Good thing I am not awake 19 hours straight. Seriously though, most people will get more than a day since it will be used as a watch and for notifications.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's funny how [Apple Watch battery life]
- Thread starter Pelea
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm awake probably 17 hours a day.
7am get out of bed.
12:00 Midnight, back into bed.
7 hours Sleep time.
Would imagine, that's not THAT unusual.
That is pretty usual. I would assume majority of people do 7 to 8 hours of sleep. If 19 hours of mixed usage means checking time, cheeking glances, occasional interactions through the day with the watch apps and with probably 1 hour of workout, it means you will have to charge the watch once in 24 hours. Of course not ideal but with the current advancement of a battery on such a small device it's not possible to do better. I guess we will find out soon enough how good or bad the battery life on this thing is. I'm still getting one.
Exactly. Depending on charge time I suspect that I'll probably end up charging it twice daily if sleep monitoring and morning alarm features are worth using. I'll charge it once in the evening before I go to bed (I can do without a smartwatch while sitting and watching TV or checking MR for an hour or two), and then put it back on to go to sleep, and then put it back on the charger while I shower, get dressed, etc in the morning. If it's been charged the previous evening and mostly inactive all night, I can't imagine it will take too long to charge in the morning. All in all, I could still wear this thing 22-23 hours a day.
Actually if you wish to be 100% totally accurate then, yes.
From the moment I wake up (actually, from just before I wake up) till the moment I get into bed, and actually for a little while after I get into bed.
In one for or another I am using some form of man made technology yes.
Amazing when you think about it.
The FitBit is NOT a smart watch. Just like the jawbone and the fuel band, they are simply bands that measure your activity. There is not much of an interface (a button or two), and not much of a display (a light or a series of lights that can make a few letters). And the lights are off most of the time. Of course, they last weeks.
Interesting hearing people say that they feel others are going to be spending hundreds if not thousands on a product and then hardly using it.
Let's consider this for a moment shall we?
Day one.
Apple watch comes out, and there are not THAT many apps for it.
Certainly, a very limited number of "Full Apps" as we know Apple are artificially limiting what devs can create for the watch for the time being, perhaps until later this autumn.
So, right now, it will be, to some extent limited.
Now then. Think about this.
As time moves on, Apple lets all devs create, let's call them Full Apps.
Games, Video players, etc etc etc.....
Do you think, as time goes on, and more and more "Full / Large" apps come out, people's usage of the watch will reduce?
Or, isn't it obvious, as time goes on, this usage of the watch, will only grow and grow and grow.
Common sense tells you, the more Apps there are, and the more you will be able to do on the watch (when Apple allows) the longer and longer people will spend using the watch.
So day 1's quick look at a few notification apps, will turn, into tomorrows longer and longer use of larger and more useful apps as time moves forward.
Perhaps the hope it, that Apple Watch 2 will be ready in time, with it's better battery life to be more able to deal with this as these apps start more and more coming on stream, perhaps next march.
Otherwise, I'm sure it's obvious, as more apps come along, and more can be done on the watch, the real life battery live will, for the user look worse and worse and worse as time goes on.
Let's consider this for a moment shall we?
Day one.
Apple watch comes out, and there are not THAT many apps for it.
Certainly, a very limited number of "Full Apps" as we know Apple are artificially limiting what devs can create for the watch for the time being, perhaps until later this autumn.
So, right now, it will be, to some extent limited.
Now then. Think about this.
As time moves on, Apple lets all devs create, let's call them Full Apps.
Games, Video players, etc etc etc.....
Do you think, as time goes on, and more and more "Full / Large" apps come out, people's usage of the watch will reduce?
Or, isn't it obvious, as time goes on, this usage of the watch, will only grow and grow and grow.
Common sense tells you, the more Apps there are, and the more you will be able to do on the watch (when Apple allows) the longer and longer people will spend using the watch.
So day 1's quick look at a few notification apps, will turn, into tomorrows longer and longer use of larger and more useful apps as time moves forward.
Perhaps the hope it, that Apple Watch 2 will be ready in time, with it's better battery life to be more able to deal with this as these apps start more and more coming on stream, perhaps next march.
Otherwise, I'm sure it's obvious, as more apps come along, and more can be done on the watch, the real life battery live will, for the user look worse and worse and worse as time goes on.
Why do you think that? I mean why do you think people will hardly be using it?
Personally I find it useful as it is, all I would ask for more is battery improvement and third party apps.
I don't think that.
That is what others here are saying.
Many have been disappointed in hearing how poor the battery life is going to be if you use the watch for anything much.
Those defending it, are saying, well you only should be having the watch on for the off moment here and there, for notifications and such like. Not actually USING IT.
They are implying if you do use it a lot, and kill the battery then you are wrong, and minimal use now and again is how you SHOULD be using it.
I was pointing out that as more and more fully featured Apps come along, and Apple let devs make full apps (which they are not at the moment) then people will be using the watch more and more.
Which goes against those who are saying you should not use it much to preserve the battery
Piggie: there are people saying they intend to use the device the way it's best meant to be used, rather than just using it heavily until it dies a couple hours into your morning. There are things that this watch is best positioned to do (which is why Apple is making such a big deal of notifications, glances, etc.) and things that it probably can/will do that most people would rather do on a device optimized for that activity.
For instance: I prefer to play games on my iPad rather than my iPhone, because they eat through the battery on the iPhone faster and I prefer the larger screen. Doesn't mean I can't use my iPhone to play games, or other people shouldn't. But I make the choice not to use that functionality in most cases because there are better solutions. But I'm not going to make the argument that if you don't use your iPhone for gaming, you shouldn't have an iPhone.
As for people saying they are going to use it less, or want to disable certain functionality ... there are people who say that about their iPhones! There are people who go through and disable certain features or avoid others simply because they want to better manage their battery usage. That doesn't mean they spent hundreds of dollars on a smartphone to "not use it," it means they have a certain use pattern and are fine not using the device to its "full potential" in some areas so that they can maximize its use in other areas.
The Fitbit Surge is nowhere even close to the Apple Watch in terms of its hardware or what it'll be able to do. Comparing it to the Apple Watch is like comparing the Pebble to an Apple Watch. Or a feature phone to a smartphone. They occupy the same space, they have some overlapping functionality, but they are two completely different classes of device.
The Microsoft Band, on the other hand, is like comparing a low-end smartphone to a flagship smartphone (iPhone or otherwise). Yes, it does more than a feature phone. Yes, it has better hardware. Yes, it may actually have a better battery life. But that's only because it's less capable than the flagships, has worse hardware, and is an overall worse experience.
And keep in mind it's "19 hours of mixed usage," with up to three days of standby time. So yes, there's a lot of wiggle room based on how people use their Apple Watch ... sometimes worse, but also sometimes better.
For instance: I prefer to play games on my iPad rather than my iPhone, because they eat through the battery on the iPhone faster and I prefer the larger screen. Doesn't mean I can't use my iPhone to play games, or other people shouldn't. But I make the choice not to use that functionality in most cases because there are better solutions. But I'm not going to make the argument that if you don't use your iPhone for gaming, you shouldn't have an iPhone.
As for people saying they are going to use it less, or want to disable certain functionality ... there are people who say that about their iPhones! There are people who go through and disable certain features or avoid others simply because they want to better manage their battery usage. That doesn't mean they spent hundreds of dollars on a smartphone to "not use it," it means they have a certain use pattern and are fine not using the device to its "full potential" in some areas so that they can maximize its use in other areas.
But compare the functionality and the hardware! "This apple doesn't produce nearly as much juice as this orange!"
The Fitbit Surge is nowhere even close to the Apple Watch in terms of its hardware or what it'll be able to do. Comparing it to the Apple Watch is like comparing the Pebble to an Apple Watch. Or a feature phone to a smartphone. They occupy the same space, they have some overlapping functionality, but they are two completely different classes of device.
The Microsoft Band, on the other hand, is like comparing a low-end smartphone to a flagship smartphone (iPhone or otherwise). Yes, it does more than a feature phone. Yes, it has better hardware. Yes, it may actually have a better battery life. But that's only because it's less capable than the flagships, has worse hardware, and is an overall worse experience.
And keep in mind it's "19 hours of mixed usage," with up to three days of standby time. So yes, there's a lot of wiggle room based on how people use their Apple Watch ... sometimes worse, but also sometimes better.
So you're telling me that you'll sleep at midnight, wake up at 8AM, and then keep the watch without a charge until the next day at 8AM at which point you will need to see the time again?
Even if the battery life is 19 hours, you are bound to charge it at some point before then.
To me, it's funny how the battery life isn't say a week, though I prefer a full month. But that's me coming from an era where people wore watches not just for checking the time (primary reason), but also to feel fully dressed i.e. not wearing a watch is more like not wearing pants at all.
So, you as a customer are being told how you should use a device.
So as not to highlight the weak aspects of a device.
Would that be like if I made a car that overheated and broke down, needing a few hours to cool off.
So I sell you the car, and I recommend you only use the car for very short trips. That's my recommendation.
Would you defend me and say yes customers should do as I say.
Or would you say my car needed more work, so you could use it how YOU wanted and it not overheat and stop after a while.
No offense, but that's a stupid analogy. In fact, cars actually prove my point about proper use.
1. Electric cars. Enough said.
2. In case that's not clear enough .... Cars are limited by fuel: the size of the gas tank, their gas mileage, and how you use the fuel. You're aware of how large the tank is and how far you can go on that tank when you buy it, and then use the car accordingly. If you run them hard, you run out of fuel faster. Yes, you can run them hard. Nobody's stopping you. But you will be making more frequent stops at the gas station.
3. In case those first two more abstract arguments aren't clear enough, here's another impractical real-world analogy ... my friend put what is essentially a street-legal racing engine in an El Camino, and it runs on airplane fuel. It's a lot of fun for cruising through the countryside in short trips or taking to the car show at the local VFW. But if he wants to take it far, he has to do so aware of where regional airports are so that he can stop to fuel it. If he doesn't plan to refuel, then he's outta luck.
4. Cars in general are practically defined by being told how to use them, whether it's proper maintenance (when to get an oil change, the condition of your tires, etc.), which side of the road to drive in, how to behave in lanes, or how fast you can go. Now, I can choose to not follow these "guidelines of proper usage" ... and then my car might not run as well as it could, or I could crash it, or I could get in legal trouble. Subaru may not want my friend to take his WRX off-roading on his property, but he has every right to do so ... but he also can't complain when he crashes into a tree. (Another impractical but real-world analogy.)
The point of all this is, rather than coming up with stupid worst-case-scenario analogies, look at real-world situations and realize that it's common sense that if you run a device with finite resources (be it gasoline or a stored electric charge) harder than you probably should, you'll have to "fill up the tank" more often. It's your choice how you use the device, but there are always consequences (positive and negative) for your choices.
Also once this device is launched (most likely at a special event) Apple will provide more details on battery life. Rumors are there are 3,000 of these devices in the wild, most likely being real-world tested by Apple employees. I think it's highly unlikely anyone will be going into this purchase blind.
Interesting, no mention of always on display. Ars claims its battery isn't that bad...
Electric cars have the same issue. Many can only be used up to 50 miles. Therefore, they can only be used for commuting, not long trips.
Hybrid cars fix some of the problem, but they still have the issue where you can't take long trips and still save gas mileage unless you have places to charge it.
The smart watch category seems similar to hybrid / electric cars in restricting the user.
And when cars first came out, gas stations were few and far between. You had to plan your trip based on where gas stations were. This is similar to the early smart watch years. You need to be cognitive of how long you are using the watch and for what activities.
Not ideal, but these are the early days. This will change over time, but you need to start somewhere, and decide whether you will accept the trade offs.
Last edited:
Well, right now, Apple hasn't said anything other than "you'll want to charge it every night." Let's see what they say when they actually roll it out, and then see how accurate those claims are before we pass judgment.
----------
Realistically, the watch will be passively used most of the time. It's a complement to, not a replacement for the phone. Hopefully battery life improves in future generations, but unfortunately it isn't very easy to repeal the laws of physics. The Apple Watch is smaller than competing watches, and has a faster processor. Something's gotta give.
It's only hearsay. Though I would say that Mark Gurman is about the most reliable Apple rumor reporter out there.
What has been reported troubles me because it sounds like 19 hours is the time an average user will get. That means, heavy users will struggle to get through the day. That is a major problem.
A watch cannot be unreliable. It must work 100% of the time. The first time it does not, people will stop relying on it. When that happens, they stop wearing it, and generally do not buy a second one.
What has been reported troubles me because it sounds like 19 hours is the time an average user will get. That means, heavy users will struggle to get through the day. That is a major problem.
A watch cannot be unreliable. It must work 100% of the time. The first time it does not, people will stop relying on it. When that happens, they stop wearing it, and generally do not buy a second one.
But it is using it
Maybe not to the extend that someone would use the battery was more lasting. Having the watch on me when I am at work and have to leave the phone in my drawers (due do company policy and camera on it) I did find the gear fit extremely useful just to get notified of incoming calls, messages, emails and all this sort of stuff while I was inside the perimeters. It truly makes difference when you wear the technology, maybe you won't realise it until you try it. I miss lots of calls from mobile phone due to it being anywhere at my house, in my pockets, somewhere on my desk etc.
I don't think I will ever use the Apple watch to play games, browse the internet or watch photos and videos. I personally don't see the pint of doing this kind of stuff on a smart watch if you have a smart phone. I think the idea of wearable device like the smartwatch is to serve as a bridge between your smart phone and yourself. And not to replace it.
So yes, if you have the Apple watch on your wrist, being there to feed notifications from your phone or doing fitness tracking, even though it may not seem much to you but you are actually using it.
Can't wait to play games and watch videos on a one inch square screen. Should be awesome, NOT.
I'm sure if, many years ago you told people back then, there would be many millions of people playing games and watching video's on a 3.5" screen they would of called you nuts and it was a stupid thing to say.
but look what happened!
I have seen something like this decades ago and I thought it was the coolest thing I have seen at the time. Not crazy at all. Not even 3.5"
