Currently Being ModeratedDec 26, 2011 9:46 PM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
Apple is right. It would drain the battery to keep it on. I admit it would be cool for it to be possible for the watch to stay on, but for now it is not possible.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 27, 2011 12:38 AM (in response to T0XiiC IVIAGICZ)
It sure seems to me that if you can watch a movie or TV shows, THAT is what is going to suck out battery life. But if you dim down the backlight on the battery in the settings adjustment, that running the watch wouldn't be that big a drain on the battery. I can tell you one thing, I certainly wouldn't have purchased a $70 watchband had I known I couldn't REALLY use it as a watch. And after talking with a couple salespeople about it, I think it is shameful that the salespeople didn't say "what are you going to use the watch for"... or "you realize it's not a "real" watch". If I had the luxury to hit a button everytime I needed the time, I would just use my iphone to get the time. But I'm needing to glance at the time constantly. And to not be able to use it to complete tasks (like take blood pressure) makes it pretty useless. At least warn people and don't let your vendors whose products you sell in the Apple Store to print 5 different watch faces on the box of the watch.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 29, 2011 9:48 AM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
Recently purchased Nano and watch band.
I fully AGREE w/ MarkyMark1976. The power issue should be a simple issue to deal with. Easy enough to make an option to leave screen on and if turned on, give consumer an alert regarding increase power consumption leading to more frequent charging. However I would expect Apple to provide update to minimize this increase in power consumption.
I also agree that I feel I have been mis-lead. I'm usually a pretty informed tech consumer, have a couple dozen Apple products, happen to purchase my first Mac at the same time the first iPod came out and purchased that as well and I'm the go-to guy for my buddies when there's a tech issue or info prior to their purchasing tech merchandise.
I say this only to provide background for this statement: the fact that the watchface cannot stay on, was not even on my radar-I never suspected that I could not keep the watch-face on!
Albeit, to Apple's credit, to date, I have never felt so mis-lead and DISAPPOINTED in Apple!
Apple please fix this and again allow me to be able to continue to support you to my fullest.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 29, 2011 1:00 PM (in response to Doc-Lee)
I think you make some great points that I didn't articulate well. The first, the fact that the watchface doesn't stay on didn't even cross my mind either; as WHY WOULDN'T IT? And second, I agree that to Apples credit their product evolution always made sense, but THIS TIME I felt completely mislead; even intentially deceived representing their product to be something it clearly is not. They have had their product flops like anyone else that the public didn't buy into, but that's different. Put a digital face on it for someone working out who wants to check into a stopwatch (still who wouldn't want the option to leave it "on"?) But don't put 16 faces and sell it off as a "watch". Don't carry 10 different varieties of watch straps in the Apple Store from plastic to rubber to stainless, including some in the $100 range, all with cool picutes of it lit up as a watch. Apple NEEDS to fix this, or let us KEEP what we "didn't buy" and give us an equal credit for something else. Shame on Apple!
Currently Being ModeratedDec 29, 2011 1:03 PM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
Would like to log my vote for - super lame watch function. Thought I was doing something wrong as this is the most rediculous thing I've seen.
At least I decided to wait to buy the band until I had tested out the nano, so I'm not out that money.
But it sure does make me grumpy!
My 1st generation nano showed the time more cositantly and for longer than this crazy design.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 29, 2011 1:25 PM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
You can't watch movies or television shows on the nano. The battery is way to small for that.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 29, 2011 1:28 PM (in response to Doc-Lee)
At this time the only way to increase the power would be to put a bigger battery in it. Then the Nano would be about the size of the old form Nano. Would you wear that on your wrist?
Otherwise it is a wait until new battery technology (fuel cell maybe?) that will allow that much power and life of a battery in a small form factor.
As far as the warning and switch, you would have no issue with recharing it every 40 minutes or so?
Currently Being ModeratedDec 30, 2011 6:53 AM (in response to deggie)
Doc-Lee here again for follow-up: with regards to deggie- yep I get that you cannot watch movies-I was surprized to hear that you might be able to do so and was going to check that out when I had a sec, but thx for clarification.
With regards to deggie's next comment- I hear you, but for example yetserday I used about 10 percent of available battery. I would likw to see if it would be such a drain to allow the option in Settings to for the watch to stay on for a variety of lengths of time and allow the user to decide the time for the watch to stay on, regardless of battery useage. I believe a slight dimming of the face after a period of time would probably be helpful-also allowing the user to choose time before dimming would also be easy enough to accomplish. So for example to wheels in to Settings from 1 minute to 60 minutes for time to dimming screen and same for time to face off, then a switch to never go off and never dim. Appropriate warning that this may cause frequent charging to be required.
in other words- leave it to the user!
Regardless, there should have been a disclaimer on the box under the pics of utilizing the Nano as a watch.
At least Apple has been consistent with regards to having battery issues, ever since the first iPod. Again to their credit they have attempted to deal with these issues, albeit with a little arm twisting on the original iPod, after legal action was taken.
Now I'm not implying that legal action be taken on this issue, but I wouldn't be surprized if some attorney attempts to bring a Class Action suit on this with all of these devices being sold. At this point in time most users probably figure that they just haven't figured out how to set the nano for the watch to stay on. After more people realize that there is NO option to keep watch on, there will probably be more folks disappointed and feeling deceived. I figure a good portion of December sales were for gifts and most folks don't like to return or complain about gifts, so this may stay off some of the disappointed to make returns.
Not sure about Apple's return policy on this, but folks may have a month to return? Perhaps some that are very disillusioned will be attempting to return his product?
That's all for now.
Currently Being ModeratedJan 2, 2012 11:16 AM (in response to deggie)
The ENTIRE point here is not how large or small the battery is, but how Apple has deceptively marketed the Nano by including 16 watch faces, and selling a dozen different watchbands for it through all their distribution points (both their stores and websites), ALL displaying it being worn "as a watch". It doesn't imply that it is a great way to strap your Nano to you while you are working out to listen to music, but instead everything is geared to show it as a watch. It's not a watch if the time screen is gone in under 15 seconds. Watches provide continuous time. If I wanted to push a button every time I wanted to check the time from a black screen, I'd use my iPhone. And, medical professionals with any competence use watches with second hands to do simple tasks like take blood pressure. Once you find someone's pulse, you hardly want to take your hand off it to push a button to turn your watch on which then only stays on for 15 seconds. Make sense now>? If it doesn't have the capability that's fine, just don't deceive your buyers. My old Nano, iPod touch, and iPhone are all great for listening to music. I didn't need to invest >$200 bucks in more of the same.
Currently Being ModeratedJan 2, 2012 11:29 AM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
Nope, still doesn't make any sense. You are obviously much too young to remember the early digital watches. They all were set to be on for a limited time then you had to push a button on them to light them up and get the time. They were all sold and advertised as watches. They didn't even play music.
So were all those people deceptively marketing their watches as...watches? Nope and nobody made that claim.
Sorry but I've missed the advertising where the Nano is pushed primarily as a watch by Apple. In fact I've seen very little advertising of the Nano at all, but certainly not as a watch. When this style Nano originally came out there were no watch bands available, they came later by 3rd party companies and were not originally sold in any Apple Store. But people wanted them, more companies manufactured them so Apple carries them, at least for now. But none of this is deceptive advertising. Apple also carries an accessory to take your blood pressure using your iDevice but that does not mean they are advertising it as a medical device. Which leads to your pulse example, which is just silly.
In no way is Apple marketing the Nano as a watch any more than they market the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, or iPod Classic as a clock or watch. It is labeled as an iPod Nano, just like your old iPod Nano, it is just smaller. If you bought your Nano and your holder (which isn't much different than a shoulder strap for the older generation iPods) from an Apple Store talk to the manager and/or customer service and get your money back.
You deceived yourself, Apple didn't deceive you. And if Apple did give you the ability to leave it on you would be back here ranting again when the battery ran out in less than an hour telling us how the device was worthless as a watch if you can't use it for more than 40 minutes without having to then charge it for an hour.
Currently Being ModeratedJan 2, 2012 12:20 PM (in response to deggie)
This is getting silly, but I'm not too young to remember the early digital watches. The difference is that we knew what we were buying . jThey were upfont about the FACT that the watches didn't stay on. And how well did they sell as watches? Hmmm I don't think any of us said that Apple was pushing Nano primarily as a watch. That said, this is not a third party "app" either .... 18 clock faces come with the Nano as a "feature" of the product. It's not a "digital time read out"... it's made to look and act like a watch. Apples own website touts that you can change its face "to match your mood or your outfit".... The bands they sell range from $20 bucks to like $150 bucks.... This is a HUGE money maker for them. It is THESE KINDS OF FEATURES that brings people back buying new ipods, because like I said, without them, I have plenty of devices that already "record music", or "store pictures". And your other points have zero merit. Go to the Apple website to the Nano 6 page where Apple touts all of its merits. This is where Apple explains the features of their product. There is a whole section:
Clock faces. Time to match your mood. Or your outfit.
It’s all in the wrist.
Do you wear your iPod nano on a watchband? With 18 different clock face designs to choose from, you can have a new watch style whenever the mood strikes you. Sport an analog face for a formal event, go digital for a retro feel, or choose a whimsical, animated character like Mickey Mouse or Kermit the Frog. There are also color options so you can match the color of your iPod nano. iPod nano watchbands are available in a range of styles and colors from theApple Online Store.
And last, for the record Sir, I have probably purchased 50 Apple products for myself, my business, and as gifts in the last 10 years. I have had my manufacturing issues which Apple always responsibly took care of. But I have NOT ONCE complained in this forum about ANYTHING. I am a HUGE Apple fan. I felt strongly enough, that this issure warranted warning others about. Mostly, I wanted APPLE to understand the gaff and perceptual problem which was created. Perhaps not to all (like to you), but certainly to some (obviously like me). Let's face it, we BOTH represent groups of the public, like it our not. Especially, since I rarely talk to Apple staff, I'm an early adopter, and for some reason, I hesitated on this product and did talk to a couple staff members when I was in the store FOR OTHER THINGS. I bought one for myself, and three for gifts. I've already returned the ones I bought as gifts, because when I showed my neices and nephews MINE, and the disfunction of the watch, they all lost interest in keeping theirs, and opted for other Apple devices instead. And if you still don't think they are marketing this Nano as a watch more than iphone, touch, pad, or classic, then I throw up my arms, and say Happy New Year. You are Apple washed and whipped beyond repair. NOBODY is perfect, not even Apple. Or, you.
Currently Being ModeratedJan 2, 2012 12:35 PM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
We knew what we were buying? They didn't advertise that you had to push a button.
Again, answer one simple question: If Apple released an update, version 1.3, that allowed you to leave it on, and the battery depleted in 40 minutes, would you be happy with that?
Currently Being ModeratedJan 10, 2012 10:16 AM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
Maybe a wrist-flick-to-activate feature would be a nice middle-ground?
Currently Being ModeratedJan 10, 2012 2:42 PM (in response to deggie)
LOL at the young ones not remembering the first digital watches. Excellent point.