I really like it. When I first saw it, I had my doubts, but it has grown on me and it's easy to see why they made this typeface instead of just using Helvetica Neue.
Report out today from 9to5 showing the likely battery life being pretty low (3-4 days standby, 3 hours of watch face display, 19 hours of mixed usage).
If these end up being correct it's probably a deal breaker for me first the first generation device. I won't enjoy deliberately moderating my interactions out of fear of battery life.
Report out today from 9to5 showing the likely battery life being pretty low (3-4 days standby, 3 hours of watch face display, 19 hours of mixed usage).
If these end up being correct it's probably a deal breaker for me first the first generation device. I won't enjoy deliberately moderating my interactions out of fear of battery life.
Yeah this is concerning depending on two things - people's expectations on using the device and how Apple markets this thing. I would not expect necessarily to use it all the time to answer emails or texts. But for a user looking at a $350+ gadget, they're going to want to get use out of it. It's not an iPhone replacement, it's an iPhone accessory that is supposed to be glanced at/minimally used. That is going to be a difficult thing to message.
Interested in hearing how people who've used Android Wear watches think that would compare to how they use those.
Yeah this is concerning depending on two things - people's expectations on using the device and how Apple markets this thing. I would not expect necessarily to use it all the time to answer emails or texts. But for a user looking at a $350+ gadget, they're going to want to get use out of it. It's not an iPhone replacement, it's an iPhone accessory that is supposed to be glanced at/minimally used. That is going to be a difficult thing to message.
Interested in hearing how people who've used Android Wear watches think that would compare to how they use those.
Report out today from 9to5 showing the likely battery life being pretty low (3-4 days standby, 3 hours of watch face display, 19 hours of mixed usage).
If these end up being correct it's probably a deal breaker for me first the first generation device. I won't enjoy deliberately moderating my interactions out of fear of battery life.
I don't think you'll be deliberately moderating your interactions though. As SuperPac has said, this really isn't meant to be a device that you use all day. Moderate usage that adds up to 3-4 hours per day is surprisingly a lot of usage when it comes in bites that are just 30-45 seconds each.
I'm going to wait to see what reviews have to say about "real world" battery life before I get too worried. With the iPhone doing most of the heavy lifting, I suspect that the Apple Watch's battery life will make it through a day without too much trouble, although at first we'll be playing with it so much that the charge is likely to drop quickly. The idea of playing a game on it sounds silly though, as that will kill a battery quickly.
The report also indicated that the watch is good for about 4 hours of continuous use for workout monitoring, which should be plenty for most of us. My longest runs are about 2 hours in length.
Edit: I'm getting at least 48 hrs with Sony Smartwatch 3 and that's heavy usage with an always on display. The iWatch report sounds pretty poor and about on par with the early firmware Moto 360 battery reports (that was lambasted in reviews)
I'm actually ok with nightly charging. I'm pretty good about that kinda stuff and I'm already a watch wearing and have the take off your watch and put it on the little place it goes routine in my life already.
I've really really loved the 6+s ~2day battery life for me so its not great. But I don't think charging the thing frequently is a deal breaker.
Im curious to see what the battery indicator is like.. I wonder if it will even have one or just do 20% alerts towards the end of its capacity.
I have a Gear Live and a G Watch, and the battery life these new reports on the Apple Watch are similar to what I get. The G Watch has slightly better battery life, and easily lasts 4 days on standby, it seems to drain about 20% per day. The Gear Live gets around 3-3.5 days on standby. Mixed use I get just over a day for the Gear Live and probably 1.5-2 days on the G Watch. I've never used it with the screen on continuously for more than about an hour and a half so I can't really say what the continuous use time is.
Android Wear isn't really made to be constantly toyed with though. It pops up your notification and you can quickly read through texts and emails, etc., but you're generally not going to sit there looking at your watch for more than a minute. At that point you take your phone out. Apple Watch seems to have actual apps that people may play with constantly so part of the battery life issue may be that it's doing more.
Report out today from 9to5 showing the likely battery life being pretty low (3-4 days standby, 3 hours of watch face display, 19 hours of mixed usage).
If these end up being correct it's probably a deal breaker for me first the first generation device. I won't enjoy deliberately moderating my interactions out of fear of battery life.
I'm actually ok with nightly charging. I'm pretty good about that kinda stuff and I'm already a watch wearing and have the take off your watch and put it on the little place it goes routine in my life already.
I've really really loved the 6+s ~2day battery life for me so its not great. But I don't think charging the thing frequently is a deal breaker.
Im curious to see what the battery indicator is like.. I wonder if it will even have one or just do 20% alerts towards the end of its capacity.
Interesting point Jtwo, I haven't seen a battery indicator in any of the renders so far. I'm also fine with one day battery life but, to be fair, many (perhaps the majority?) won't be and it's been one of the biggest sources of criticism in Androidwear reviews especially in comparison to the Pebble. It's should be noted that Epix quoted what 9to5 Mac is aiming for, not what it actually is:
While Apple was aiming for three to four days of standby time, two to three days, and while it's aiming for 19 hours of mixed usage, it "may not hit that number in the first generation version."
Looks like a battery/charging indicator of some kind appears in a status bar while in apps, at least. Along with the time - so no matter what app you are/were in, when you pull up your watch you'll still be able to see the time quickly (nice touch IMO).
another interesting thing about the battery life reports are that the thing is on the level of an A5 which I guess shouldn't be so surprising but that is quite powerful.
I was thinking on the commute home I'd be totally into bikelights I could control with the watch. I always forget to turn off or sometimes on my bikelights. It'd be clutch as hell to hit a little button your watch to pump up the brightness on your headlamp if you need to.
Also changing audio apps without using your phone will be awesome. Right now I can't hop between SoundCloud, iTunes and overcast without taking out my giant phone.
another interesting thing about the battery life reports are that the thing is on the level of an A5 which I guess shouldn't be so surprising but that is quite powerful.
It's not power you want, it's efficiency. My first reaction to the A5 news wouldn't be wow, it'd be hmm/ugh. Have you picked up an iPod Touch recently? The performance is horrendous. I mean to put it in watch context: Moto 360 review
Arstechnica said:
Performance
While the outside is a good expression of what a smartwatch should be, the inside is fatally flawed. Motorola inexplicably chose an ancient 1GHz single-core Texas Instruments OMAP 3 SoC to power the 360. For some perspective, that's a 2010-era processor in the same league as the iPhone 4 or Nexus One. Smartwatch processors don't need to be as powerful as their smartphone companions, but there is no reason for them to be old. It's almost as if Motorola raided a dumpster outside the TI factory for parts.
Motorola has been very quiet about the choice of SoC in the 360. The official spec list only says "TI OMAP 3" with no model number or clock speed. A look at /proc/cpuinfo shows an obfuscated readout, listing the hardware only as "Minnow," the code name for the Moto 360. Motorola's PR wouldn't provide us any details on the SoC, either.
Typically OMAP 3s were built on a 45nm, which puts it at a huge power-usage disadvantage compared to the 28nm LP (low power) process used to make the Snapdragon 400 in every other smartwatch.
Regardless of the specific technical information, the SoC selection completely cripples the Moto 360. The device is slow and the battery life is not up to par.
Of course a lot depends of software optimization; motorola quickly released updates for the moto 360 that greatly improved the battery life. I wouldn't want to comment on what the A5 choice means until someone (Anandtech? iFixit?) examines an iWatch and reveals Apple's customizations. On the other hand, instead of the laudatory articles so far on the iWatch A5 power, a writer could easily suggest
[Apple] has been very quiet about the choice of SoC in the [iWatch]. The official spec list only says [S1] with no model number or clock speed... [Apple's] PR wouldn't provide us any details on the SoC, either.
Typically [A5s] were built on a 45nm/[32nm], which puts it at a huge power-usage disadvantage compared to the 28nm LP (low power) process used to make the Snapdragon 400 in every other smartwatch.
*shrug*
If Motorola and Apple can make watches a 'good enough' level I don't care if they are using garbage processors
Can't get over 19 hour battery life (with moderate use). I'll let people beta test it for an year and let the ecosystem grow. Next year will have much better battery and I'll jump in
Besides telling the time quickly, which I already can do on my current watch, I'm having a very hard time seeing what this does better and easier then my iPhone and it's beautiful 5.5" screen.
Oh Im not slack jawed at the power of the thing. It surprised me for that reason. I don't think the nature iPod touches means much, they're two different platforms. It's just surprising that the A5 or some offshoot thereof is STILL finding it's way into new iOS devices. Maybe efficiency and familiarity is why they chose it now that I'm typing this.
It's not power you want, it's efficiency. My first reaction to the A5 news wouldn't be wow, it'd be hmm/ugh. Have you picked up an iPod Touch recently? The performance is horrendous. I mean to put it in watch context: Moto 360 review
Running a stripped-down version of iOS codenamed SkiHill, the Apple S1 chip inside the Apple Watch is surprisingly close in performance to the version of Apple’s A5 processor found inside the current-generation iPod touch, while the Retina-class color display is capable of updating at a fluid 60 frames per second.
People are going to dick around on these things constantly when its intended purpose is a watch that is a companion device to an iPhone. Of course the battery life will seem like shit.
I like this design. It's a transparent OLED over a mechanical watch. If the battery on the smart portion wears out the mechanical part still functions.
Can't get over 19 hour battery life (with moderate use). I'll let people beta test it for an year and let the ecosystem grow. Next year will have much better battery and I'll jump in
Besides telling the time quickly, which I already can do on my current watch, I'm having a very hard time seeing what this does better and easier then my iPhone and it's beautiful 5.5" screen.
Isn't it obvious or are you just being deliberately obtuse? It does notifications (mail, messages, calendar, apps) easier than banging out an expensive/slippery phablet everytime you get a buzz. I would imagine the fitness and navigation aspect is also easier than bringing out your phone everytime.
Yeah the A5 is not great anymore on most devices it's still inside. But, a lot of the watch functions at the beginning are just displaying information on the screen and the processing is being done on your phone. For that, it might be OK.
I hope we get an event announcement soon to show off some more of the interface and function.
Yeah the A5 is not great anymore on most devices it's still inside. But, a lot of the watch functions at the beginning are just displaying information on the screen and the processing is being done on your phone. For that, it might be OK.
I hope we get an event announcement soon to show off some more of the interface and function.
I personally hate it, it's really really ugly on the eye, if they really couldn't use Helvetica Neue UL for clarity then they should have used the normal one or hell just keep it in sync with what the past they could've used Myriad... the font is one of the reasons i really really don't like the Apple Watch.
Yeah the A5 is not great anymore on most devices it's still inside. But, a lot of the watch functions at the beginning are just displaying information on the screen and the processing is being done on your phone. For that, it might be OK.
I hope we get an event announcement soon to show off some more of the interface and function.
A5 like power for a watch is way overkill, like absurdly overkill.
Remember that the thing itself has only to process flashy menu animations, incoming notifications from the phone, a watch and occasionally the sensors it has.
Now this is really un-Apple like but this might be a move to keep the processing power the same between a number of product generations only to advance in power efficiency.
For example:
Apple Watch1 -> Apple Watch3 to have the same processing power but better battery life each iteration then to start a new cycle with added processing power.
I was into this before the rumored battery life. We will see. I actually think there is a place for this type of gadget for quick notification updates, especially things like meetings, text, and reminders. But it's gotta last all day easy
<1 day battery life pushed me to buy fitbit surge. 7 day battery life with option to track runs independently via GPS. I also get text/phone notifications. Sorry, I am still not sold on a watch that needs recharging every day.
<1 day battery life pushed me to buy fitbit surge. 7 day battery life with option to track runs independently via GPS. I also get text/phone notifications. Sorry, I am still not sold on a watch that needs recharging every day.
I wouldn't mind charging the watch every night, but if the rumors are true that the battery will die after several hours of the watch face being constantly on, then this is product is a complete failure for me.
I want a watch first. That means it should always be on. I want to glance down and see what time it is, without having to wiggle my wrist or push a freaking button on it with my other hand.
I was originally very excited about the Apple Watch, but I'm really not seeing any reason to upgrade from my $99 Pebble to this $350+ device.
I wouldn't mind charging the watch every night, but if the rumors are true that the battery will die after several hours of the watch face being constantly on, then this is product is a complete failure for me.
I want a watch first. That means it should always be on. I want to glance down and see what time it is, without having to wiggle my wrist or push a freaking button on it with my other hand.
I was originally very excited about the Apple Watch, but I'm really not seeing any reason to upgrade from my $99 Pebble to this $350+ device.
But, the watch face won't constantly be on because they've tuned (or try to tune) it to recognize when you raise and turn your wrist to only be on during that time. AFAIK, most if not all Android Wear watches are similar in that respect - not always-on. They've apparently worked quite intensely to get that part right; I'm sure we'll see when they hold another watch event and let people actually use them.
It all depends on how well that all works. 2-3 hour battery life in few-second chunks could be enough. Hard to say without actually using it. But the device was not made or intended for you to sit there for long periods of time with the screen on. For that, you've got your phone.
But, the watch face won't constantly be on because they've tuned (or try to tune) it to recognize when you raise and turn your wrist to only be on during that time. AFAIK, most if not all Android Wear watches are similar in that respect - not always-on. They've apparently worked quite intensely to get that part right; I'm sure we'll see when they hold another watch event and let people actually use them.
It all depends on how well that all works. 2-3 hour battery life in few-second chunks could be enough. Hard to say without actually using it. But the device was not made or intended for you to sit there for long periods of time with the screen on. For that, you've got your phone.
Yeah, it's really not a big deal on the Android watches. You raise your arm and the screen comes on. There's maybe a 1 second delay, but that's still exponentially faster and way less effort than it is to pull out your phone just to check the time. Plus if you get one of the ones with better battery life (like 2-3 days), you can get a full day out of ambient mode which keeps the screen on all day and only dims it.
My mistake, I read the rumors wrong. However, it's supposedly running a scaled down version of iOS so I still think it's a customized A[?] chip, don't you?
But, the watch face won't constantly be on because they've tuned (or try to tune) it to recognize when you raise and turn your wrist to only be on during that time. AFAIK, most if not all Android Wear watches are similar in that respect - not always-on. They've apparently worked quite intensely to get that part right; I'm sure we'll see when they hold another watch event and let people actually use them.
It all depends on how well that all works. 2-3 hour battery life in few-second chunks could be enough. Hard to say without actually using it. But the device was not made or intended for you to sit there for long periods of time with the screen on. For that, you've got your phone.
All Android Wear watches offer the options of Cinema mode ― screen stays off until you push a button, Stand-by mode ― screen stays off then flashes on to display notifications etc, and Ambient mode ― an always-on optimized watchface. That's beside the raising wrist gesture to turn on the screen.
*sigh* That article is... it's not just wrong, it's pandering (is it being linked across the Apple fan blogosphere yet?) I suspect the author has worn very few smartwatches.
kiteaton said:
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 generousit 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.
No, it does not sound 'a little small'; it sounds terribly tiny compared to Android Wear watches. Look back at the aforementioned Ars article on Moto 360
Ars Review said:
Our Senior Product Specialist Andrew Cunningham managed to create a repeatable battery test for Android Wear when he was reviewing the first batch of hardware. The test sends a Google Hangouts message to the watch every 15 seconds, and uses ADB over Bluetooth to turn the screen on every 15 seconds. It's a fairly heavy usage example, but it allows us to compare battery life across Android Wear devices with a fair amount of scientific rigor. The devices are set to level "3" brightness, which is similar across all three devices (Wear only has five levels of brightness control) and the display mode on all devices is set to "ambient," meaning they display a dim watch face while sleeping.
The battery life of the Moto 360 is just awful, and that's reflected in our test. Over two runs, the watch averaged only 3 hours and 39 minutes, less than half of what the LG G Watch managed when we reviewed it a few months ago. This is a very heavy test, and in normal usage it will last longer than this, but in practice, "half the battery life of other smartwatches" feels about right.
The Android Wear Watch with the worst battery life gets a little over 3.5 hrs in the heaviest usage test (on ambient mode too) and is described as awful. By those standards, an iWatch rated for 2.5-3.5hrs heaviest to normal usage (on screen standby mode) is the opposite of generous.
[history of watches and watch batteries]
In context compared to early wristwatches the Apple Watch, Pebble or any of Samsungs slightly scrappy attempts at making a wrist-worn wearable are tiny pieces of magic. Enjoy them, learn to live with their quirks and occasional inconveniences, and dont complain. Next years ones will be better.
Wrong again. This is the most critical time to complain before usage patterns are cultivated and expectations tempered. Apple's track record suggests that next year's model will not have better battery life. Apple appears to pick a x amount of battery life and with every new model solve for x:
I care most about the mixed usage stat and 19 hrs is fine for my needs. However the 'all night charging' requirement excludes two potential use cases for a smartwatch:
Sleep Tracking i.e. measuring your night movements, positions, how deep you go etc (but I don't need a smartwatch tracking sexy times with my partner )
Silent Alarm i.e. alerts for only you without disturbing other (but if my partner and I wake up together it means more sexy time )
I figure only unfun lazy people who need those features, such as like, firemen, lawyers... system admins? Haha, honestly I think the minimum battery life goal, to enable the most diverse usage patterns, should be 30-36 hrs with 15 mins quick charge time. The idea is to wear the watch all day and all night then charge it while in the shower**. The iWatch isn't waterproof so you wouldn't be wearing it when taking a bath.
By the way, any suggestion or leaks that both sizes of the iWatch have the same battery life? Perhaps the 19hr estimate is only for the small model?
**When I purchased the Pebble, my first 'waterproof' smartwatch I was eager to receive notifications while bathing and never ever miss an alert again. Now I'm older and wiser and prefer the sacred silent solitude of the shower
I can't imagine "charge it overnight" means that it takes a couple hours to charge. More that that's the ideal time of the day to charge it.
I hope Apple's really working to crack the battery problems and get good battery life out of this thing because if it's not as good as the Moto 360 it will get rightfully dinged in the press/reviews. Actually I wouldn't even say dinged - it'll get royally stomped/slammed. It's the first big post-Jobs, new-category product launch. Reviewers and pundits are not going to give this one a pass if it doesn't comfortably last all day under relatively heavy use (and if Apple's been paying attention they should put it through that Ars test themselves to make sure it comes out favorably). So many people are just waiting for Apple to make a misstep especially after such amazing financial results - there's little room for error on this.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, I do not want to have to wonder/hope if my watch will make it through the day 'til I go to bed. I want to just assume it will and not have to worry about it. I don't want to even have to look at a battery indicator at all if possible.
And yeah it'll get better in the 2nd/3rd gen, but to me if this first-gen Apple Watch does not deliver the goods it's going to sour the market substantially. Perhaps irrevocably.
I still think Apple needs to lay out how the Apple Watch will get upgraded from one generation to the next if they want anyone to buy the steel or gold ones.
Sorry, but if something which is smaller, and probably not as robust as a smartphone requires a sister product to use properly then $350 is way too fucking much to expect people to pay for it, especially when the product required to make it work properly is pricey as hell too. Not to mention all the constant upgrades and "new" versions this is going to recieve in a short timeframe.
Makes me glad I got an old iPod off of a friend for dirt cheap. Only apple product I think I'll ever own.
Sorry, but if something which is smaller, and probably not as robust as a smartphone requires a sister product to use properly then $350 is way too fucking much to expect people to pay for it, especially when the product required to make it work properly is pricey as hell too. Not to mention all the constant upgrades and "new" versions this is going to recieve in a short timeframe.
Makes me glad I got an old iPod off of a friend for dirt cheap. Only apple product I think I'll ever own.
Considering this is geared towards people who more than likely already have an iPhone, I think it won't be much of a hinderance.
And I'm happy that makes you "glad" for some reason.
Sorry, but if something which is smaller, and probably not as robust as a smartphone requires a sister product to use properly then $350 is way too fucking much to expect people to pay for it, especially when the product required to make it work properly is pricey as hell too. Not to mention all the constant upgrades and "new" versions this is going to recieve in a short timeframe.
Makes me glad I got an old iPod off of a friend for dirt cheap. Only apple product I think I'll ever own.
Yup. the phone and portable device segment of the tech industry in particular is an industry I've been rather devout about feeding as little as possible. I literally wait years before I upgrade my phone, and have only just recently got my first tablet in the form of a Linx Windows 8 7" tablet that I bought for about £40 around christmas. It's about the max I'm willing to shell out for this particular side of the market. The watches needing a phone to partner up with kind of eliminates the purpose of having such a portable device to me, kind of baffling.
The whole annual or bi-annual hardware upgrade cashgrab that companies like apple and their ilk pull just feels icky to me. Blech.
Welcome to every industry in the world I guess....
New products each year, new fashion lines, new services, new upgrades, new everything.
Just buy what you need. You don't have to be "part of the problem".
I've only bought 2 laptops in the last 10 years as it's all I've needed. Haven't upgraded my phone in 3 years, and am using a 3 year old tablet. (both Apple, and they've lasted and performed so well that I don't need to)
That's an attitude I like to see! A sensible timeframe between upgrades!
Watching my sister upgrade her phone every 6 months and then complaining about money woes irks me a fair bit. In fact, a lot of people I know seem to have that issue.
Yup. the phone and portable device segment of the tech industry in particular is an industry I've been rather devout about feeding as little as possible. I literally wait years before I upgrade my phone, and have only just recently got my first tablet in the form of a Linx Windows 8 7" tablet that I bought for about £40 around christmas. It's about the max I'm willing to shell out for this particular side of the market. The watches needing a phone to partner up with kind of eliminates the purpose of having such a portable device to me, kind of baffling.
The whole annual or bi-annual hardware upgrade cashgrab that companies like apple and their ilk pull just feels icky to me. Blech.
Android, WIndows and Samsung user myself. What you say about not buying crap tech for long term use makes sense to most financially minded people, and each piece of kit I've bought from each provider has lasted me a long-ass time, it really does help to do your research, and I agree 100%.
But there's still that huge subset of people that seem to eat up the whole marketing spiel that large tech manufacturers feed to people about having the newest slightly improved version of a product, regardless of how up-to-date and high quality their current version is. And that slice seems large enough to fuel the want for companies to keep releasing these short-term incremental upgrades. It baffles me, and even some of my close friends purchase each version constantly then complain about owing money to credit companies, or not being able to pay bills and stuff when they keep purchasing these things outside of their means for upwards of a few hundred quid each time.
Glad to see you're going to be using your phone for a long time to come. Kudos!
I don't see what's so surprising that people want to upgrade phones frequently. That technology is still evolving very quickly. Desktop and laptop computers, on the other hand, are quite mature. So yeah, I want that new phone every couple years (every year even, if I was ok with wasting that much money) but my 2008 MacBook Pro is mostly fine (though I think it's time to upgrade that too).
)
