Apple’s upcoming wearable still prompts a lot of
questions, not least of which is how long it will
last on a full charge of its battery. A new report
form 9to5Mac suggests that Apple is looking at a
smartwatch that will offer 2.5 hours of continuous
use for processor-intensive applications like
games, 3.5 hours for continuous use of standard
apps and 4 hours of active fitness tracking in the
background. Apple’s target for mixed use is 19
hours, including long periods where the display is
off, but the initial hardware might not quite live up
to that expectation, per 9to5Mac’s sources.
The report also claims that the Apple Watch team
had hoped for higher numbers, and that it also
helped contribute to a supposed delay of launch
plans from late last year to early next. And at first
glance, the number on paper might provoke some
head-scratching or looks of concern among Apple
Watchers; 3.5 hours of app use sounds abysmal
when measured up against devices like the
iPhone, for instance.
But even if Apple falls somewhat short of these
figures, it’s likely not going to hurt the consumer
success of the wearable, for a few reasons. One of
them is that this device is in reality meant to be
an occasional use gadget, and the initial
limitations for developers backs that up. Apple is
setting developers up to use the platform as a
conduit for essential information from the
smartphone, and a triage device that works
precisely because it allows for quick action, rather
than prolonged use sessions.
Apple also has existing device capabilities working
to its advantage – the field of Android Wear
devices generally offer about the same in terms of
battery consumption, with some probably doing
worse, and some slightly better. The point is that
consumer expectation is primed for lower active
use times, and daily charging. Battery life is a
metric that Apple will have to match, or improve
upon with each successive generation, but it can
start where consumer expectation for wearables
already is, so long as it delivers a superior
experience in other regards.
Which leads to the next point working in Apple’s
favor: The original iPhone promised only five
hours of “talk, video and browsing” time, which
was meagre compared to the luxurious long life of
competing smartphone devices from the likes of
BlackBerry. The Apple Watch, as described in this
report, won’t be that far off, and it’s intended for
use sessions that should be far shorter and less
taxing on its internal powerhouse.
The original iPhone actually fell quite short of
some of its competitors in this regard, but the
experience was enough to answer the naysayers
who argued no one would want to deal with the
hassle of a phone you had to charge every day
(GASP). Obviously, people were more than willing,
and that was in a market where there were options
that scored far better in terms of battery
expectations, which in this case there really are
not, barring the Pebble, but I think the Pebble is
actually a good analog to BlackBerry in terms of
the competitive landscape Apple will encounter
when it debuts the Apple Watch, as its experience
pales in similar ways.
For all the complaints about battery life on
contemporary devices, it hasn’t seemed to
seriously hamper sales of any device type, or
specific hardware to date in a way that
jeopardized the viability of the product. Apple can
shoot for table stakes in this instance, so long as
everything else offers a new level of polish and functionality.
No comments:
Post a Comment