240
Why don't smart watches use USB-C to recharge? (shkspr.mobi)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I wrote the post above. So far, the USB-C watch has lasted over 3 days and still has over 50% battery power.

Obviously, at that price it isn't running a cellular radio or GPS. BLE is amazingly efficient - as are the built in sensors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    That gives me no information. What's the battery size? I've had multiple smartwatches and all their batteries could last a week or a day depending on usage, setup and features.

    The point is USB C is noticeably larger than pogo pins for the sake of including a whole bunch of additional pins a smartwatch has zero use for. Larger means less room for other stuff. The ideal state for a smartwatch is having an always-on display and heart rate monitoring, among other things. All watches out there, even the most efficient ones, could use more battery and efficiency than they have. Because all smartwatches are coming up short from their desired usage and are working around their limited battery life.

    The idea of making that worse for the sake of having a clearly unfit for purpose connector as opposed to standardizing a connector that actually does the job is really weird. There is no need to have a different charger on every watch, but there certainly isn't a need to sacrifice any functionality or performance at all for the sake of USB C. And not all watches are the same size, so this would impact smaller watches more, which now is limiting what type of watches you can make if you make USB C a standard. And if it's not a standard, then it's not fixing the problem.

    And all that's even before you begin to consider that watches are more comfortable to charge when they have a stand to do so, since they're small, light and fiddly, so it's entirely possible for a bulky USB C cable meant for fast charging to be heavier than them or stiff enough to actively move them around. There's a reason watch chargers tend to come with very thin, flexible wires. All you need to fix this problem is a magnetic stand that can hold any watch. Half the USB C cables I own would knock over my watch stand if plugged into my watch or drag my watch across the table.

    You can make a watch that charges via USB C and still works. That's not an optimal solution, but you can. But it's not a valid standard because you can't very practically make all watches charge via USB C. Standards need to be standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    What’s the battery size?

    The website claims 280mAh. That's a smaller than the newest Pixel watches - but then it is only about 10% of the cost of those models.

    The point is USB C is noticeably larger than pogo pins for the sake of including a whole bunch of additional pins a smartwatch has zero use for.

    Agreed! But that rather depends on what you want to use it for. This model is charge only. But it could be useful to use it as a USB drive to store music, or to get health data off it. The main advantage for my personal use-case is being able to charge while wearing it.

    The ideal state for a smartwatch is having an always-on display and heart rate monitoring, among other things.

    Yes! This does have always-on heart rate monitoring and step count. The screen is only on when you glance at it or tap the button.

    And if it’s not a standard, then it’s not fixing the problem.

    Agreed! But as the Pixel watch has gone through three different charging standards, all of which are incompatible with other watches, we don't seem to be any closer to solving that problem with wireless.

    And all that’s even before you begin to consider that watches are more comfortable to charge when they have a stand to do so, since they’re small, light and fiddly

    That's a personal preference. My Pixel watch stand is fiddly to use - the magnets don't always align. And the puck charger is pretty lightweight and moves around easily. By contrast, my lightweight USB-C cables don't move my watch when it is charging directly.

    Standards need to be standard.

    I agree! But sometimes it is nice to experiment with things to see what works. And I'm very happy that this normal-sized watch is able to charge with the same cable I use for my toothbrush, eBook, headphones, fan, and phone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Hold on, so now you want to use USB C for data transfer? Which means you want to what? add more storage to the watch? That sure seems like a solution looking for a problem you're only floating as a result of choosing USB as the charge port, which we probably shouldn't do.

    And that's not just much less battery than on the Pixel at 420mAh, it's even smaller than the CMF Watch 2, which reports 305mAh and is only seventy bucks (and if anything seems smaller than all of your examples). So yes, there is an impact on battery. And no, that's not acceptable. Because again, ALL smartwatches need more battery than they currently have.

    The point of the always on HR monitoring and screen isn't that they exist, it's that they are a massive battery drain. A smartwatch where you turn those off will last several times more than the same watch with them on, particularly on entry-level devices like ones you point at. And you would ideally wnat those on in a perfect smartwatch while still getting multi-day battery life. Right now we just don't have that because you can't work your way around physics.

    Now, for an experiment? Sure, go nuts. Put a solar panel in there. A hand crank. Who cares, weird hardware is weird and weird is fun.

    But to solve the problem with the ever-changing charger standards from the mainstream manufacturers weird won't cut it. You need a solution that fits all cases with near-optimal performance. USB is just not it for this form factor, and if anything focusing on it distracts from the very real need to come to a proper standard in this space, which I find somewhat annoying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Hold on, so now you want to use USB C for data transfer?

    Sure, why not? My headphones have a built-in MP3 player which I can load up with 32GB of music. Flash memory is tiny and cheap - why shouldn't my watch have my music collection on it? Is grabbing a CSV of my data via USB easier than trying to send it via BT? Might be. Let's find out.

    Because again, ALL smartwatches need more battery than they currently have.

    For you, maybe. This £16 one has lasted nearly 5 days of doing continual heart monitoring and is still on 40% battery. Even better, I don't need to take it off if I want to charge it. Weekly charging is better than my phone or laptop.

    I slightly disagree with you about the screen needing to be always on. I'm not always looking at my watch, so it might as well save battery where it can. I don't leave my laptop screen on when I walk away from it, and that has a much bigger battery.

    weird hardware is weird and weird is fun.

    On that we can agree! This is a fun experiment.

    You need a solution that fits all cases with near-optimal performance.

    I disagree. I think it is OK to have some choice in the market. Some people will prefer magnetic wireless, some wired, some plutonium batteries.

    and if anything focusing on it distracts from the very real need to come to a proper standard in this space, which I find somewhat annoying.

    Like, mate, I don't have the power to enact anything. I'm just one guy blogging. I'm not involved in the design, manufacture, or standardisation of anything watch related. I don't understand why you're getting annoyed by me talking about it though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Flash memory is tiny, but it's not replacing anything, it's being added, which is a problem for cost and size. If you were going to take BT out then... sure, but that's not what's happening here.

    Now, the conversation is different if you reframe it as "I just like this quirky dirt cheap watch with a USB port on it". At that point I have nothing to say other than... sure, why not.

    What I don't like is the notion that USB C is either a better alternative or a candidate for standardization, which is how the post came across to me.

    Oh, and I disagree about the always on screen, too. In all honestly, the two things that make smartwatches still less polished than traditional watches is a) battery life, and b) the fact that there is at best a second of lag when you try to check the time and at worst you need to shake your wrist to try to get your watch to realize it's being looked at so it decides to wake up.

    There's no question that having a display of the time on at all times is better. It's just not practical with the energy costs and battery storage. At one point I bought that Garmin watch that has a standard old digital watch screen on top of the modern display (speaking of weird). It was a neat idea, but it turns out that the battery life for it on normal use wasn't much better than other watches and the dumb thing still had a backlight it turned on via motion detection, so it was just as laggy as a normal smartwatch.

    I'd take a better iteration on that tech over a USB C charger any day, if we're doing weird.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    In which case, you might like the eInk screen on the Watchy. I reviewed it at https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2023/06/review-watchy-an-eink-watch-full-of-interesting-compromises/

    Screen is always on but eInk gives it great battery life. Although the rest of the watch is even more experimental than the USB-C one 😆

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Hah. That's the kind of weird I can get behind, but I definitely wouldn't want it to be the default.

    Also I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of the watch dying and it getting stuck on giving you the wrong time. I guess it's how old analogue watches worked, but there's something to knowing when your watch is dead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent