I agree they missed an opportunity to have more space for batteries in the bands, but there absolutely will not be third parties offering them as there is nothing to connect them to on the watch.
Yes because the Apple executives and engineers who have been working on this project for 3+ years haven't thought about any of these things. If only they were as smart as everyone posting on internet message boards. :rolleyes:
How do we know Apple has the technology nailed for this? Do Android Wear watches house batteries in the band? Does the Pebble?
30 hrs? I saw a program on NHK tv where they were looking at a convenience store in a hospital in Japan. At one point they spoke to to a woman Dr who was just on her way home for the first time in 3 days.
And these people have no access to power to charge anything? What do they do with their phones then?
It's A WATCH for crying out loud... You take it off every night, you might as well charge it. It's a small device, so charging will be quick.
And what's so awful about the 3-4 hours active use time?!?
Again: It's a watch!!! Who sits and stares at the watch face for 4 hours every day?!!
It's not meant as a device that's used for hours at a time. You'll get a headache from focussing on a screen that small and close a long time before the battery reaches its limits!
A lot of people are mistakenly thinking about this in gadget and computer terms.
That's a mistake.
Look at the price: 500$ for the standard edition. That's very expensive in gadget terms. You can almost get a MacBook for that. The gold edition will cost as much as several MacBooks.
But for a high end timepiece? That's not expensive at all.
No it's not a Rolex, but ignoring the super high end of luxury watches, 500$ is a pretty fair price. (Yes, there is an even cheaper Sports edition, I know.)
What signal is Apple sending here? I think the idea behind the pricing and the whole rollout, the lack of information about the CPU etc. is to get people used to thinking about this NOT as a gadget or computer, but as a high end timepiece.
That means no yearly updates.
That means no 1.0 editions. Followed by an improved model next year.
That means no upgrading it after 2-3-4 years as the battery has worn out.
Keep in mind that the innards have been designed as one, big S1 block of an SOC.
So imagine if we won't see yearly updates. Instead the Apple Watch will quietly get a less battery hungry S2 or S3 SOC as they become available, without any big press releases or new editions.
Existing owners can for a smallish upgrade fee (50-100$?) get the old S1 SOC replaced at the Applestore of they so desire.
But it won't be a must-have, because we won't see the usual rollout of new features or faster hardware that were used to in gadgets. (The Apple watch will in a sense also be upgraded everytime you get a new iPhone model).
And the same goes for the battery. Just like you occasionally have to change the battery in your Tag Heuer, you will be able to get a new battery every three years for the same 50$ fee.
Since to display only activates when you raise your wrist how would you know if the device is dead? More often than not the device will be in sleep mode.
But that brings up something another commenter made: why would one want to wear something that looks "broken"? We both know this is a "smart watch", and the screen comes on when you lift it, but how does it appear wearing a watch with a blank screen? It's highly subjective, of course, and I wonder if the "luxury" part of its look is an answer to that, but still...
It's A WATCH for crying out loud... You take it off every night, you might as well charge it. It's a small device, so charging will be quick.
And what's so awful about the 3-4 hours active use time?!?
Again: It's a watch!!! Who sits and stares at the watch face for 4 hours every day?!!
It's not meant as a device that's used for hours at a time. You'll get a headache from focussing on a screen that small and close a long time before the battery reaches its limits!
I agree. This would be the correct use for the ? watch.
But still, 19 hours is surprisingly short for a device that is meant for glancing and quick short interactions.
It's a watch for crying out loud… you expect it to tell the time and not run out of juice before the the end of the day.
It's meant as a device that's used for hours at a time, it's a watch for crying out loud…
…or maybe it is a consumer object that defines who you are? Without it you are just a face in the crowd but with an Apple Watch you are special*.
Women will actually speak to you. No they won't, but it is part of the self delusion that can only be satisfied by an expensive and mostly pointless purchase, that will end up in the drawer along with all the other things that were going to change your life, but here you still are.
* Easily mistaken for debonair international spy and man of action who just needs to have his vital signs constantly monitored for signs of imminent morbidity, ironically by a gadget you have to constantly monitor for signs of falling over. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
What happens when inevitably the battery runs out and you haven't been able to recharge it? Is your life in peril?
Sure, but they sleep during their shift. Plenty of time to charge a device.
Sorry gotta laugh at that one. I don't remember a time sleeping during shift that tones didn't drop multiple times at night. Some shifts you wind up running almost a full 24 hours.
A, yeah 4 hours isn't 19. The bear minimum I would purchase this would 12 hours, serious.
But I only plan to:
Wake up put it on,
Look at the time maybe 15 times during the day.
When i get 3-5 texts a day look and see if they are an emergency.
But the kicker is this, I will be able to get into my 2010 SUV, that will be paid off, and sit down and press play to start my music to feed the Bluetooth dongle patch I have because my bluetooth doesn't do music, that I paid 10 dollars for. AND NOT HAVE TO BUY A WHOLE FREAKING NEW CAR! Just to get BT Music in.
In addition I will be able to see a text while driving, once again emergency or not. This will also allow me to use Siri while driving, to Press the "Siri" Button that is. Then emails too.
I have a HUGE iPad Nano (iPhone 6 Plus) in my pocket which fits, but is annoying to take out while driving and I don't normally unless emergency.
This solves a BIG f-ing kludge in my eco-system that will now be COMPLETELY over, I will now take out my iPhone 6 Plus out of my pocket 1/10th! of the time now.
AMEN! Do or say whatever you want, I am SOLD SOLD SOLD, especially 19 hours. And I aint playing games on it or photos or movies so yeah I should get my 12 minimum.
You can go buy whatever you want, but like I said I am SOLD.
Looking at and using your ???? watch while driving is just as distracting as a phone. Please don't.
Actually, Apple on its IOS device has a tendency to be CONSERVATIVE in its stated battery time. It said 10h for the Air, when in fact it got to almost 12h. So, why do you think they'd BS people now?
I'm not saying that at all.
What I'm saying is that in my experience, and I'm not a power user by any means, I have never gotten Apples advertised battery life on any Apple device I have ever owned. So why would I expect that to change with the ?Watch now?
All it has to do is last a whole day under what becomes 'normal' usage for such a thing. I think its going to do exactly that, so they already nailed it
For me that is not acceptable at all. Recharging a watch while it is on your wrist is not practical. So it can only be charged while I am sleeping. But what if I sleep in places where I cannot recharge (in a tent, on a plain, ...). The device is nice to have but unpractial and unreliable . A watch should at least lasts a few weeks (my current watch last more than 5 years)
For me, the 2.5 hours (if that turns out to be true)of battery life for heavy usage really doesn't concern me. First and foremost, I will be using this as a watch to tell time. I can't see myself being a heavy app user on a watch. I have a phone for that. The other big reason for me using this watch is having the ability to see text messages when I'm in business meetings. I don't pull out my phone in meetings since that's inappropriate. With the Apple watch, I can just do a quick glance to see the text message and make sure its not an emergency.
It's a watch for crying out loud… you expect it to tell the time and not run out of juice before the the end of the day.
It's meant as a device that's used for hours at a time, it's a watch for crying out loud…
Exactly... And even if you lovingly stare at the watch for not just one minute, but for two whole minutes because it's so beautyful, even if you do that EVERY SINGLE TIME you check the time, well guess what... With that battery life, you'll still be able to look at what time it is over 200 times.
I don't know how often you look at your watch, but 200 times a day should be enough for everybody. And if it isn't, maybe a big alarm clock tied to a stick that sits horizontally on a helmet of sorts, would be a better investment for you than an Apple Watch...
For me that is not acceptable at all. Recharging a watch while it is on your wrist is not practical. So it can only be charged while I am sleeping. But what if I sleep in places where I cannot recharge (in a tent, on a plain, ...).
Well it's clearly unacceptable that you will be forced to plan for contingencies, the few occasions where you don't get a nights of sleep. No doubt about that!
That Apple would make a device that you can't wear 24-7, but may be forced to take off and charge for an hour or two while your on that plane? That is UN-ACCEPTABLE.
(Now don't ask about outlets. Clearly a person as immensely busy as you is always flying business class!)
But as we can see from the number of people wearing Tag Heuers, Omega and Rolexes while out camping, (which is very few!) clearly the customers for luxury watches aren't completely foreign to the idea of taking off one watch, and on such occasions wear another, cheaper watch.
In fact, Id even be so bold as to say, that most owners of luxury watches, just like women, are fairly used to having several different watches, and switch between them.
So maybe the issue here, isn't so much Apple releasing a flawed product, as it is a case of Apple releasing a product that's meant for a different market than you?
Clearly it's far from a universal problem, that a watch must last for weeks. It's a pretty recent phenomenon that watches last that long, a few decades ago it was normal to wind a watch every day or two, and everyone wore a watch then.
Point being this battery life won't be an issue. That is, for normal use. Once available for purchase we can expect many stories on short battery life because everyone will be bashing on this watch and see what it can do. It'll die. (The stories, not the battery)
More or less my view. Given smartphone daily usage is reported to average around two hours I don'y expect a smartphone accessory to exceed the main unit's use time. I looks like the wrist mounting offers peeks at information in a convenient fashion for when the phone is simply awkward to access, not as a continuous use item in the sense someone would view a video on it for hours at a stretch....
And Moto360: More fugly, more bulky and same ridiculous battery life for a time piece.
I didn't say the others are any better - for me, ALL such "wearable smart timepieces" are a POS at this point in time.
Another basic mistake in the failed comparisons with the iPhone and iPod - these do NOT have "wristwatch" as primary function; they are meant to be phones and/or media players.
In other words, there is nothing embarrassing about stopping the use of your cell phone or music because the battery is dead (although EVEN the iPhone does much better than the AWatch in that regard); however, how ridiculous is one gonna look when he trots around with a stupid timepiece that is dead around his wrist? How pathetic is that? Ideal scenario:
A pretty girl comes to you and asks for the time - your answer: "Huh, sorry but my USD 14,000 Apple Watch is out of battery and I have no idea what time it is."
Not to mention that most good watches are waterproof at least up to 20m; the Apple Watch? Just "water resistant", meaning that you have to remember to take it off before jumping into the pool or going to the beach.
Sorry, but no. It's butt-**** ugly, it's comparably expensive, it has miserable battery life, it's bulky for most wrist sizes and it cannot go underwater; the conclusion is: UTTER FAIL.
It's A WATCH for crying out loud... You take it off every night, you might as well charge it. It's a small device, so charging will be quick.
And what's so awful about the 3-4 hours active use time?!?
Again: It's a watch!!! Who sits and stares at the watch face for 4 hours every day?!!
It's not meant as a device that's used for hours at a time. You'll get a headache from focussing on a screen that small and close a long time before the battery reaches its limits!
Yes, it's a watch, for crying out loud - one that runs out of battery in less than 24 hours, a pathetic performance that will of course get worse as time goes by (no pun intended). At the very least Apple could have come up with some innovative/discreet solar recharging solution, but they didn't. My ceramic RADO requires a battery change every 5 years or so...case closed.
Yes, it's a watch, for crying out loud - one that runs out of battery in less than 24 hours, a pathetic performance that will of course get worse as time goes by (no pun intended). At the very least Apple could have come up with some innovative/discreet solar recharging solution, but they didn't. My ceramic RADO requires a battery change every 5 years or so...case closed.
That's odd.
Considering how inconvenient and troublesome you seem to think it is, that a watch has to be taken off every night and placed in a charging stand, rather than taken off and placed on a nightstand.
Given that mindset, I would think you'd find it an almost insurmountable obstacle, and truly Herculean effort, to find a watch-smith every five years to change your battery.
I didn't say the others are any better - for me, ALL such "wearable smart timepieces" are a POS at this point in time.
ridiculous is one gonna look when he trots around with a stupid timepiece that is dead around his wrist? <span style="line-height:1.4em;">How pathetic is that? Ideal scenario:</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">A pretty girl comes to you and asks for the time - your answer: "Huh, sorry but my USD 14,000 Apple Watch is out of battery and I have no idea what time it is."</span>
I can only imagine it'll look pretty pathetic, as she takes his arm and they start crossing the street towards his Bentley, and you start to chase after her yelling: "Wait! STOP!!! Didn't you see his expensive watch ran out of battery?!? I HAVE THE TIME RIGHT HERE!!! WAAAIT! WHY ARE YOU GETTING IN HIS CAR!?! DID YOU KNOW HIS WATCH ISNT WATER RESISTANT?! MINE IS!!!"
Comments
Yes because the Apple executives and engineers who have been working on this project for 3+ years haven't thought about any of these things. If only they were as smart as everyone posting on internet message boards. :rolleyes:
How do we know Apple has the technology nailed for this? Do Android Wear watches house batteries in the band? Does the Pebble?
And these people have no access to power to charge anything? What do they do with their phones then?
It's A WATCH for crying out loud... You take it off every night, you might as well charge it. It's a small device, so charging will be quick.
And what's so awful about the 3-4 hours active use time?!?
Again: It's a watch!!! Who sits and stares at the watch face for 4 hours every day?!!
It's not meant as a device that's used for hours at a time. You'll get a headache from focussing on a screen that small and close a long time before the battery reaches its limits!
That's a mistake.
Look at the price: 500$ for the standard edition. That's very expensive in gadget terms. You can almost get a MacBook for that. The gold edition will cost as much as several MacBooks.
But for a high end timepiece? That's not expensive at all.
No it's not a Rolex, but ignoring the super high end of luxury watches, 500$ is a pretty fair price. (Yes, there is an even cheaper Sports edition, I know.)
What signal is Apple sending here? I think the idea behind the pricing and the whole rollout, the lack of information about the CPU etc. is to get people used to thinking about this NOT as a gadget or computer, but as a high end timepiece.
That means no yearly updates.
That means no 1.0 editions. Followed by an improved model next year.
That means no upgrading it after 2-3-4 years as the battery has worn out.
Keep in mind that the innards have been designed as one, big S1 block of an SOC.
So imagine if we won't see yearly updates. Instead the Apple Watch will quietly get a less battery hungry S2 or S3 SOC as they become available, without any big press releases or new editions.
Existing owners can for a smallish upgrade fee (50-100$?) get the old S1 SOC replaced at the Applestore of they so desire.
But it won't be a must-have, because we won't see the usual rollout of new features or faster hardware that were used to in gadgets. (The Apple watch will in a sense also be upgraded everytime you get a new iPhone model).
And the same goes for the battery. Just like you occasionally have to change the battery in your Tag Heuer, you will be able to get a new battery every three years for the same 50$ fee.
Since to display only activates when you raise your wrist how would you know if the device is dead? More often than not the device will be in sleep mode.
But that brings up something another commenter made: why would one want to wear something that looks "broken"? We both know this is a "smart watch", and the screen comes on when you lift it, but how does it appear wearing a watch with a blank screen? It's highly subjective, of course, and I wonder if the "luxury" part of its look is an answer to that, but still...
LOL at all the battery life complaints...
It's A WATCH for crying out loud... You take it off every night, you might as well charge it. It's a small device, so charging will be quick.
And what's so awful about the 3-4 hours active use time?!?
Again: It's a watch!!! Who sits and stares at the watch face for 4 hours every day?!!
It's not meant as a device that's used for hours at a time. You'll get a headache from focussing on a screen that small and close a long time before the battery reaches its limits!
I agree. This would be the correct use for the ? watch.
But still, 19 hours is surprisingly short for a device that is meant for glancing and quick short interactions.
Why wouldn't it last for decades?
It's a watch for crying out loud… you expect it to tell the time and not run out of juice before the the end of the day.
It's meant as a device that's used for hours at a time, it's a watch for crying out loud…
…or maybe it is a consumer object that defines who you are? Without it you are just a face in the crowd but with an Apple Watch you are special*.
Women will actually speak to you. No they won't, but it is part of the self delusion that can only be satisfied by an expensive and mostly pointless purchase, that will end up in the drawer along with all the other things that were going to change your life, but here you still are.
* Easily mistaken for debonair international spy and man of action who just needs to have his vital signs constantly monitored for signs of imminent morbidity, ironically by a gadget you have to constantly monitor for signs of falling over.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
What happens when inevitably the battery runs out and you haven't been able to recharge it? Is your life in peril?
Sorry gotta laugh at that one. I don't remember a time sleeping during shift that tones didn't drop multiple times at night. Some shifts you wind up running almost a full 24 hours.
Looking at and using your ???? watch while driving is just as distracting as a phone. Please don't.
What I'm saying is that in my experience, and I'm not a power user by any means, I have never gotten Apples advertised battery life on any Apple device I have ever owned. So why would I expect that to change with the ?Watch now?
All it has to do is last a whole day under what becomes 'normal' usage for such a thing. I think its going to do exactly that, so they already nailed it
For me that is not acceptable at all. Recharging a watch while it is on your wrist is not practical. So it can only be charged while I am sleeping. But what if I sleep in places where I cannot recharge (in a tent, on a plain, ...). The device is nice to have but unpractial and unreliable . A watch should at least lasts a few weeks (my current watch last more than 5 years)
For me, the 2.5 hours (if that turns out to be true)of battery life for heavy usage really doesn't concern me. First and foremost, I will be using this as a watch to tell time. I can't see myself being a heavy app user on a watch. I have a phone for that. The other big reason for me using this watch is having the ability to see text messages when I'm in business meetings. I don't pull out my phone in meetings since that's inappropriate. With the Apple watch, I can just do a quick glance to see the text message and make sure its not an emergency.
Exactly... And even if you lovingly stare at the watch for not just one minute, but for two whole minutes because it's so beautyful, even if you do that EVERY SINGLE TIME you check the time, well guess what... With that battery life, you'll still be able to look at what time it is over 200 times.
I don't know how often you look at your watch, but 200 times a day should be enough for everybody. And if it isn't, maybe a big alarm clock tied to a stick that sits horizontally on a helmet of sorts, would be a better investment for you than an Apple Watch...
Well it's clearly unacceptable that you will be forced to plan for contingencies, the few occasions where you don't get a nights of sleep. No doubt about that!
That Apple would make a device that you can't wear 24-7, but may be forced to take off and charge for an hour or two while your on that plane? That is UN-ACCEPTABLE.
(Now don't ask about outlets. Clearly a person as immensely busy as you is always flying business class!)
But as we can see from the number of people wearing Tag Heuers, Omega and Rolexes while out camping, (which is very few!) clearly the customers for luxury watches aren't completely foreign to the idea of taking off one watch, and on such occasions wear another, cheaper watch.
In fact, Id even be so bold as to say, that most owners of luxury watches, just like women, are fairly used to having several different watches, and switch between them.
So maybe the issue here, isn't so much Apple releasing a flawed product, as it is a case of Apple releasing a product that's meant for a different market than you?
Clearly it's far from a universal problem, that a watch must last for weeks. It's a pretty recent phenomenon that watches last that long, a few decades ago it was normal to wind a watch every day or two, and everyone wore a watch then.
[
[/quote]
Point being this battery life won't be an issue. That is, for normal use. Once available for purchase we can expect many stories on short battery life because everyone will be bashing on this watch and see what it can do. It'll die. (The stories, not the battery)
More or less my view. Given smartphone daily usage is reported to average around two hours I don'y expect a smartphone accessory to exceed the main unit's use time. I looks like the wrist mounting offers peeks at information in a convenient fashion for when the phone is simply awkward to access, not as a continuous use item in the sense someone would view a video on it for hours at a stretch....
And Moto360: More fugly, more bulky and same ridiculous battery life for a time piece.
I didn't say the others are any better - for me, ALL such "wearable smart timepieces" are a POS at this point in time.
Another basic mistake in the failed comparisons with the iPhone and iPod - these do NOT have "wristwatch" as primary function; they are meant to be phones and/or media players.
In other words, there is nothing embarrassing about stopping the use of your cell phone or music because the battery is dead (although EVEN the iPhone does much better than the AWatch in that regard); however, how ridiculous is one gonna look when he trots around with a stupid timepiece that is dead around his wrist? How pathetic is that? Ideal scenario:
A pretty girl comes to you and asks for the time - your answer: "Huh, sorry but my USD 14,000 Apple Watch is out of battery and I have no idea what time it is."
Not to mention that most good watches are waterproof at least up to 20m; the Apple Watch? Just "water resistant", meaning that you have to remember to take it off before jumping into the pool or going to the beach.
Sorry, but no. It's butt-**** ugly, it's comparably expensive, it has miserable battery life, it's bulky for most wrist sizes and it cannot go underwater; the conclusion is: UTTER FAIL.
LOL at all the battery life complaints...
It's A WATCH for crying out loud... You take it off every night, you might as well charge it. It's a small device, so charging will be quick.
And what's so awful about the 3-4 hours active use time?!?
Again: It's a watch!!! Who sits and stares at the watch face for 4 hours every day?!!
It's not meant as a device that's used for hours at a time. You'll get a headache from focussing on a screen that small and close a long time before the battery reaches its limits!
Yes, it's a watch, for crying out loud - one that runs out of battery in less than 24 hours, a pathetic performance that will of course get worse as time goes by (no pun intended). At the very least Apple could have come up with some innovative/discreet solar recharging solution, but they didn't. My ceramic RADO requires a battery change every 5 years or so...case closed.
That's odd.
Considering how inconvenient and troublesome you seem to think it is, that a watch has to be taken off every night and placed in a charging stand, rather than taken off and placed on a nightstand.
Given that mindset, I would think you'd find it an almost insurmountable obstacle, and truly Herculean effort, to find a watch-smith every five years to change your battery.
Guess not though, eh?
I can only imagine it'll look pretty pathetic, as she takes his arm and they start crossing the street towards his Bentley, and you start to chase after her yelling: "Wait! STOP!!! Didn't you see his expensive watch ran out of battery?!? I HAVE THE TIME RIGHT HERE!!! WAAAIT! WHY ARE YOU GETTING IN HIS CAR!?! DID YOU KNOW HIS WATCH ISNT WATER RESISTANT?! MINE IS!!!"