4 ms·

Isn't this a bit of an embarrassment for both Google and Qualcomm? Still, it's good to see another company still trying to compete with Apple over smart watche

Isn't this a bit of an embarrassment for both Google and Qualcomm? Still, it's good to see another company still trying to compete with Apple over smart watches, I would consider picking one of these up if I still had an Android phone, I think rounded smart watches are much cooler.

surajrmal 3y ago
Watches have been moving to a model where they offload more and more work to an MCU for a while now. All modern wearos watches are already doing so. It's just what tasks it'd be able to do that's been evolving, and OnePlus hit the latest milestone first. It would be great to have an soc tailor made for watches such that this isn't necessary, but no one is really interested in that it seems.
kllrnohj 3y ago
Not really, this is just the downside of using larger, more capable CPUs is that they have higher power consumption. It's the same problem Apple has as well, it's not like it's a Qualcomm-specific problem.
sigmar 3y ago
How is this embarrassing? 12 days of low power mode allegedly (vs 1.5 days for the apple watch) seems impressive.
- ry4nolson 3y ago
  Where did you get 12 days of low power mode? I read the article and the linked product page. Both only claim up to 100 hours.
  - GrinningFool 3y ago
    On the product page: > "Efficiency meets longevity": The BES 2700 efficiency chipset also lets you switch to the extra-capable Power Saver Mode* for up to 12 days of battery life so you can continue crushing your goals.
mastax 3y ago
No? It's one of their first major feature/tech advantages over Apple Watch.
angiosperm 3y ago
It absolutely is an embarrassment. There is no reason the one CPU couldn't do both jobs, one where the CPU powers up every 250ms and does the low-power work for a fractional microsecond and then shuts down, and the other just by staying awake longer. You still want a custom chip that can power various subsystems up and down on command. But there is no need to be big and clunky. What this indicates is a management failure: they could not get a team together that could manage both low-power and high-feature software in the same stack. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Apollo missions where they had one computer in command module, and a completely different (and massively clunkier) one in the rocket. Von Braun boasted that only one wire connected the command/service modules to the rocket, which was only there to trigger the explosive bolts.

surajrmal 3y ago

Watches have been moving to a model where they offload more and more work to an MCU for a while now. All modern wearos watches are already doing so. It's just what tasks it'd be able to do that's been evolving, and OnePlus hit the latest milestone first. It would be great to have an soc tailor made for watches such that this isn't necessary, but no one is really interested in that it seems.

kllrnohj 3y ago

Not really, this is just the downside of using larger, more capable CPUs is that they have higher power consumption. It's the same problem Apple has as well, it's not like it's a Qualcomm-specific problem.

sigmar 3y ago

How is this embarrassing? 12 days of low power mode allegedly (vs 1.5 days for the apple watch) seems impressive.

ry4nolson 3y ago
Where did you get 12 days of low power mode? I read the article and the linked product page. Both only claim up to 100 hours.
- GrinningFool 3y ago
  On the product page: > "Efficiency meets longevity": The BES 2700 efficiency chipset also lets you switch to the extra-capable Power Saver Mode* for up to 12 days of battery life so you can continue crushing your goals.

mastax 3y ago

No? It's one of their first major feature/tech advantages over Apple Watch.

angiosperm 3y ago

It absolutely is an embarrassment. There is no reason the one CPU couldn't do both jobs, one where the CPU powers up every 250ms and does the low-power work for a fractional microsecond and then shuts down, and the other just by staying awake longer. You still want a custom chip that can power various subsystems up and down on command. But there is no need to be big and clunky. What this indicates is a management failure: they could not get a team together that could manage both low-power and high-feature software in the same stack. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Apollo missions where they had one computer in command module, and a completely different (and massively clunkier) one in the rocket. Von Braun boasted that only one wire connected the command/service modules to the rocket, which was only there to trigger the explosive bolts.