5 ms·

So, brand new battery, one day of use, and he was at 10% by 7pm and was "hyper-aware" about how little battery life he had left, triggering a "wave of anxiety."

by jscheel 12y ago

So, brand new battery, one day of use, and he was at 10% by 7pm and was "hyper-aware" about how little battery life he had left, triggering a "wave of anxiety." According to one analysis (http://www.ifweassume.com/2013/08/the-de-evolution-of-my-laptop-battery.html http://www.ifweassume.com/2013/08/the-de-evolution-of-my-lap...), Apple battery capacity can decay by 15% in a year. This means that by next year, his watch could be at 10% by 5pm. No. No way. Heck no. Not happening. Really regretting that I didn't get in on the Pebble Time Kickstarter now.

bryanlarsen 12y ago
That assumes they don't improve the battery life in software over the next year, which they probably will. But it also leaves you much less slack to install new and interesting apps on your watch. My original pebble used to last a longer than it does now, even though newer versions of the software have improved life dramatically. It's just so much more useful than version 1.0 that I use it more. It's OK for the battery life to drop from 6 days to 4; it's not OK to drop from 18 to 14...
- commandar 12y ago
  The extremely short battery life also precludes one of the best use cases I've found for my Pebble: sleep tracking.
  - gress 12y ago
    It's not extremely short. This reviewer is an exception.
    - commandar 12y ago
      Anything reasonably under a full 24 hour day precludes sleep tracking. That's extremely short compared to the Pebbles that get the better part of a week and can be used for sleep tracking without issue. Squabbling over 16 vs 18 vs 20 hours doesn't matter.
      - gress 12y ago
        You're right that it's not suitable for sleep tracking. But 'extremely short' is a gross mischaracterization.
        commandar 12y ago
        It's just over half of what some Android Wear devices are doing, and I'd characterize them as having short battery lifes. It's 15-20% of what the Pebble gets. In my book, that adds up to extremely short.
        gress 12y ago
        Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. Calling it 'extremely short'is misrepresentative.
        commandar 12y ago
        >Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. An electric flying car with a two mile range may have drastically different functionality than an old diesel hatchback with a 15 gallon tank, but that doesn't mean that the electric flying car has sufficient range to meet the needs of more people. See? I can do hyperbole, too. >For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. The fact that expectations were low doesn't change the fact that the battery life is still very limited. I think smartwatches have potential to be highly useful devices. I think that usefulness is also significantly curtailed by current battery life. The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day would lead me to call the battery life extremely short regardless of other wearables are doing. The fact that it's being outpaced by those other options just exacerbates it.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- Someone1234 12y ago
  > That assumes they don't improve the battery life in software over the next year, which they probably will. Honestly, they might. But I'd urge caution. If you drop down $350 on the "basic" version of this thing, then you're paying for what is on offer right now today. You cannot then complain if Apple didn't substantially improve the experience over the next year (rather than just releasing 2.0 and leaving 1.0 people $350 poorer with a device which they can barely even resell). All I am saying is, if you're happy with the Apple Watch as it exists on the day you buy it then you have nothing to lose. If you know you're going to be unhappy with it and will sit around waiting for Apple to fix it, then maybe instead just wait and buy it when it is actually good (or 2.0, whichever comes first).
tylermac1 12y ago
Gruber's review has it anywhere from 30-50% with moderate use at the end of the day. Only time it got below 10% was when he was doing "heavy testing". http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch
- jscheel 12y ago
  At 3:10pm, this reviewer's update says, "It’s well after lunch. I’ve had this thing on my wrist for something like six hours now, and the truth is that I’ve barely used it."
cheshire137 12y ago
I wouldn't worry that you didn't get in on the Kickstarter. You could've saved like $20 on the final price, but I don't think that's a big deal when the Pebble Time finally comes to market.

by jscheel 12y ago

bryanlarsen 12y ago

That assumes they don't improve the battery life in software over the next year, which they probably will. But it also leaves you much less slack to install new and interesting apps on your watch. My original pebble used to last a longer than it does now, even though newer versions of the software have improved life dramatically. It's just so much more useful than version 1.0 that I use it more. It's OK for the battery life to drop from 6 days to 4; it's not OK to drop from 18 to 14...

commandar 12y ago
The extremely short battery life also precludes one of the best use cases I've found for my Pebble: sleep tracking.
- gress 12y ago
  It's not extremely short. This reviewer is an exception.
  - commandar 12y ago
    Anything reasonably under a full 24 hour day precludes sleep tracking. That's extremely short compared to the Pebbles that get the better part of a week and can be used for sleep tracking without issue. Squabbling over 16 vs 18 vs 20 hours doesn't matter.
    - gress 12y ago
      You're right that it's not suitable for sleep tracking. But 'extremely short' is a gross mischaracterization.
      - commandar 12y ago
        It's just over half of what some Android Wear devices are doing, and I'd characterize them as having short battery lifes. It's 15-20% of what the Pebble gets. In my book, that adds up to extremely short.
        gress 12y ago
        Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. Calling it 'extremely short'is misrepresentative.
        commandar 12y ago
        >Comparing battery life with other wristbands that have very different functionality doesn't mean much. By that measure, Android wear devices have infinitesimal battery life compared to a Rolex Oyster perpetual. An electric flying car with a two mile range may have drastically different functionality than an old diesel hatchback with a 15 gallon tank, but that doesn't mean that the electric flying car has sufficient range to meet the needs of more people. See? I can do hyperbole, too. >For what it is, the Apple watch has a much longer battery life than most people expected. The fact that expectations were low doesn't change the fact that the battery life is still very limited. I think smartwatches have potential to be highly useful devices. I think that usefulness is also significantly curtailed by current battery life. The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day would lead me to call the battery life extremely short regardless of other wearables are doing. The fact that it's being outpaced by those other options just exacerbates it.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
Someone1234 12y ago
> That assumes they don't improve the battery life in software over the next year, which they probably will. Honestly, they might. But I'd urge caution. If you drop down $350 on the "basic" version of this thing, then you're paying for what is on offer right now today. You cannot then complain if Apple didn't substantially improve the experience over the next year (rather than just releasing 2.0 and leaving 1.0 people $350 poorer with a device which they can barely even resell). All I am saying is, if you're happy with the Apple Watch as it exists on the day you buy it then you have nothing to lose. If you know you're going to be unhappy with it and will sit around waiting for Apple to fix it, then maybe instead just wait and buy it when it is actually good (or 2.0, whichever comes first).

tylermac1 12y ago

Gruber's review has it anywhere from 30-50% with moderate use at the end of the day. Only time it got below 10% was when he was doing "heavy testing". http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch

jscheel 12y ago
At 3:10pm, this reviewer's update says, "It’s well after lunch. I’ve had this thing on my wrist for something like six hours now, and the truth is that I’ve barely used it."

cheshire137 12y ago

I wouldn't worry that you didn't get in on the Kickstarter. You could've saved like $20 on the final price, but I don't think that's a big deal when the Pebble Time finally comes to market.