Don’t Stress About Smartwatch Battery Life—It’s A 500 Year Old Problem

[Builder]

[via http://loopinsight.com]

 

https://medium.com/@kiteaton/dont-stress-about-smartwatch-battery-life-its-a-500-year-old-problem-bec2868f95e5?utm_source=loopinsight.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+loopinsight%2FKqJb+(The+Loop)&utm_content=FeedBurner'>https://medium.com/@kiteaton/dont-stress-about-smartwatch-battery-life-its-a-500-year-old-problem-bec2868f95e5?utm_source=loopinsight.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+loopinsight%2FKqJb+(The+Loop)&utm_content=FeedBurner

 

 

A hot new rumor about the Apple Watch’s supposed working battery life of 19 hours has sparked a lot of debate both pro- and anti-Apple, inevitably. But here’s an idea to help view the watch’s power consumption in context: It’s a centuries old technology battle.

We know the Apple Watch is coming in April. We know it’s contentious, and could revolutionize the wearable tech world (if Apple’s as successful in stamping its mark on this market the same way it did with the tablet, smartphone, MP3 player and laptop and desktop computing ones). But the “leak” via 9to5Mac of what’s alleged to be Apple’s battery life performance targets last week has added a whole new spin to the rumour mills, and delighted both Apple fans and critics alike.

 

Fans are happy because 19 hours of “mixed” use, with the watch mainly on standby and in typical-to-heavy use for only about 2.5 to 3.5 hours a day is actually quite generous—it means a nightly charge during a typical 8-hours of bed time is going to be more than enough. The news has also delighted Apple detractors because the 3-hour-ish figure sounds a little small compared to other devices like the Pebble smartwatch which can last around a week between charges. It sounds even more odd when compared to more sports-orientated wearables which can go for very long periods between charges even though they’re more frequently in use.

 

Here’s the thing: This whole debate is silly.

 

19 hours sounds very reasonable. Picture yourself looking at and interacting with your watch for 2–3 seconds at a time as you read notifications, with the occasional 10–20 seconds used to respond to something like a tweet or text message. Add in less frequent longer interactions lasting a few minutes (like making a phone call or playing a game—even though we don’t know exactly how much game play Apple will ultimately allow in watch apps) and then that 3-hour “heavy” use window looks quite generous. You wouldn’t want to stare at such a small screen for much longer each day anyway. It’s also a first generation device, and Apple’s proven advanced product development techniques will certainly deliver more power in version 2 (and yes…I know, the “money grabbing” upgrade/renew cycle is a whole other tiresome debate).

 

And look at it like this: Ever since clockmakers worked out how to make clocks portable there was an almost continuous technological struggle between how much “battery life” and capability the devices had. This affected the first pocket watches and wristwatches, and pretty much every watch ever since.

 

Basically, smart watches (of all kinds, don't flame me) are starting off with decent enough battery life. Watch power longevity has always been an issue for the history of timekeeping and to imagine it will be easily resolved with the latest wave of watches is silly. It's good now, and it will get better over time. (puns!)

[nj4ck]

Well it seems silly to most people that we have mobile chips with a teraflop of computing performance, but still are stuck with good 'ol lithium ion.

[Victorious Secret]

When people complain about smart watches only going 24 hours on average, I laugh. 

My oldest mechanical watch has ZERO power reserve. If my wrist isn't removing, it'll die in no time. I put up with it because the watch looks nice but goddamn, if they made one that had a power reserve I'd literally throw money at my screen for it. 

[Builder]

Well it seems silly to most people that we have mobile chips with a teraflop of computing performance, but still are stuck with good 'ol lithium ion.

Battery technology takes longer to rev.

[The Benjamins]

my issues is they think i need my watch to be ultra powerful, no it can be dumb and slow, I want useful tools, notifications, and controls.

[werto165]

A Watch that literally eats at the battery, so time consuming, especially if it goes back for seconds. 

 

Anyway on topic, I personally don't see the point of a smart watch, maybe it's just me I'm totally fine with just a phone. 

 

However, I'd be interested in a watch with an analogue face with a transparent display, that would be awesome. 

[nj4ck]

Battery technology takes longer to rev.

As the rest of technology keeps developing, battery technology has basically stagnated for over 20 years now. That presents a problem that many people are frustrated with. A lithium ion cell used to be enough to power an old Nokia for weeks, now they can barely drive a modern smartphone for a single day. We need graphene supercapacitors or something similar ASAP.

[Sidiox]

Cool, you're back.

 

Also, those 3 hours may not sound bad if it is the time you look at the device, but I imagine that it getting notifications and what not also eats up battery. And a manufacturers estimate in battery life always is a bit generous. But, in all honesty, I don't know if it truly is bad or good, I guess time will tell (or it will tell time (cuz its a watch, get it?! k, srry) 

[Builder]

Cool, you're back.

 

Also, those 3 hours may not sound bad if it is the time you look at the device, but I imagine that it getting notifications and what not also eats up battery. And a manufacturers estimate in battery life always is a bit generous. But, in all honesty, I don't know if it truly is bad or good, I guess time will tell (or it will tell time (cuz its a watch, get it?! k, srry) 

Apple actually tends to underestimate battery life by 1-2 hours, as a pleasant surprise I assume. 1-2 hours means less with a 12 hour laptop, though. For a watch it means a lot.

[werto165]

Apple actually tends to underestimate battery life by 1-2 hours, as a pleasant surprise I assume. 1-2 hours means less with a 12 hour laptop, though. For a watch it means a lot.

Maybe apple measure battery life as worst case scenario, but I doubt it. 

[Sidiox]

Apple actually tends to underestimate battery life by 1-2 hours, as a pleasant surprise I assume. 1-2 hours means less with a 12 hour laptop, though. For a watch it means a lot.

That might be so with their other products, but as you also mentioned this is their first product in this category, so I am a bit more skeptical. And if you say 1-2 hours on a 12 hour laptop, then I also assume that they underestimated this watch's battery life by about 15%, not 1-2 hours. Which to be fair is still quite a bit for a smart watch.  

[StingBull]

What kind of logic is that? Just because a problem is old its okay?

[Builder]

What kind of logic is that? Just because a problem is old its okay?

Did you read the article?

[StingBull]

Did you read the article?

 

I did. I don't agree with it. But aside from that, my objection is to the clickbaity nonsense title they chose. Just because an issue is old, it doesn't make it a non-issue. Fucking cancer is old, you don't tell people to get over it.

[Builder]

I did. I don't agree with it. But aside from that, my objection is to the clickbaity nonsense title they chose. Just because an issue is old, it doesn't make it a non-issue. Fucking cancer is old, you don't tell people to get over it.

Clickbaity? How is that clickbait? It's not a non-issue, as he described in the article.

[StingBull]

Clickbaity? How is that clickbait? It's not a non-issue, as he described in the article.

 

The title is "Don’t Stress About Smartwatch Battery Life—It’s A 500 Year Old Problem"

 

Meaning that the lack of good battery life in the Apple watch is not an issue because watches never had good batteries for the past 500 years.

 

No. It is an issue. It was an issue 500 years ago. It's an issue now. In fact it's more of an issue now because our devices are doing more and more things in turn we are becoming more and more dependant on them.15 years ago your phone dying on you was not a big issue. Now your phone dying on you means a lot more. This is the same for smartwatches.

[Builder]

The title is "Don’t Stress About Smartwatch Battery Life—It’s A 500 Year Old Problem"

 

Meaning that the lack of good battery life in the Apple watch is not an issue because watches never had good batteries for the past 500 years.

 

No. It is an issue. It was an issue 500 years ago. It's an issue now. In fact it's more of an issue now because our devices are doing more and more things in turn we are becoming more and more dependant on them.15 years ago your phone dying on you was not a big issue. Now your phone dying on you means a lot more. This is the same for smartwatches.

Smart watches in general, it's not just about the Apple Watch.

 

He's not trying to say it's a non issue. It seriously seems like you didn't read it in full. The thesis is that the original incarnation of all wrist devices for the past 500 years have had bad battery life at first, so it's reasonable to expect smart watches to. It's also reasonable to expect that it will get better over time. If you only read a few paragraphs, it might seem as if he's saying the Apple Watch battery life is acceptable -- he's not. He's pointing out that all wrist devices start from a point like this and get better from there. We're still in the early days of smart watches.

[kuddlesworth9419]

The Apple watch's battery life isn't even descent. It's abysmal. 

[StingBull]

Smart watches in general, it's not just about the Apple Watch.

 

He's not trying to say it's a non issue. It seriously seems like you didn't read it in full. The thesis is that the original incarnation of all wrist devices for the past 500 years have had bad battery life at first, so it's reasonable to expect smart watches to. It's also reasonable to expect that it will get better over time. If you only read a few paragraphs, it might seem as if he's saying the Apple Watch battery life is acceptable -- he's not. He's pointing out that all wrist devices start from a point like this and get better from there. We're still in the early days of smart watches.

 

I said I read it and I don't agree with the article. "It'll get better in time" does not make the issue at hand disappear.

 

The article is clearly directed at people complaining about this issue and it tells them to "not stress about it". The writer is wrong. People have every write to complain. These products are being sold now. It doesn't matter if they get better in 10 years, they are charging money for them NOW. So people can protest NOW.

[JAKEBAB]

k..... but what if your someone who has friends?

[Builder]

I said I read it and I don't agree with the article. "It'll get better in time" does not make the issue at hand disappear.

 

The article is clearly directed at people complaining about this issue and it tells them to "not stress about it". The writer is wrong. People have every write to complain. These products are being sold now. It doesn't matter if they get better in 10 years, they are charging money for them NOW. So people can protest NOW.

He's not saying they shouldn't have the right to complain. You're extrapolating a bunch of conspiracist bullcrap from an article that was trying to put one perspective on understanding why smart watch battery life appears to be bad these days, in short, because it's a tough problem that's been around a long time.

 

He never claims it makes the issue at hand disappear either...where are you getting all of this?

[spartaman64]

4 hours of fitness tracking ...

[StingBull]

does it even matter

 

You know what Builder, what I said the last time I wrote to you in this forum when you decided to leave still stands. I'm tired of you. I will go back to my policy of ignoring you again.

[Guest]

Since most people recharge smartphones nightly, 19 hours of 'mixed use' would be... reasonable.

Or rather that would be reasonable if the batteries were easily replaceable when they degrade after daily recharge cycles. But it's Apple, so they're not going to be.

Of course Apple products being unreasonable has never kept people from buying them.

 

So don't stress about how well Apple watch is going to sell, Builder. It's going to do fine. The opinion of people who didn't decide to buy it the minute it was announced doesn't matter. You can go back to macrumors or cultofmac or the verge or wherever it is you usually hang out.

[DigitalHermit]

afaik, batteries are already limited by physics... we're pushing batteries to be smaller while increasing capacity... one solution could be putting in a 'pendulum' of sorts attached to a dynamo like what they do on some hybrid mechanical watches (I own a fully mechanical watch)...

 

@Builder

Welcome back...