Skip to main content

Apple targets for Apple Watch battery life revealed, A5-caliber CPU inside

applewatchbattery

Although Apple has said that the Apple Watch will need to be charged nightly, the company has not disclosed any details on how long the wearable’s battery will last. For the first time, people with knowledge of the Apple Watch’s development have provided us with the specific performance targets Apple wants to achieve for the Apple Watch battery, but the actual numbers may fall short of those targets.

According to our sources, Apple opted to use a relatively powerful processor and high-quality screen for the Apple Watch, both of which contribute to significant power drain. 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.

Apple initially wanted the Apple Watch battery to provide roughly one full day of usage, mixing a comparatively small amount of active use with a larger amount of passive use. As of 2014, Apple wanted the Watch to provide roughly 2.5 to 4 hours of active application use versus 19 hours of combined active/passive use, 3 days of pure standby time, or 4 days if left in a sleeping mode. Sources, however, say that Apple will only likely achieve approximately 2-3 days in either the standby or low-power modes…

Apple has also been stress-testing the Apple Watch’s battery life with pre-bundled and third-party applications. Our sources say that Apple is targeting 2.5 hours of “heavy” application use, such as processor-intensive gameplay, or 3.5 hours of standard app use. Interestingly, Apple expects to see better battery life when using the Watch’s fitness tracking software, which is targeted for nearly 4 hours of straight exercise tracking on a single charge.

As Apple is positioning the Apple Watch as a timepiece, the company has conducted numerous tests to determine how long it can run purely in time-keeping modes. We’re told that the Watch should be able to display its clock face for approximately three hours, including watch ticking animations, if nothing else is done with the device. However, it’s unlikely that most people would actually keep the Apple Watch clock face turned on for even three hours straight in a single day. When the Watch screen is not in use, the display is powered off, and the clock demands much less energy.

Considered separately, the active use app, clock, and fitness numbers sound very low, but the reality is that people will passively wear the Apple Watch for most of the day, actively interacting with it only for short periods of time. That’s why the Watch will be able to last the average user roughly a day on a single charge. We’re told that Apple has been shooting for roughly 19 hours of mixed usage each day, but that the company may not hit that number in the first generation version.

Sources tell us that battery life has remained a source of concern for Apple over the past year, and was a contributing factor for Apple pushing back the retail launch from an originally planned late 2014 to early 2015. To test real-world performance in a variety of conditions, the company has circulated a surprisingly large number of test units of the Watch: nearly 3,000 are said to be currently roaming around, mostly the stainless steel variant.

Screenshot 2015-01-22 14.06.36

Apple has also been working to perfect the MagSafe-based inductive charging mechanism for the Watch, which sources indicate was responsible for slower-than-expected recharging times that hopefully will be fixed in time for the product’s release. The company has developed both plastic and stainless steel versions of the circular charger, potentially one for the $349 aluminum and plastic Apple Watch Sport, and the other for the higher-end models. It’s unclear at this point whether the company will sell multiple versions of the charger, as Apple has only shown the metal variant, though the Apple Watch Edition is said to ship with a special box and charging dock that may incorporate the stainless steel MagSafe connector.

As of earlier this month, the Apple Watch is on track to ship by the end of March. We previously detailed how the Watch will integrate with the iPhone via an iOS 8.2-based Companion application.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. Andrew Messenger - 9 years ago

    i really hope the stainless steel version won’t be a huge markup from the sport edition.

    • OneOkami (@OneOkami) - 9 years ago

      Given the sport model starts at $349 and the Edition is rumored to hit 4 figures I’m not expecting the stainless steel model to be less than $499. Maybe $450 but I’m expecting $499 and higher.

      • Jonny - 9 years ago

        I’m assuming $749-$999 for stainless steel (I think Gruber was estimating $999) and hoping that I’m pleasantly surprised. I think $499 is too close to $349 price.

      • acslater017 - 9 years ago

        Not higher than $499 I hope. That should differentiate it from the Sport, without passing the US$500 psychological threshold.

      • Sly Stallone - 9 years ago

        We’ll finally get to find out if people are willing to fork over $800 for watch. These devices will be unsubsidized, so people will know exactly what they cost. Unlike iphones where most people think they cost $199.

    • Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 9 years ago

      Stainless steel is not a more expensive metal, but the fabrication and polishing costs are higher since it’s a much harder metal. Aluminum is VERY easy to work with, in comparison plus it’s cheaper by the lb. I certainly hope they aren’t $1000. Plus they are using Sapphire Crystal instead of the Ion glass.

      It it’s $600, that’s certainly more attractive price, but I’m still on the fence for the 1st revision. But that’s because I’m not currently rolling in discretionary funds.

  2. RobertJP (@RobertJP) - 9 years ago

    If the Android Wear watches can have there screens displaying the time 20+ hours straight with similar screen technology why would Apple only be able to display it for 3?

    • there is no android wear watch that I am aware of that has a HiDPi retina screen and capable of updating at a fluid 60fps. For a smart watch, that’s advanced.

      • brendonsled - 9 years ago

        I believe all android wear watches have a higher resolution than 312 x 390.
        Am I wrong?

      • RobertJP (@RobertJP) - 9 years ago

        The G Watch has a 280×280 resolution while the smaller Apple Watch is 272×340. It’s only 17% more pixels than the G Watch. It shouldn’t have 10% of the battery life especially since it’s OLED and could only light the pixels needed rather than having to illuminate the entire screen.

      • lkernan - 9 years ago

        I’m still trying to figure out why i need a watch updating at 60fps anyway.
        Second hands only move at 1fps anyway :-)

      • Naveed Moein - 9 years ago

        @lkernan ugh, ignorant comments like yours really make sad. it’s a damn smart watch, it’s meant to do more things than just the “second hand” moving. did you honestly really think that Apple is making a 60fps watch only for the time? stay away.

      • charismatron - 9 years ago

        Naveed, do you not understand humour, or is your desire to put someone down just make you blind to it?

      • Yes, very advanced. And utterly useless, as it falls back on a 0hz refresh rate with a resolution of 1×1 and a color depth of 0 bits fairly quickly. Even android wear is disappointing in that regard.

        Pebble might not have as impressive of a display, but the utility of the device is there, with 5 days of active use and, well, not having charged mine in 2 weeks now since I’ve only actually been using it as a watch. Wake me when Apple does that better and allows me to sync it with my Mac or iPad (which I *do* have) rather than my iPhone (which I *don’t* have) or, hell, when they release an app for Android.

      • rj3005 - 9 years ago

        Samsung’s gear live has an oled display with 320 X 320 resolution (FYI that’s higher than the 38mm Apple watch) with the display set to always on 2 full days of battery is easily obtainable . (depending on the watch face)
        Refresh rate above 30Hz has absolutely no added value on a watch, it’s not like you’re going to play fast action games on that tiny screen)

      • please learn the meaning of the term “retina” before making such ridiculous comments

    • iJonni - 9 years ago

      Because they don’t. All the Android Wear watches display turns off when not actively in use….

      • RobertJP (@RobertJP) - 9 years ago

        I have the LG G Watch and it absolutely does. My friend has a G Watch R and his is definitely on all day as well.

      • One Voice For All - 9 years ago

        That’s not true at all. The LG G Watch R has the screen on all the time and the battery lasts 48 hours easily. They all have the setting to leave the screen on all the time if you choose to.

      • Umut Tan - 9 years ago

        Yeah I have a G Watch and I get like two days battery with passive-active mixed usage.

      • Julian Hardy - 9 years ago

        I have the Samsung Gear Live – the watch face is “always on”, and I have all notifications active. The display is in power-saving mode when you are not looking at it, but it still tells the time, and it switches to full display when you raise the watch to viewing position.
        It gets through a full 24-hour day easily if I forget to charge it overnight (or don’t get home after a big night out!) with about 30% spare, but I normally put it on the charger at night with about 45% battery still remaining (because I don’t want to have worry about recharging it part way through Day 2).
        Apple needs to lift its game.

    • Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 9 years ago

      This does have that Haptic engine, which probably requires more juice, maybe a more powerful CPU/GPU.

      • lowtolerance - 9 years ago

        I can’t even fathom how you could think a linear oscillator could be demanding on the CPU, let alone a GPU. It most likely only needs information on timing and intensity in order to function. Computationally trivial.

    • Naveed Moein - 9 years ago

      @lkernan ugh, ignorant comments like yours really make sad. it’s a damn smart watch, it’s meant to do more things than just the “second hand” moving. did you honestly really think that Apple is making a 60fps watch only for the time? stay away.

      • He’s actually more than correct, making you look quite silly here. 30fps would have been a much smarter engineering design, 60fps is overkill for a watch that can show time for just 3-4 hrs!

      • lowtolerance - 9 years ago

        @JWhitakerMcRae Do you often spend 3-4 hours out of a 24 hour day staring at your watch? It’s like you haven’t even considered, despite @Naveed bringing it up, that this thing is capable of more than just showing the damned time.

      • 10fps would suffice for the tasks you’d be able to perform on such a small screen. Where’s my iPad with 60Hz refresh, though?

  3. Zac Hall - 9 years ago

    Buying 6 of these I guess …

  4. luckydcxx - 9 years ago

    i don’t care if the standby time is long … i just want it to last 1 full day of heavy use and then i will charge it at night next to my iPhone.

    • Mustafa Çağdaş Çizer - 9 years ago

      Well you can always dream. Or wait for a breakthorug in battery tech that can applicable to this size or invent one yourself…

    • mike3k - 9 years ago

      My Pebble’s 3-4 days with average use is sounding really good.

      • cocoacoderorg - 9 years ago

        The resolution of Pebble’s screen is nowhere near that of the AppleWatch. And when I use a gyro-based clock-face on mine, I don’t get 3-4 days, more like 1 day.

      • Dan (@danmdan) - 9 years ago

        My Pebble lasts for a WEEK as a watch !

    • Tracking your sleep is like the best part of a fitness band.

  5. Interesting, but it really sounds like most people should wait for v2 of the Apple Watch.

    • acslater017 - 9 years ago

      I picked up the iPhone 3G and iPad 2, so I know very well that the second gen is typically a big leap. I’m so hyped for the first gen though! I dunno if I’ll be able to resist.

  6. chrisl84 - 9 years ago

    The battery life is a big concern for me, but I have to think this tiny little battery is only going to take top 30 minutes to charge from empty to full. With very short recharge times (empty to full during a shower and shave) and 2 day battery life I would be fine with that. But after a year that battery will be half as efficient and thats another scary thought.

    • ktest098 - 9 years ago

      The battery should be good for a few years before diminishing much, that’s been the case with all of the iPhone’s I’ve used over the last few years.

      • Dan (@danmdan) - 9 years ago

        I’m still charging and using an early 2G iPhone.

  7. OneOkami (@OneOkami) - 9 years ago

    My gut is telling me to wait for rev.2 on this product as I usually try to do. I’m not feeling the better life on this product.

  8. rogifan - 9 years ago

    Why would anyone need and always on display? Do you want to know what the time is just razor rinsed and the device will wake from sleep.

    • Myka Lgum (@MykaLgum) - 9 years ago

      A problem with all smart watches is they look like broken hardware when the screen is off. This needs to be addressed. I am sure Gurman reads his comments and will probably take this thought for himself, which is ok. A dead screen device looks so bad. They need to solve this.

      Sarah Lane Fan

      • David Maynard Rudesill - 9 years ago

        I agree with you 100%. I’ve been wearing watches since I was a teen and one of the major draws of a well-designed watch face is that “it’s always there,” both for you and others to see. This is a significant reason why people buy watches, and a major aspect of watch culture–the beautiful, well-designed watch face.

        A blank screen looks like a blank screen. Another notch on the belt for Pebble as far as i’m concerned. My pebble stays on and I get DAYS of juice from it. A watch is different from a phone screen, and Apple has to understand this for the Apple watch to truly catch on. I will be waiting for the next gen on this one, mostly due to the poor battery life, and so that Aple can learn from it’s mistakes. I feel bad for all those that bought an iPad 3 and then less than 6 months later a faster iPad came out. I’m not going to be that iPad 3 owner (when the V2 comes out by next Fall).

        I have the old iPod Nano “watch” on a strap. IMO it looks super cool, but that dang watch face goes to sleep in less than a minute! That blank screen just looks lifeless, like the eyes of a Great White shark.

        Apple needs to either figure out how to always display the clock face in some sort of power save mode, or put something on the screen (an Apple logo, or wall paper of your choosing), that shows off the watches beautiful screen. It looks smart, but not matured.

      • Evan - 9 years ago

        Interesting statement. I haven’t really considered that aspect of being one of the reasons to wear a watch but it makes sense. I would guess the solution to this would be something like a combination AMOLED/e-ink screen in a future generation of the WATCH. If they could take it a step further and introduce a static “always-on” screen in the mold of Amazon’s kindle, except it could change once a minute and have full color, that to me seems like the solution to this problem.

  9. cyberangel777 - 9 years ago

    You can quick charge it during lunch break
    and right after work when you eat again
    then again – after your evening training = during the night, ready for early jogging

    Battery is small => it charges very quickly => extended play!
    Note:
    NOBODY exercises while eating

    • Toro Volt (@torovolt) - 9 years ago

      The Pebble has an even smaller battery and takes two hours to charge.
      You could potentially charge the AWatch faster but then the battery heats up too much degrading the holding capacity faster over time.

      • Dan (@danmdan) - 9 years ago

        But only needs charging ONCE per week !

        Once per DAY for the Apple watch, or even more if intensively used is a FAIL.

  10. Darko (@DspDarko) - 9 years ago

    Dear developers, testers, geeks and fanboys DO YOU WARE A WATCH?
    What an ideo timeface less than 3 hours a day?!?
    Watch is fashion BUT PRIMARILY useful thing. Who in sane state of mind is picking a pocket, turning on a phone just to find out what is the time.
    I can not imagine normal person waving its hand to turn on wrist watch to get such basic info.
    Watch is showing the time, always, all day long, in any orientation! Whate ever is added to make it smart is plus! But on top of being a watch!

    • acslater017 - 9 years ago

      If you want long battery life, and just want to tell the time…get a wristwatch!

      If you want something with wireless radios and a color screen, deal with charging it once a day or wit 5 years. The “smart” features are what make the product compelling and unique compared to a normal watch. It’s why we accepted the drop from 5 day Nokia battery life to 5 hour iPhone battery life. It lasts much shorter but does so much more.

  11. André Hedegaard - 9 years ago

    Anything less than 1 week is too low and amateurish.

  12. Toro Volt (@torovolt) - 9 years ago

    I guess this confirms the average 1 day battery life which in my opinion doesn’t cut it for this type of accessories. In 2 years time the battery will last less than a day. So nope.
    These watches are better think of as “Thin Clients” to an iPhone and the Web, in so the Processor and the Screen in this case are overkill.
    Apple should get back to the drawing board and start Version 2 with a 5 days battery life as an uncompromising design requirement. It is possible since Pebble have done it with an e-Ink display and a low energy CPU and it just works up to 7 days. To watch nifty color videos/photos and crunch numbers there is always the iPhone or the Cloud one pocket away.
    I wouldn’t buy one because charging the AWatch on a daily basis is a chore I don’t want to endure, not worth it.
    Even if it was on sale for $99 I wouldn’t buy it because it is one of those things that probably ends up left in a drawer after the excitement wears out.

    • rogifan - 9 years ago

      Putting the watch on a charging stand each night is a chore? Seriously?

      • Toro Volt (@torovolt) - 9 years ago

        Charging the AWatch will have to be on your head all the time. Forget to charge it one night and it becomes the joke at the office when someone ask you the time.

      • lowtolerance - 9 years ago

        @Toro Wait, you are actually being serious? If you forget to charge overnight, then you charge it in the morning. This is not rocket science. If you are lacking this much in common sense, then I hate to tell you, but you are already the joke around the office.

  13. fredhstein - 9 years ago

    If Mark G’s info reflects the product Apple will sell in March (vs. what is developer releases), it’s a problem. Over time battery life decays. 19 hours shrinks to 18 or less and much less if you really use it.
    On the flip side, the MacBooks, Pro and Air are eating up market share due to in part to battery life.
    I can only hope that Apple delayed the launch, waiting for a lower power CPU. Maybe slowing the refresh rate way down can help.

    • rogifan - 9 years ago

      if they’re still waiting for a low powered chip then this thing isn’t coming out in the spring.

    • charismatron - 9 years ago

      I’m going to guess–and it’s totally a guess–that Mark’s sources are gonna low-ball the numbers so come release day everyone is pleasantly surprised and impressed. Time will tell (see what I did there? :) )!

  14. Taste_of_Apple - 9 years ago

    Not bad for a first-gen product. It’ll only get better from here out. I’m looking forward to trying it out.

    • Apple’s a few generations behind. Smart watches are on generation 3 or 4 by now and this is horrid battery life for a wearable device of any generation.

      • unsunghero83 - 9 years ago

        Part from pebble. All those generations were utter rubbish. Trying to get ahead of apple since it was first announced.

      • unsunghero83 - 9 years ago

        Also to your other comment about sleep tracking. The recharge time is expected to be really short. Meaning it would be better charged during your morning routine (breakfast, personal grooming etc). But please continue to bag a product that hasn’t even been released.

  15. thoughtsofmymadlife - 9 years ago

    I will not be paying $300+ for something that needs charging every day. Even my husband’s gear 2 lasts at least 3 days on a charge. Very disappointing Apple. Looks like I’ll be sticking with my fitbit.

    • rettun1 - 9 years ago

      Let’s wait until they actually release the thing, shall we?

      • thoughtsofmymadlife - 9 years ago

        I love the idea, but 1 day of battery life is abysmal for something thats supposed to be a watch.

      • But you don’t actually know what the real battery life will be. So just reserve your judgment for the Keynote, okay? Great.

      • lowtolerance - 9 years ago

        @thoughtsofmymadlife You realize that for 8 hours of a typical 24 hour day, you have no need for a watch, right?

      • scottwilkins - 9 years ago

        thoughts post was future tense… Makes your post look stupid.

      • lowtolerance, since I can’t reply to you directly, I’ll reply here and hope you come back and read this later… Apple is billing this very heavily as a fitness tracker; one of the best features of a wearable fitness tracker is the ability to track your sleep. Guess what the Apple Watch can’t do if it’s sitting on your night stand to charge.

  16. Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 9 years ago

    The more important thing is how long does it take to recharge? How small are those batteries and what type of charger is it? If it takes very little time to recharge, then it’s not that big of a deal. You charge it while your are on the can, taking a shower, shaving (for men), putting make up on (women) and getting dressed/brushing one’s teeth in the morning. That should probably be plenty of time to charge the thing. I would think that this would PROBABLY have at least one or two of those CR2450 (or something similar) rechargeable batteries inside.

  17. ron837192 - 9 years ago

    As long as it can get through a full day of usage, the battery life seems okay to me. Having a battery that lasted two days would not be much better for myself … I just be more likely to forget to charge it and wake up with a dead battery. If it needs to be charged every night, it will become part of my routine and that doesn’t really seem to be a big deal to me. I would love a week on one charge, but that doesn’t seem very realistic with current technology.

    • Toro Volt (@torovolt) - 9 years ago

      1 Week battery life if technical possible but with a different display and a more power efficient CPU.
      Who needs 60FPS, Retina Display and an iPhone like CPU power on a watch?
      Have Apple ever heard of “Thin Clients” computing?
      The AWatch seems the product of those Asian companies that pack on features and the kitchen sink just to sell but are bad on user experience, chief among them poor battery life.
      I used to admire Apple because they were the only few brands that made usable products.
      1 Day battery life is unacceptable for a device like this.
      I guess you can work around a daily routine with the AWatch, but technology is here to serve us, not the other way around.

  18. lkernan - 9 years ago

    Even Apple seems to be struggling with the fact they are trying to do too much too soon in a version 1 product.

    Remember the original iPhone had to go without 3g because they couldn’t get it done well at the start.

  19. rettun1 - 9 years ago

    My hope is that it’ll exceed what they say. Many of their products go beyond what they say it gets (ipad get more than ten, their notebooks do too I think) but I shouldn’t get my hopes up.

    And I bet they’ll learn a lot of cool stuff designing this, and will carry it over to the iphone and iPad (fingers crossed for 60fps and force touch in future iPhones)

  20. I always shake my head when I read comments about not buying the 1st generation and waiting for the 2nd. If the 1st generation isn’t a hit, there won’t be a 2nd generation.

    • Ron Hummel - 9 years ago

      That would be a stupid business decision. Apple’s 2nd generations seem to always be way better. Did any of the others that are making watches quit after their first try, NO.

      • Dan (@danmdan) - 9 years ago

        Sony has got to Watch version 3, and with Samsung I’ve lost count.

  21. Matīss (@matseglv) - 9 years ago

    What’s next? Apple should give out Android and BBM gift vouchers at Apple stores when buying a new Apple product?

  22. lemeblogging - 9 years ago

    Charging frequently a smartwatch is really disappointing! I’ve sold mine; instead I’ve bought a Pebble Steel. It does its work and the battery lasts for five days at least.

  23. fjpoblam - 9 years ago

    3-5 hours for clockface? Puny. That’d be my first want for an iwatch: a quick way to glance at the time. At 3-5 hours, instead of carrying extra doohickeys for charging the danged watch, I’d just as soon fetch out the phone. (Or buy a cheap Timex)

    • Andrew Messenger - 9 years ago

      At 3 hours of clock face time, you would need to raise your wrist to look at the watch (for 5 seconds) 2,160 times a day. I think that’s plenty of screen time.

      • Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 9 years ago

        Yeah, I think most people are probably going to look at their watch for one reason or another for maybe a total of about 2 to 3 hours during the day. Obviously, they are going to playing with thing a lot more in the beginning and once the honeymoon of buying one wears off, the total use from a perspective of looking at the watch face will certainly be less than 3 hours a day. I doubt people are going to be playing video games for hours at a stretch or watching (no pun intended) movies on their watch.

        I’m personally going to wait this out for a while until I get one, I might just wait until the 2nd gen since I’m not rolling in dough, but I want to play with them in the stores for a while first.

      • Laughing_Boy48 - 9 years ago

        Not really. I’m going to have to show off my new AppleWatch to a lot of people so I think it’s going to run out of power in about an hour. Do you think I can get a charging cable that runs up my sleeve to my pacemaker battery. If this BatteryGate keeps up, I think Apple will only manage to sell about a dozen AppleWatches. I’ve already heard on national news how quickly the AppleWatch eats up its battery. It’s the anti-Energizer smartwatch. It keeps dying and dying and dying.

        /s

  24. dakkottadavviss - 9 years ago

    $350 seems like a good price for the Sport version. Stainless steel I’d go for it at $100 more. Really hesitant about $150 more. But what the real question is, does the bigger one get better battery?

  25. Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 9 years ago

    I hope the batteries are user replaceable with a tool that can take the cap off/on. I’m sure whatever tools are required will eventually circulate through places like iFixIt if the device doesn’t come with one.

  26. ktest098 - 9 years ago

    Those are actually much better than most people had been expecting, every report I had read was expecting it would need to charge overnight… with average use these figures mean it could charge every other day with normal use.

  27. Google Glass may have been a bad idea..but at least it had SOME usefulness over a smart phone, to make some people think it might be worth spending hundreds of dollars plus at least another $10 a month to add it to their mobile plan. a smartwatch has NOTHING that a phone doesn’t offer. Just a tiny screen. And honestly…never once have I ever heard someone say “I really love my smartphone…but it is SO tiring having to move my arm 10 inches to retrieve it from my pocket. If only I had it on my wrist!”

  28. If it can comfortably get me through a day, the possible 19hrs, but let’s face it all of this is still rumour until it actually gets out into the wild, I’d be happy enough given what it can do, and we haven’t heard all that it can do yet.

    Moto 360 and the LG GWR are fine devices but Apple Watch seems to have much more functionality in terms of fitness and apps coming to it. Battery tech is nowhere near what it needs to be to give smartwatches, or phones, the magical longevity we all crave, so expectations have to be in line with reality.

    If I can get up to the alarm on my 6+, take it and Apple Watch off charger, go to work, glance at several dozen notifications, quick reply to some messages by voice or canned reply, have fun doodling cryptic/dirty pictures to my wife and tapping each others wrist for a lark, organise lunch by walky talky with friends/colleagues, set some reminders for stuff to pick up in the way home, have the health features tracking me throughout the day with their goals and reminders, hit the gym for an hour and a half after work with the higher level fitness features on, and still have a comfortable margin, say 10-20% battery left when it goes back on the charger at night I’m happy :-)

  29. Meanwhile, Android Wear watches are already lasting 1-2 days WITH the screen turned on the entire time…

  30. Jesus Bejeeman - 9 years ago

    I am an Apple wonk but there is NO WAY I am paying anything more than 200 for a high-end model. I own an expense Ebel that cost me over $1200 but it’s LUX with 18K gold and sapphires. My iPhone 6 cost 800 bucks. Why would anyone pay that much for the same thing just smaller and less capable? Jawbones UP is the way to go.

  31. Laughing_Boy48 - 9 years ago

    Apple is in big trouble now. Informed sources say just looking at the time depletes the battery 5%, so you have to be very careful how often you check the time in a day. Amazingly enough, the yet to be sold AppleWatch is harder on a battery than all those hundreds of Android Wear watches available. AppleWatch BatteryGate or how my AppleWatch loses 50% battery charge by just taking it off the charger. AppleWatch is the new Rodney Dangerfield of wearables. It don’t get no sort of respect.

    /s

    • Sly Stallone - 9 years ago

      Apple Response: You look at your watch too much, it wasn’t meant for that. Now shut up and give us your money.

  32. Laughing_Boy48 - 9 years ago

    Fire Tim Cook. He’s responsible for putting out a smartwatch that peters out before lunchtime. Instead of actual time the AppleWatch displays battery countdown time. Rumor has it AppleWatch goes dead after only 25 notifications. Apple will make a fortune selling AppleWatch quick chargers. Is it true the AppleWatch comes with a disclaimer that repeated usage will severely drain the battery?

    Oh wait… AppleWatch hasn’t gone on sale yet, so why is AppleWatch BatteryGate in full swing? Hmmm.

    /s

  33. Sly Stallone - 9 years ago

    I still don’t know why everyone is so hyped up about a watch. What is it you are going to do with this watch other than showing it off after waiting in line for a month just to buy one? It’s a fancy new toy with horrible battery life and no practical uses that you will get bored with within a week. Then what?

    • unsunghero83 - 9 years ago

      No practical uses????
      It’s a watch that’s one practical use. Lol

      Reading comments like that make me remember when Microsoft CEO at the time steve baller laughed at the idea of the iPhone and said it would not appeal to business users because it didn’t have a keypad for emails. He learned to eat his words.

    • broblk - 9 years ago

      AppleHeads will feel cool.. that’ all the need…

  34. kjoe14 - 9 years ago

    Hopefully there will be two batteries in the Apple watch. One Quartz rechargeable “timekeeper” and One Lithio rechargeable “app” battery.

  35. kjoe14 - 9 years ago

    *lithium rechargeable battery

  36. sicilianpizzaboy - 9 years ago

    I wonder if apple has considered making a “battery band or bracelet” that could be worn aside the watch for sole purpose of recharging

  37. John Gajewski III - 9 years ago

    Bad apple! What about the people who have been waiting for fitness/sleep tracker from their favorite brand? This watch was supposed to be it. Battery life is key, who wants to charge their watch one to two times per day? Not to mention nobody even wears watches since everyone now carries iPhones. This device simply will not do, it is going to be an epic fail. I have been waiting and waiting for more specs to be released and this just made my decision for me. Fitbit Charge HR here I come.

  38. Herbert P Caldwell - 9 years ago

    I just want more info on the watch like when can I order an up-scale model can I be notified?
    Herb

  39. How about 9 to 5 mac has no idea what they are talking about on this subject. The watch will last a minimum of all day, of course there is factors that would change that like watching a movie. Why would you watch a movie on the watch?

  40. Toni Rivans - 9 years ago

    Constant charging is putting me off buying one, what a pain that would be.

  41. broblk - 9 years ago

    If it can play Flappy Birds, it will sell in the millions /s