OK, here's my final word, unless/until Apple changes the watch display function or someone takes legal action etc., but I will continue to be amused at the responses to a guy who never said what the Nano should or shouldn't do, but rather that he felt deceived. I would never be so hubris as to tell someone else how they should feel about a purchase they made or any feelings a person might have.
First to deggie as well as to cicerogirl: markymark has previously indicated that he is NOT too young to remember early digital watches in which it was necessary to push a button to see the time. I CAN remember these as well and in fact, I had one those many years ago. However this is about as relevant as if I was to buy a new Battery Powered Auto and when I got home I was told that if the battery is not completely charged, I would need to go to the front of the car and use a manual turn crank to start the engine. If I was dismayed and felt deceived about this would you say, "Maybe you're not old enough to remember when that's how one needed to start a car?"
In other words, comparing a 7th Gen iPod nano to the first digital watches is not on point; however, if I have not yet gotten my message across, then one last word about digital watches vs the iPod Nano. When you go in the store, or at least the one I went into, the watches are plugged in to a power source and the power management causes the screen to stay on longer. When I went to the store to get my first digital watch (LED), it was off and I had to push the button to see the screen and it went off in about 15 secs, so I immediately knew what I was getting. Later, when I purchased my first LCD screen watch, while the screen was on all the time, I was told that it was difficult if not impossible to see the screen in the dark, so I knew I should buy the one with the back-light, which also only stayed on for about 10-15 secs. In other words, I knew what I was getting. Which was markymark's point to begin with. It wasn't whether the Nano should or shouldn't stay on, he was just attempting to share that the idea that it wouldn't stay on, never occurred to him, it was not mentioned when he purchased it and that he felt deceived, as do I.
Second point, in regards to the question you have asked more than once, along the lines that would we want the watch to stay on and then have to recharge after 40 minutes. My first thought regarding this question is where or how did you come up with 40 minutes? Then I decided you were just attempting to ask, if we would like it to stay on, if we had to "frequently" charge it. I addressed this in my last comment.
However since you are pushing the "40 minute" question, I would ask, where are you getting your facts? Do you have an inside track with the Apple Engineers and know that it would only stay on for 40 minutes if the watch either just stayed on or if it dimmed considerably, but could still see the time? Are you that against giving the consumer control over how long the watch stayed on or stayed on with the screen dimmed, along with a warning about considerable battery usage? Not to mention, that they could have also easily placed a disclaimer on the box regarding this issue. Or are you indeed an employee or consultant of Apple's and know that if it stayed on, the battery would only last for 40 minutes. As an engineer, that knows a thing or two about power consumption as well as having some background in providing expert testimony for Legal Defense team's, I would say that if Apple was aware that the battery would only last for 40 minutes, regardless of dimming, along with the way it is being marketed and displayed by being powered up with an adapter in the store, I would not be surprised if some hungry attorney comes along and files a Class Action on this one. It wouldn't be the first time Apple ran in to issue with battery expectations being mis-matched with consumer's expectation.
Having stated all that, again, I am a big Apple fan and have utilized just about every class of products they have developed for many years. Doc H, out.
