It is nice that Apple constantly improves the various functions and apps but not the battery life! 18 hours of charge still does not qualify as an "all-day battery." I do not understand, Apple supposedly has all these great innovative minds but can not build a better battery. Other watch companies like Fit Bit and Garmin have developed batteries that hold up to 5 to 14-day charge. Garmin has even a solar version! What is the problem with Apple other than wanting to overcharge for their products with inferior technology and trying to amaze everyone with their apps which is nice but with crappy battery life? Apple amazes me with their apparent lack of innovation and false claims of great watch sales. I would like to get a titanium version of the Apple Watch but the battery life has stopped me from buying one. Garmin fenix 6 has a titanium version for the same amount of money as Apple's titanium version but better battery life. Sorry Apple, I know this is not the first time anyone has commented on the apparent weakness of the Apple Watch. It does not matter how pretty you built a house but if the foundation is weak it will still falter! The battery life is the foundation of the watch as far as I am concerned! I know people will call me a troll and whatever. I do not care! Even the Apple salespeople wish for better batter life!
To get the battery life that a Garmin or FitBit does you would have to lower the screen quality as well as lower the functionality down to their level. Plus, some of the Garmins pickup extra battery life simply by being extra huge.
The functionality I get from my Apple Watch far out weighs the 45 minutes or so that I spend to charge it in the morning. Other than that it's on my wrist 23 hours a day 7 days a week.
This, in a nutshell.
If Apple or anyone else could make a battery that lasted 24 hours with significant hours at a high current draw economically then it would be available already. Such a battery probably can be made, but it would be ridiculously expensive and it’s lifespan may be shorter that current batteries. Apple isn’t the only device developer who could use such a battery but no one has it. You either lose features or you need to recharge more frequently.
It is nice that Apple constantly improves the various functions and apps but not the battery life! 18 hours of charge still does not qualify as an "all-day battery." I do not understand, Apple supposedly has all these great innovative minds but can not build a better battery. Other watch companies like Fit Bit and Garmin have developed batteries that hold up to 5 to 14-day charge. Garmin has even a solar version! What is the problem with Apple other than wanting to overcharge for their products with inferior technology and trying to amaze everyone with their apps which is nice but with crappy battery life? Apple amazes me with their apparent lack of innovation and false claims of great watch sales. I would like to get a titanium version of the Apple Watch but the battery life has stopped me from buying one. Garmin fenix 6 has a titanium version for the same amount of money as Apple's titanium version but better battery life. Sorry Apple, I know this is not the first time anyone has commented on the apparent weakness of the Apple Watch. It does not matter how pretty you built a house but if the foundation is weak it will still falter! The battery life is the foundation of the watch as far as I am concerned! I know people will call me a troll and whatever. I do not care! Even the Apple salespeople wish for better batter life!
To get the battery life that a Garmin or FitBit does you would have to lower the screen quality as well as lower the functionality down to their level. Plus, some of the Garmins pickup extra battery life simply by being extra huge.
The functionality I get from my Apple Watch far out weighs the 45 minutes or so that I spend to charge it in the morning. Other than that it's on my wrist 23 hours a day 7 days a week.
This, in a nutshell.
If Apple or anyone else could make a battery that lasted 24 hours with significant hours at a high current draw economically then it would be available already. Such a battery probably can be made, but it would be ridiculously expensive and it’s lifespan may be shorter that current batteries. Apple isn’t the only device developer who could use such a battery but no one has it. You either lose features or you need to recharge more frequently.
Apple just needs to allow me to turn off the GPS when i don't need it (like my Garmin) & then they can probably get similar 7+ day battery life.
It is nice that Apple constantly improves the various functions and apps but not the battery life! 18 hours of charge still does not qualify as an "all-day battery." I do not understand, Apple supposedly has all these great innovative minds but can not build a better battery. Other watch companies like Fit Bit and Garmin have developed batteries that hold up to 5 to 14-day charge. Garmin has even a solar version! What is the problem with Apple other than wanting to overcharge for their products with inferior technology and trying to amaze everyone with their apps which is nice but with crappy battery life? Apple amazes me with their apparent lack of innovation and false claims of great watch sales. I would like to get a titanium version of the Apple Watch but the battery life has stopped me from buying one. Garmin fenix 6 has a titanium version for the same amount of money as Apple's titanium version but better battery life. Sorry Apple, I know this is not the first time anyone has commented on the apparent weakness of the Apple Watch. It does not matter how pretty you built a house but if the foundation is weak it will still falter! The battery life is the foundation of the watch as far as I am concerned! I know people will call me a troll and whatever. I do not care! Even the Apple salespeople wish for better batter life!
To get the battery life that a Garmin or FitBit does you would have to lower the screen quality as well as lower the functionality down to their level. Plus, some of the Garmins pickup extra battery life simply by being extra huge.
The functionality I get from my Apple Watch far out weighs the 45 minutes or so that I spend to charge it in the morning. Other than that it's on my wrist 23 hours a day 7 days a week.
This, in a nutshell.
If Apple or anyone else could make a battery that lasted 24 hours with significant hours at a high current draw economically then it would be available already. Such a battery probably can be made, but it would be ridiculously expensive and it’s lifespan may be shorter that current batteries. Apple isn’t the only device developer who could use such a battery but no one has it. You either lose features or you need to recharge more frequently.
Apple just needs to allow me to turn off the GPS when i don't need it (like my Garmin) & then they can probably get similar 7+ day battery life.
No, not at all, the first two generations of Apple Watch did not have GPS and had, I believe, even worse battery life than the current generation -- certainly it was no better.
It is nice that Apple constantly improves the various functions and apps but not the battery life! 18 hours of charge still does not qualify as an "all-day battery." I do not understand, Apple supposedly has all these great innovative minds but can not build a better battery. Other watch companies like Fit Bit and Garmin have developed batteries that hold up to 5 to 14-day charge. Garmin has even a solar version! What is the problem with Apple other than wanting to overcharge for their products with inferior technology and trying to amaze everyone with their apps which is nice but with crappy battery life? Apple amazes me with their apparent lack of innovation and false claims of great watch sales. I would like to get a titanium version of the Apple Watch but the battery life has stopped me from buying one. Garmin fenix 6 has a titanium version for the same amount of money as Apple's titanium version but better battery life. Sorry Apple, I know this is not the first time anyone has commented on the apparent weakness of the Apple Watch. It does not matter how pretty you built a house but if the foundation is weak it will still falter! The battery life is the foundation of the watch as far as I am concerned! I know people will call me a troll and whatever. I do not care! Even the Apple salespeople wish for better batter life!
To get the battery life that a Garmin or FitBit does you would have to lower the screen quality as well as lower the functionality down to their level. Plus, some of the Garmins pickup extra battery life simply by being extra huge.
The functionality I get from my Apple Watch far out weighs the 45 minutes or so that I spend to charge it in the morning. Other than that it's on my wrist 23 hours a day 7 days a week.
This, in a nutshell.
If Apple or anyone else could make a battery that lasted 24 hours with significant hours at a high current draw economically then it would be available already. Such a battery probably can be made, but it would be ridiculously expensive and it’s lifespan may be shorter that current batteries. Apple isn’t the only device developer who could use such a battery but no one has it. You either lose features or you need to recharge more frequently.
Apple just needs to allow me to turn off the GPS when i don't need it (like my Garmin) & then they can probably get similar 7+ day battery life.
No, not at all, the first two generations of Apple Watch did not have GPS and had, I believe, even worse battery life than the current generation -- certainly it was no better.
You are really going to compare the S1 to S5 SoC?!? 6 years have passed since the first generation.
Now, throw in Blood Glucose levels and you'll have the Triple Crown of detection.
I am dying for this feature. Waiting forever. This would be a serious disruption to the glucose monitor device industries.
Dexcom was a shot across the bow. It's been a couple of weeks since I did a fingerstick BG. Reliable transdermal testing would be awesome for both diabetics and non-diabetics wanting to lose weight.
For me, O2 levels would be good for flying, especially when I start IFR training.later this year.
Quote from Dexcom website: "CGM users insert a tiny sensor wire just under their skin...". Yikes. Still very intrusive.
It is nice that Apple constantly improves the various functions and apps but not the battery life! 18 hours of charge still does not qualify as an "all-day battery." I do not understand, Apple supposedly has all these great innovative minds but can not build a better battery. Other watch companies like Fit Bit and Garmin have developed batteries that hold up to 5 to 14-day charge. Garmin has even a solar version! What is the problem with Apple other than wanting to overcharge for their products with inferior technology and trying to amaze everyone with their apps which is nice but with crappy battery life? Apple amazes me with their apparent lack of innovation and false claims of great watch sales. I would like to get a titanium version of the Apple Watch but the battery life has stopped me from buying one. Garmin fenix 6 has a titanium version for the same amount of money as Apple's titanium version but better battery life. Sorry Apple, I know this is not the first time anyone has commented on the apparent weakness of the Apple Watch. It does not matter how pretty you built a house but if the foundation is weak it will still falter! The battery life is the foundation of the watch as far as I am concerned! I know people will call me a troll and whatever. I do not care! Even the Apple salespeople wish for better batter life!
To get the battery life that a Garmin or FitBit does you would have to lower the screen quality as well as lower the functionality down to their level. Plus, some of the Garmins pickup extra battery life simply by being extra huge.
The functionality I get from my Apple Watch far out weighs the 45 minutes or so that I spend to charge it in the morning. Other than that it's on my wrist 23 hours a day 7 days a week.
This, in a nutshell.
If Apple or anyone else could make a battery that lasted 24 hours with significant hours at a high current draw economically then it would be available already. Such a battery probably can be made, but it would be ridiculously expensive and it’s lifespan may be shorter that current batteries. Apple isn’t the only device developer who could use such a battery but no one has it. You either lose features or you need to recharge more frequently.
Apple just needs to allow me to turn off the GPS when i don't need it (like my Garmin) & then they can probably get similar 7+ day battery life.
No, not at all, the first two generations of Apple Watch did not have GPS and had, I believe, even worse battery life than the current generation -- certainly it was no better.
You are really going to compare the S1 to S5 SoC?!? 6 years have passed since the first generation.
I'm not comparing anything. I am responding to your claim that an Apple Watch would get 7 day battery life if they provided an option to turn of the GPS. I pointed out that Series 0 & 1 did not have GPS at all and still got the same battery life (or less) as the newer series.
Now, throw in Blood Glucose levels and you'll have the Triple Crown of detection.
I am dying for this feature. Waiting forever. This would be a serious disruption to the glucose monitor device industries.
Dexcom was a shot across the bow. It's been a couple of weeks since I did a fingerstick BG. Reliable transdermal testing would be awesome for both diabetics and non-diabetics wanting to lose weight.
For me, O2 levels would be good for flying, especially when I start IFR training.later this year.
Quote from Dexcom website: "CGM users insert a tiny sensor wire just under their skin...". Yikes. Still very intrusive.
Better than a sticking a needle into a sensitive finger tip several times a day -- plus it provides better glucose control
Now, throw in Blood Glucose levels and you'll have the Triple Crown of detection.
I am dying for this feature. Waiting forever. This would be a serious disruption to the glucose monitor device industries.
Dexcom was a shot across the bow. It's been a couple of weeks since I did a fingerstick BG. Reliable transdermal testing would be awesome for both diabetics and non-diabetics wanting to lose weight.
For me, O2 levels would be good for flying, especially when I start IFR training.later this year.
Quote from Dexcom website: "CGM users insert a tiny sensor wire just under their skin...". Yikes. Still very intrusive.
Better than a sticking a needle into a sensitive finger tip several times a day -- plus it provides better glucose control
Several diabetic friends of mine have been using the FreeStyle Libre patches for several years now. They're stuck on your arm and pass data wirelessly, and can be worn for two weeks.
Now, throw in Blood Glucose levels and you'll have the Triple Crown of detection.
I am dying for this feature. Waiting forever. This would be a serious disruption to the glucose monitor device industries.
Dexcom was a shot across the bow. It's been a couple of weeks since I did a fingerstick BG. Reliable transdermal testing would be awesome for both diabetics and non-diabetics wanting to lose weight.
For me, O2 levels would be good for flying, especially when I start IFR training.later this year.
Quote from Dexcom website: "CGM users insert a tiny sensor wire just under their skin...". Yikes. Still very intrusive.
Better than a sticking a needle into a sensitive finger tip several times a day -- plus it provides better glucose control
Several diabetic friends of mine have been using the FreeStyle Libre patches for several years now. They're stuck on your arm and pass data wirelessly, and can be worn for two weeks.
Thanks! I didn't know that had been approved in the U.S.
But, while it still involves sticking something into your body (to measure glucose in the interstitial fluid instead of the blood glucose), it is apparently far less painful than a finger stick and, as you point out, is only done every 10-14 days instead of multiple times a day for a full, insulin dependent diabetic.
Unfortunately, its technology does not sound adaptable to the Apple Watch -- except to use it as a monitor-receiver for what the sensor-transmitter send.
Comments
No, not at all, the first two generations of Apple Watch did not have GPS and had, I believe, even worse battery life than the current generation -- certainly it was no better.
You are really going to compare the S1 to S5 SoC?!?
6 years have passed since the first generation.
I'm not comparing anything. I am responding to your claim that an Apple Watch would get 7 day battery life if they provided an option to turn of the GPS. I pointed out that Series 0 & 1 did not have GPS at all and still got the same battery life (or less) as the newer series.
Better than a sticking a needle into a sensitive finger tip several times a day -- plus it provides better glucose control