[NewsPoster]

As an early adopter of all types of technology, I will be among the first to get my hands on an Apple Watch when it launches early next year. There is a lot that Apple looks to have nailed with it, including the typically elegant industrial design, advanced materials and system architecture combined with what looks to be the most evolved smartwatch OS by some margin. The multiple collections and easily swappable bands also make it highly customizable, greatly enhancing its overall appeal. However, the biggest question mark over it at this point is its battery life, which is a potential issue that could be addressed by Apple if it adopts a slightly different tact before launch.

Apple itself is said to be not completely satisfied with the battery life of the Apple Watch, yet the reality is that battery life is a critical barrier to consumer adoption of smartwatches. Consequently, it did not go unnoticed that Apple was conspicuously silent on this point – some would argue that this is reasonable enough, as Apple was only teasing the device and it won't hit the market for several more months. However, Apple has indicated that the reason it developed the innovative MagSafe inductive charger for the Apple Watch was to make it easy for users to charge the device each night. Given this guidance, the only acceptable scenario is the Apple Watch will last at least 16 hours with normal use.

The Motorola Moto 360, which is only good for around 12 hours on a charge with regular use, has been roundly criticized for opening up the up the possibility that users will have to charge it during the day to get it through the evening; which is far from ideal. Sony, now into its third-generation of smartwatches, has used its experience to extract at least two days of use out of a single charge with normal use from the new Sony Smartwatch 3. It is good for up to five days with light usage, which for this class of smartwatch is excellent. Even in a best-case scenario, it doesn't look like Apple will be able to match what Sony is able to achieve, even it if the Smartwatch 3 is not as sophisticated as the Apple Watch in all aspects.

Additionally the Sony Smartwatch 3, like its Xperia Z smartphone stable mates, is also IP68 rated meaning that it is dust proof and can be kept in up to 3 feet (1.5m) of fresh water for up to 30 minutes. This makes it the class leader in this regard as well and will make it the choice for users who like to go swimming. Again, Apple hasn't revealed how the Apple Watch will fare against the elements, but has hinted in photos that you should be able to at the very least keep it on when washing your hands. It has also indicated that the S1 chip in the Apple Watch is sealed and coated in resin. While water resistance is an important capability for the Apple Watch to have, it is not potentially the deal breaker that battery performance could be.

Apple has clearly put tremendous energy into the development of the Apple Watch operating system and its hardware. By comparison, Android Wear is nowhere near as evolved at this juncture. The downside is that with additional levels of software sophistication comes additional power demands on the Apple Watch system architecture. Even if some of the Android Wear competition are equipped with heart rate monitors, none of them are as sophisticated as the Apple Watch heart rate monitor; it utilizes infrared sensors, visible-light LEDs and photodiodes to provide highly accurate measurements. While some have argued that health tracking capabilities are the 'killer app' for smartwatches, purely from the perspective of maximizing battery life, I think that Apple should reconsider making this a mandatory inclusion on every Apple Watch.

Given that the Apple Watch is already heavily reliant on the iPhone, Apple could easily use the opportunity to shine a light on how the M7 motion coprocessor in the iPhone 5s and the M8 motion coprocessor in the iPhone 6 go a long way to making the iPhone an advanced fitness tracking device in isolation. An Apple Watch without heart rate monitor, but combined with the iPhone, still goes a long way helping users reach their fitness goals. Being able to glance at this information and get gently prompted to stay active along with other notifications and information is where a lot of the appeal of smartwatches lies for early adopters. While being able to track intensity with a heart rate monitor is great for people serious about their fitness, most people don't need this information. Having this information could inspire some to change their bad habits, but it is not essential for many people.

Apple is famed for having a relatively narrow product line, which helped it trim development costs and get back to profitability during leaner times in its history. It served Apple well in the past, but with over $160 billion in the bank, it can afford to give customers much more choice than it has in the past. The fact that Apple has introduced three distinct Apple Watch lines is indicative of a shift in this regard. Why not then, in the name of giving customers who want maximum battery life, the option of having a model that drops a battery draining feature that they might not use altogether? At the very least, it might also serve Apple well to allow users to select from various battery saving options that turn off battery draining functions, if they so choose. I understand that Apple does not want to dilute the overall user experience, but why not leave that call up to the customer?

You can bet that Apple's software and hardware engineers are no doubt pulling out all the stops to ensure that when the Apple Watch launches it delivers the same exceptional levels of user experience and personalization that have made Apple the world leader in consumer technology. However, given how much scrutiny and attention that will be on the Apple Watch when it reaches reviewers and user's hands, particularly as the first new product launched under Apple CEO Tim Cook, it may need to tread a slightly more conservative and less ambitious path for this iteration.

By Sanjiv Sathiah

[Carrier Wave]

For a couple of weeks Andy Ihnatko has been tweeting the battery life time of his Motorola 360 loaner. It's been at least a full day, every day so far.

[Inkling]

Struggles with battery life place these devices in a similar category to the early and barely luggable Compaq PCs. At some point, a device can be so much trouble, it's not worth the bother. Personally, I'm more interested in a Bluetooth-linked 'dumb-watch," that'd do little more than motion sense for sports or sleep apps and serve as a remove vibrate for an iPhone. Make it waterproof and able to be worn around the ankle as well as the wrist, and I'll be happy.

[ElectroTech]

We need to tell Apple how to run their business because we don't know how long the battery will last in their Watch. Because we have a limited understanding of the other so called smart watches out there, we know better that Apple when to release their new creation. We are all so successful in launching new divides and becoming the largest publicly owned company on earth.

[ElectroTech]

We need to tell Apple how to run their business because we don't know how long the battery will last in their Watch. Because we have a limited understanding of the other so called smart watches out there, we know better that Apple when to release their new creation. We are all so successful in launching new devices and becoming the largest publicly owned company on earth.

[growlf]

Ummm... this is a very long article that takes a ridiculous amount of time to suggest that Apple change their watch strategy by removing a sensor.

Dear author - here's a thought. Cut 99% of your pontificating and suggest that they include an "off" switch for the sensor. You know, like they do for bluetooth, wifi, and other battery draining features.

You're welcome.

Had you at least ONCE mentioned that not including the sensor might result in a cost savings in a low-end unit, I'd at least think you had some sense.

[Gazoobee]

Obviously this is a thoughtful article, but I think the premise is completely incorrect.

Consumers care about battery life yes, but they don't look at a products battery life and pick the one that has the most battery life simply for that reason alone as the article implies. Consumers aren't going to pick Sony's watch because it has three days battery life and the Watch only has one, they are going to pick a product for a variety of inter-related reasons.

What you should be asking is, "Is the battery life sufficient for typical use?" If a product's battery life meets that minimal bar, then battery life should be taken out of the equation for the consumer's decision. To suggest as the article seems to, that Sony's slightly better battery life will draw consumers seems to be based on no facts.

The Watch will almost certainly reach that bar, and have likely *better* battery life than many of the other popular choices.

We charge our phones each night, any of us that still wear wrist watches, take them off at night and when we have a bath or a shower. As long as this is true, a smart watch that you have to charge at night beside your bed (and presumably use as an alarm) is not going to bother most anyone but a few die-hard tech geeks, mostly comprised of that tiny obsessive minority that are monitoring their "sleep patterns" (groan, :roll eyes: ).

[twolf2919]

I wholeheartedly agree with the point that battery life will dictate the success of smart watches. Giving the customer the ability turn off some of the battery-sapping features, as the author suggests, is certainly a beginning.

But I don't think it's enough. I don't think the sensors are the biggest energy sippers in these gadgets - I think it's the display and the CPU. And the capabilities of these components are dictated by one goal, which I think is a mistake: the desire to run apps on the device! Think about it: if Apple didn't insist on showing gorgeous photos, backgrounds, icons, graphics for all the apps and if they didn't have to provide some nice real estate for the apps they envision running on the watch, how much of a screen would be needed? If Apple didn't need super-responsive feedback for its fancy UI (and apps running on the watch), how much CPU capability would be needed? Finally, if there was no need for fancy interactions with the watch, would water resistance be such a problem? For crying out loud, it appears the Apple Watch "Sport" can't even be taken into the pool! A watch that advertises itself as a health monitor that can't even monitor your sleep - because you'll be charging it on the night stand!

In other words, smart watches - including the Apple Watch with its sophisticated new UI - still try too hard to be a smartphone on a wrist!

As I was waiting for Apple to announce its entry into this market, I was hoping to see a device similar to what @Inkling above suggested: a bracelet of sorts that had a few sensors to track activity and health; a simple screen (perhaps eInk-based?) for displaying notifications from the phone to which this device is married; a microphone and speaker for taking/making phone calls and for asking Siri questions. I thought it was a given that such a device should last at least a few days - surely, Apple with all its resources could do better than the Pebble's 5 days!?!

Alas, what I got is another smartphone in wristwatch clothing (albeit nicer clothing than the competition).

My new hope is that one of the activity trackers out there (Jawbone, FitBit, Fuelband, etc.) will update their products to integrate with HealthKit. This way I will get some of what I want in a package that lasts a reasonable amount of time per charge.

[djbeta]

I feel the same way regarding:

For crying out loud, it appears the Apple Watch "Sport" can't even be taken into the pool! A watch that advertises itself as a health monitor that can't even monitor your sleep - because you'll be charging it on the night stand!

BUT....... I think I may love the watch more with all the cool bells & whistles.. is it a dedicated sleep monitor.. NO... but.. I bet it charges pretty quickly, and I bet, IF you wanted, you could probably charge it while making dinner or while getting ready for bed, and monitor your sleep if you want.

It can't do it all... but it can certainly do a hell of a lot of really awesome things...


I fully expect that there will be ways to turn sensors on and off. Would be kind of crazy for there not to be that option.. no?? Well, we all know, Apple's known to be crazy at times, so we'll see.

I for one am definitely getting one of the Apple Watches. Sure, it won't be perfect, but it is going to make interacting with my iPhone SO much more enjoyable and discreet. (no more pulling your phone out while at the dinner table or at meetings to check the last text or phone call that's coming in).. and no more having to stop my run/jog so that I can see who is calling or texting.

[FastiBook]

For apple watch to garner a new era of technology that we wear, battery life is important. A good spec can drive competitors to improve secs, and so on. It is how we have 6 mm phones that get all day battery and so on.