You said originally: > The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day... This statement is false. Apple's 18

You said originally: > The fact that the Apple Watch can't be relied on to remain useful for even a single 24 hour day... This statement is false. Apple's 18 hour battery claim clearly supports that, because the vast majority of humans sleep for 6 hours or more. In your reply you added the word 'continuous' to your earlier statement to create: "...or it can't be relied on to remain useful for a continuous 24 hour period." That's not what you originally stated, and it's irrelevant anyway because humans don't need 24 hours of continuous use from devices. Charging a device every night while you sleep requires you to actively think about battery life less than a device that only needs to be on some nights because for those devices you have to think about whether to charge them or not. Of course you can always mitigate this by charging every night. Therefore, if not having to think about battery life is an important criterion, the Apple watch does live up to the potential of the devices as a class every bit as much as a device with longer battery life. Of course a device with longer battery life does have advantages - e.g. Going camping away from power for a few days, etc. but this just illustrates the point that longer battery life supports less common use cases, and is without question not a 'fundamental problem'. Lack of support for uncommon use cases cannot be reasonably said to 'drastically limit realistic utility'. Like I said, I agree that longer battery life provides an improvement, but it is a marginal one. Claims like 'extremely short' and 'drastically limited' are exaggerations.