• gelberhut@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not that many. Strange that they did not pitch wired charging as faster or less power consuming or something like that…

    • ijeff@lemdro.idM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Might be too small of a difference to matter with their implementation. As an aside, the 24 hr battery life is a disappointment IMO.

      • gelberhut@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        if wired charging has no any benefit one can “sell”, this is a downgrade.

        • rutenl@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The advantage mentioned in the article is easier connection to the charger and slightly faster charging

          • gelberhut@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            yes, but google itself claimed nothing. If it would really reduce heating and reduce energy needed to charge the watch - google would mentioned this - this is good for the environment.
            according to data I have seen charging speed improvement is formal like 65 min instead of 70 for 0 to 100% and same time from 0 to 50%

            I assume that the real reason either cost reduction or space for extra sensors.

  • macallik@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Battery life is my biggest concern. I see 24 hour battery life w/ Always-On display… does anyone have any references that speak to the battery life when the feature is turned off?

    Looking to replace a Garmin watch that lasts 4-5 days and trying to see whether it’ll be worth it