch would last longer than all others on the market. Not so much.

    The present limitations on battery life are not governed by the laws of physics - simply by the constraints of existing technology on power usage and battery energy density. Neither are anywhere near the fundamental limits imposed by basic physics, and are continuously improving.
  • Reply 28 of 96
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    What you don't want is a battery that only lasts part of the day, and then you get a lot of people walking around at 4 or 5pm with these dead Apple Watches on their wrists, and it becomes like a running gag about the Apple Watch, with stand up comedians joking about everyone having a dead watch. Most people sleep 7-8 hours so the battery life should be 16 or 17.


    Right.  But it actually need to have a battery life of something like 24-30 hours under normal/heavy usage fresh out of the box.  That is, it should never run out of juice between nightly charges, even after a few years of service.  Unfortunately my 13 month old 5s doesn't pass this test.  If it barely lasts 18 hours brand new, then Apple has a problem.  Based on Cook's comments, I think they'll be ok.  Better to "sell" a watch that can sometimes go two days between charges as "should be charged daily."  Under promise and over deliver.

  • Reply 29 of 96
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,520member
    Just release an Apple TV with an App Store. Issue solved, stick to making money off the hardware Apple!
  • Reply 30 of 96
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post



    Sad. Whoever wrote that this is Apple's Edsel wasn't far off. I can't imagine anyone wanting this after that remark. Not only is it unattractive but needs to be charged daily? image

    Someone save this comment.  I expect that paz will forget he said this 2 years from now (unless against all odds he's actually right, of course).

  • Reply 31 of 96
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     



    A watch band where the surface was almost entirely solar cells might help.  Mechanical systems deliver a lot less energy.  A Citizen eco-drive watch can go more than 6 months on about an hour or so of exposure to direct sunlight.  A Seiko Kinetic watch has to be shaken nearly every day.  I had a conversation with an employee in a jewelers and he complained it was a chore to daily take the kinetics out of the window display and shake them for a while and then put them back, while the Citizens next to them just purred away smug in their superiority. 


     

    Yeah, in an earlier thread I had posted up the power level of Seiko's Kinetic generator. Not only does it require shaking with the current watch, the power draw of the Apple Watch is probably going to be 100x or 1000x as much as a conventional watch.

  • Reply 32 of 96
    muppetry wrote: »
    The present limitations on battery life are not governed by the laws of physics - simply by the constraints of existing technology on power usage and battery energy density. Neither are anywhere near the fundamental limits imposed by basic physics, and are continuously improving.

    It has everything to do with physics. For a refresher: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
  • Reply 33 of 96
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    malax wrote: »
    Someone save this comment.  I expect that paz will forget he said this 2 years from now (unless against all odds he's actually right, of course).

    No I won't. Because unless it miraculously morphs into something streamlined and Apple-like I stand by my remarks. Also remember the Edsel remark was not mine.
  • Reply 34 of 96
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    malax wrote: »
    Right.  But it actually need to have a battery life of something like 24-30 hours under normal/heavy usage fresh out of the box.  That is, it should never run out of juice between nightly charges, even after a few years of service.  Unfortunately my 13 month old 5s doesn't pass this test.  If it barely lasts 18 hours brand new, then Apple has a problem.  Based on Cook's comments, I think they'll be ok.  Better to "sell" a watch that can sometimes go two days between charges as "should be charged daily."  Under promise and over deliver.

    Err on the caution side like Chris Christie and his Ebola tents?
  • Reply 35 of 96
    I am hopeful that batteries will not be a major limited factor within a few years.

    [URL=http://www.cnet.com/news/new-batteries-charge-70-percent-in-2-minutes/]New batteries charge 70 percent in 2 minutes[/URL]
  • Reply 36 of 96
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    How about a massive induction charger on the wall of the shower, so powerful it works while you wear it in the shower ? image

    Or... even safer ... I remember in high school they told us that if you move a magnet near a coil of wire it induces an electrical current in the wire.

     

    So if the Apple watch strap was a coil, and you injected your bloodstream with milllions of tiny magnets, then your blood pumping through your wrist would constantly charge the watch.

  • Reply 37 of 96
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    The present limitations on battery life are not governed by the laws of physics - simply by the constraints of existing technology on power usage and battery energy density. Neither are anywhere near the fundamental limits imposed by basic physics, and are continuously improving.

     

    Continuously improving linearly is not enough. We're stagnating again, waiting for the next big advancement.

     

    Li-ion:

  • Reply 38 of 96
    malax wrote: »
    Someone save this comment.  I expect that paz will forget he said this 2 years from now (unless against all odds he's actually right, of course).

    I don't necessarily expect the ?Watch to be the monumental success of iPhone but the original poster's comment is absurd.
  • Reply 39 of 96
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

     

     

    Continuously improving linearly is not enough. We're stagnating again, waiting for the next big advancement.

     

    Li-ion:


     

    Is there any data for '06 to '14? What if there were significant improvements in those years?

  • Reply 40 of 96
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I don't necessarily expect the ?Watch to be the monumental success of iPhone but the original poster's comment is absurd.
    Nothing will ever be as successful as iPhone. If ?Watch success is based on whether it is as successful as the iPhone then it's doomed before it comes out.
Sign In or Register to comment.