Several Garmin watches last for weeks (24 days full charge, actual 1-2 weeks with heavy gps and fitness tracking), and I struggle to understand why consumers accept anything less. It seems like consumers don't realize what's available.
replyI think cost is one factor. I have a Vivoactive 4 and I love it but it has a reported battery life of 8 days and I get maybe half that with regular run tracking. I'm guessing the 24 days/1-2 weeks is for a considerably more expensive model.
replydeleted
replyThis. Why would I accept anything else than that?
replyI'm not sure if my Pixel Watch 3 is much more efficient than your 4 or if by "constant use" you literally mean scrolling through it actively for hours at a time, but I only charge mine maybe twice a week. It's on at all times, connected to my phone via Bluetooth and to my Wi-Fi network when I'm home, and I actively manage any push notifications I get from it, but otherwise it seems to idle fairly efficiently.
replyI’ll need to check my notes on power consumption. I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying out different modes and configurations… it’s not great. I would not expect years at all. You gotta be very careful about what has to stay on and off.
replyFurthermore, bugs. To this time there’s random crashes that happen with sleep which limits their use
I have some relevant experience. I built this a few years ago:
replyhttps://imgur.com/a/diy-automatic-e-ink-newspaper-using-rust...
After careful optimization, the v1 got about 6 months out of a 1100 mAh battery. Later improvements and bumping to a 3300 mAh battery got me to 14 months, before my kid yanked it off the wall, total'd the panel and I rebuilt it. The test continues.
That said--op isn't wrong. If power usage is the metric you optimize for, there's much better BOM than an esp32.
Galaxy watch 7 (I think) weather here. Also about 30 hours. It's a charge every day thing, but allowing for some forgetfulness. It's not ideal, but it's manageable and certainly functional.
reply