That being said, the Apple Watch has issues of its own, like sometimes draining substantially faster for (as far as I can tell) absolutely no reason. Rebooting the watch and phone has sorted that out for me, and it's only happened a couple of times, but it's not a good problem to have on a device where you may need the whole battery to get through a day.
So maybe the problem is your daily routine, not the fact that the battery life is objectively better?
It's like if you bought a laptop with too little RAM, and you try to explain that its actually an advantage because it forces you to run less applications. It's absurd to the max.
But aside from the times when I've had bug-induced battery drain, I never run out of battery and it's not something I worry about. So I also don't really care about the battery life being shorter than my Pebble's was.
Apple could triple the battery life to 3 days, but as you've just pointed out it should still be part of my daily routine to charge it, and if I'm not charging it every day to make sure it's a habit this is a "problem" with my daily routine (your words).
So supposing the battery gets better, and I fix my problematic routine and make sure to charge it every day, now the extra 2 days of battery life are literally pointless. So I can see why Apple has prioritized thinness over a larger battery.
Just like if you don't care that your laptop has only 2GB RAM - that doesn't mean it's a good amount of RAM or some kind of advantage over 32GB of RAM.
Explaining away objective deficiencies with personal preferences and anecdotes is not at all convincing or useful.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on how important battery life is. To me, improvements beyond “one day including some time with the GPS and heart rate sensors running” aren’t worth anything.
I’d much rather they keep making it thinner, because compared to the Pebble Time its biggest deficiency is still how chunky it is.
But of course your preferences may differ, and as you noted there are other smart watches on the market with longer battery life. I’m certainly not stopping you from using one of those instead if your preference is to prioritize long battery life.
If you tried to make an argument that having the 2GB RAM is an advantage I would challenge you on that. Yes.
> I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on how important battery life is.
I didn't say anything about how important battery life is, and I don't really care. My issue is not with the battery life, but with the absurd reasoning and mental gymnastics you guys are doing to literally try and pretend an objective deficiency is an advantage.
Garmin isn't like to like since it's not really a smart watch it's an exercise tracker. What are android watches like for battery life that would be a better comparison.
> Garmin isn't like to like since it's not really a smart watch it's an exercise tracker.
If you think Garmin watches are at all comparable to apple watches while still maintaining those long battery lives you've never used a Garmin watch for anything.
You're not even trying to be honest or rational.
My Swatch has a battery life that makes any Garmin on the market seem pathetic. Is it fair to compare the two on battery life?
Oh 'all' of those zero specific things you mentioned impact battery life? Ok.
Anyway, I don't even care what the battery life is - my initial comment in this chain is replying to a guy who didn't mention any of these elusive (apparently taboo to name) missing features - they literally just tried to argue that lower batter life is an advantage because they can't keep a routine otherwise. Pointing out how absurd this reasoning is seems to trigger a bunch of other apple fanboys, which is just hilarious tbh.
Lower battery life literally doesn't matter if you can charge it in the time it takes you to get ready in the morning. It has zero impact on usability.
The maximum battery lives advertised on sites are literally for doing nothing anyhow. My Garmin definitely does not have a multi day charge when I'm using it to track swimming.
You are doing the tech equivalent to her knees are too pointy.
What are you doing with your apple watch that requires additional processing power?
> screen size and quality
Many watches have larger screens, Apple screen quality is among the best - true.
> active monitoring quality
I mean... garmin beats apple hands down, so do other brands.
> AOD
Almost every modern smart watch has this?
> Lower battery life literally doesn't matter if you can charge it in the time it takes you to get ready in the morning.
'Having lower RAM literally doesn't matter if you can just use less.'
> It has zero impact on usability.
Cool story bro.
Using apps on it. If all you want is the time and a heart rate monitor than yeah apple watch isn't for you.
>I mean... garmin beats apple hands down, so do other brands.
I meant day to day active monitoring not when you're in a workout.
>Almost every modern smart watch has this?
Yes and go check their battery life differences when it's turned on.
>'Having lower RAM literally doesn't matter if you can just use less.'
I can charge it when it's not needed.
You can also run one app at a time save on RAM.
I laid it out twice already. Which part is confusing?
> someone else followed up saying they don't feel it's an issue
Someone else followed up with a hilariously nonsensical excuse for why a hard, OBJECTIVE deficiency is not a problem and actually an advantage. If you don't understand what the problem with that is, I can't help you.
> with little critical thinking applied
Oh, you're good at critical thinking?
In case it's too difficult to grasp:
>Reasonable person: 'The battery life is shit'
>Apple fanboy: 'That's actually a good thing'