iPhone battery discussion

[matttye]

I was thinking that the iPhone seems to have a lot of battery issues when compared to other smartphones, and it seems like there's a few things that Apple could do to help sort this issue out:

1) Obviously stick a bigger battery in there. Would anyone mind if their iPhone was ever so slightly thicker if it meant it had improved battery life? Technology improves all the time anyway, I'm sure batteries will get slimmer in time.
2) Use an energy efficient OLED screen in the next version of the iPhone.
3) Enable some apps to run in the background, subject to apple's approval. I'm sure something as simple as a TODO application, for example, would be more efficient when running in the background versus having to maintain a constant data connection to listen for notifications.
4) Refresh the hardware to the best energy/cost efficient stuff each time they update the phone. Processors, for example, are constantly improving performance and reducing power consumption.
5) Software revisions can improve battery life a lot.

Any other thoughts?

 

[nickspohn]

You make it seem like none of these have crossed Apple's mind.

 

[matttye]

You make it seem like none of these have crossed Apple's mind.

I didn't say that. It just seems to me that Apple comes out with these so-called improved batteries every time, yet most people report that their battery with each new iPhone has gotten worse if anything!

I'm sure Apple's main reason for not introducing everything all at once is cost.

 

[Almy]

I got my 3G in august of last year and it's battery has gotten better with every firmware update. I'm really impressed with it nowadays. I use mine a LOT, and tons for Internet usage and I can go all day without charging.

 

[darngooddesign]

1. What good i slightly thicker battery? They would need to double the thickness or its just not worth it. Try carrying an iPhone in a Mophie and tell me how much you want a thicker phone.

3. This has nothing to do with improving battery life, and would infact decrease it.

4. The just upgraded all the hardware.

5. The OSes have improved battery life over time.

Or you could just buy an external battery for $30.

 

[matttye]

1. What good i slightly thicker for a longer battery life. They would need to double the thickness or its just not worth it.

1500mAh batteries are more than enough capacity for most smartphones to withstand a full day of moderate to heavy usage and they're not that thick.

3. This has nothing to do with improving battery life, and would infact decrease it.

Read what I said. I'm saying that allowing some apps, such as a todo list app, to run in the background, would be more energy efficient than having to maintain a constant data connection to listen for push notifications.

Of course push is more efficient for things like IM clients and whatnot, but not for the most basic of apps.

4. The just upgraded all the hardware.

I know. This is to discuss how they can improve the battery life in future, ie. when the next revision of the phone comes out.

5. The OSes have improved battery life over time.

A lot of posts on here seem to suggest otherwise, although I'm sure some have seen improved battery life.

 

[darngooddesign]

1500mAh batteries are more than enough capacity for most smartphones to withstand a full day of moderate to heavy usage and they're not that thick.

The GS has a 1350mAh battery in it. I want close to 2000 before I'll entertain a thicker device.

Read what I said. I'm saying that allowing some apps, such as a todo list app, to run in the background, would be more energy efficient than having to maintain a constant data connection to listen for push notifications.

How is this relelvant to a battery discussion?

I know. This is to discuss how they can improve the battery life in future, ie. when the next revision of the phone comes out.

The same way they always have, stick a bigger more efficient battery in it.

A lot of posts on here seem to suggest otherwise, although I'm sure some have seen improved battery life.

People like to bitch about using the hell out of their iPhones and getting a shorter battery life.

Seriously, if you use your phone a lot, buy an external. They're not expensive.

 

[matttye]

How is this relelvant to a battery discussion?

Because using the network uses a lot of battery power? How can you not understand that

The same way they always have, stick a bigger more efficient battery in it.

If they improved the hardware and software using the battery as well as the battery itself, the improvements would be much more substantial.

People like to bitch about using the hell out of their iPhones and getting a shorter battery life.

Seriously, if you use your phone a lot, buy an external. They're not expensive.

I agree with this.

 

[Primejimbo]

I get 4 hours out of my work phone running Windows Mobile, and all the phones do at work that are the same as mine. That's if I only make a few calls and use the internet VERY little. My work phone now just stays plugged in the charger in the work truck. It's sad when it's fully charged at night and beeping "low battery" the next morning. I get a full day out of my iPhone, and sometimes I get less because I am using data. Over all I am ok with the battery life, and if it was my work phone I wouldn't even ave it.
The iPhone is just to easy to click on an app and use data and in a way I think that is the downfall. I bet BB users don't use as much data as an iPhone, and the friends who have a BB don't go on the internet/use data nearly as much as I do.

 

[darngooddesign]

Because using the network uses a lot of battery power? How can you not understand that?

In fact receiving a push is akin to reciving a text while running in the background is akin to making a phone call/using the network. Which do you think impacts the battery more?

If they improved the hardware and software using the battery as well as the battery itself, the improvements would be much more substantial.

They have, the GS' double ram makes it more efficient.

 

[ntrigue]

Push Notifications has been a major disappointment; anything but WiFi you can watch the battery draining.

I think the biggest faux-paux was AMOLED screen. It would have been smart marketing as the 3GS is a big letdown until we have 7.2Mbps. Obviously the screen would be more vivid and shrink by more than 2mm on a 12.3mm iPhone. They could fit an 1850mA battery in the existing casing and improve consumption with the screen on.

 

[jkb]

3) Enable some apps to run in the background, subject to apple's approval. I'm sure something as simple as a TODO application, for example, would be more efficient when running in the background versus having to maintain a constant data connection to listen for notifications.

running apps in background will eat up battery life. if you want to improve batter life, background apps is the last thing you want.

 

[jkb]

Push Notifications has been a major disappointment;

you think it has been a disappointment from a consumer point of view? don't even get me started on push notifications from a developer point of view.

btw, a friend of mine calls push notifications "penis" because that is what PNS (Push Notification Service) sounds like

 

[matttye]

running apps in background will eat up battery life. if you want to improve batter life, background apps is the last thing you want.

So you say.

I fail to see how a very simple app running in the background would eat up more battery than the "push" service, which maintains a constant connection to Apple's servers listening for notifications.

 

[jkb]

So you say.

I fail to see how a very simple app running in the background would eat up more battery than the "push" service, which maintains a constant connection to Apple's servers listening for notifications.

well, let me try to explain this to you in simple terms without making you get a degree in computer science:

iPhone is based on Mac OS, which is based on BSD, which is Unix.

in BSD it is cheaper for an OS to create and keep a TCP connection vs. creating a process... a single socket connection will not require a lot of memory and an OS will not even notice it.

but when kernel has to manage multiple processes, it will need to grow the process table, allocate memory to a new process, manage that memory AND on top of that all also manage multiple network connections that process could open. process management is expensive and costs CPU usage. memory management is also expensive. sockets don't require process management and socket memory management is much simpler and more lightweight compared to process memory management.

now an argument could be made that exec()'ing a app on launch inside of chroot also costs CPU, but that is nothing compared to a few long running user space procs.

but you right, so i say.

 

[runastun564]

My sprint htc touch pro died in about 5 hours of just texting, but it checked mail every 5 minutes. However, with the iPhone I can go all day surfing, using apps, and listening to music so in my opinion the battery life is great.

 

[darngooddesign]

So you say.

I fail to see how a very simple app running in the background would eat up more battery than the "push" service, which maintains a constant connection to Apple's servers listening for notifications.

I apologize as my understanding of push was incorrect. Apple's implementation does use more battery than I thought.

I'm going to run a test with AIM where I have it background vs push to see which uses more battery. I still think that actively being logged onto AOL's servers will use more juice than just push.

I am all for background apps, but I don't think they are relevant to a discussion on improved battery life. I say this because its a choice to run them in the back. Expand it out and you could have listed no 3G, no heavy 3D gaming, or no GPS as ways Apple could improve battery life.

 

[Small White Car]

So you say.

I fail to see how a very simple app running in the background would eat up more battery than the "push" service, which maintains a constant connection to Apple's servers listening for notifications.

So you want it to run in the background and not maintain a connection to the servers? Uh...why is it running, then?

You want it to run in the background so it can NOT do something?

You can set it to not do that while it's not running right now by turning off push.

 

[Almy]

If you watch the apple 3.0 media event you will see where they do a battery life comparison between push and background. They even mention that the drastic difference, for the better, is why they went with push.

 

[wilderness1957]

I would like to see a small solar cell placed on the back of the phone. Even if it could not maintain a full charge on the phone under hard use it could at least extend the life of the battery. I have a keychain solar cell that I plug into my iPhone and it charges it while it sits on my desk so I know it can be done.

 

[darngooddesign]

If you watch the apple 3.0 media event you will see where they do a battery life comparison between push and background. They even mention that the drastic difference, for the better, is why they went with push.

I love how everyone assumes they know more about power management than Apple's engineers.

 

[darngooddesign]

So for everyone who thinks that PUSH hits the battery more than background apps.

3GS, screen on, 3g on but on wifi.

After an hour of backgrounding AIM and receiving no incoming IMs, my battery was down to 87%.

After an hour of AIM on Push and receiving 30 IM notifications, the battery was down to 94%.

So to reiterate, Push notifications use far less battery than backgrounding the app.

 

[matttye]

So for everyone who thinks that PUSH hits the battery more than background apps.

3GS, screen on, 3g on but on wifi.

After an hour of backgrounding AIM and receiving no incoming IMs, my battery was down to 87%.

After an hour of AIM on Push and receiving 30 IM notifications, the battery was down to 94%.

So to reiterate, Push notifications use far less battery than backgrounding the app.

Thank you, but this was not my point. I think everyone is already well aware that push will be a battery saver for things such as IM clients.

What I was saying is that for apps such as todo lists, which might simply provide alerts at given times, I would assume it would be better for the battery if the iPhone did not have to stay connected to Apple's servers listening for updates.

In others words; I think that an app running in the background which pops up a notification at a given time will be better for the battery than apple's push implementation which stays constantly connected to their servers whilst listening for notifications. Could you test that?

 

[matttye]

So you want it to run in the background and not maintain a connection to the servers? Uh...why is it running, then?

You want it to run in the background so it can NOT do something?

You can set it to not do that while it's not running right now by turning off push.

Imagine if Apple's alarm clock was implemented using push instead. Which of the two do you think would use more battery, the one running in the background but not connected to the internet, or the one connected to the internet waiting for push messages? (Especially when you consider how much of a battery drain 3G is on the iPhone)

 

[darngooddesign]

Imagine if Apple's alarm clock was implemented using push instead. Which of the two do you think would use more battery, the one running in the background but not connected to the internet, or the one connected to the internet waiting for push messages? (Especially when you consider how much of a battery drain 3G is on the iPhone)

Why are you comparing the battery drain of an app that does not connect to the net (backgrounded) with one that does (push)? If the alarm receives alerts via push it would need a constant internet connection without push. You might as well compare an app running in Airplane mode, with one running with the 3G radio on.

How does your background app even receive its data if not with push or a constant connection? If it only needs to ping the servers once a day, that's not a fair comparison to a push app. Push service is supposed to replace apps that you would otherwise want constantly connected so you can get the alerts when they happen not at a pre-determined time. Its like comparing the battery drain on Push mail vs Fetch every hour mail.

Now Apple could, and probably will, refine the push system to use even less power.