

Forget Wearable Tech. People Really Want Better Batteries - frostmatthew
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/01/10/376166180/forget-wearable-tech-people-really-want-better-batteries

======
meesterdude
I would welcome some additional thickness in my iphone for a better battery
life. The end goal should not be a paperthin phone; it should be a phone that
has a long charge time and fits reasonably into your pocket / hand. Phones are
pretty important to people and it's silly something so important is so needy
of recharging.

It's not technology so much that is the problem, it is design principles and
priorities.

~~~
ekianjo
I agree but there are issues with having bigger batteries as well: they add a
lot of weight and could result in more wrist/arm pain for those using their
phones for extended time. You certainly don't want your phone to be as heavy
as a brick.

~~~
coldtea
>* they add a lot of weight and could result in more wrist/arm pain for those
using their phones for extended time.*

Seriously? I think we somehow survived the nineties, early '00s without such
issues.

>* You certainly don't want your phone to be as heavy as a brick.*

It's been at least 5-10 years that we've been very far away from that
situation...

~~~
ekianjo
> Seriously? I think we somehow survived the nineties, early '00s without such
> issues.

Smartphones were not mainstream in the early '00s. All the "normal" phones
were very light and very portable.

~~~
jacquesm
For about 100 years or so the handset was a lot heavier than todays
smartphones and nobody thought anything of it. My grandmom had one of those
old black bakelite jobs, it must have weighed at least 2 pounds and could be
used as a means of self defense.

~~~
arrrg
But no one was tapping on the screen and looking at it to interact with it …

I would personally argue that I’m unsure about the connection between weight
and comfortableness and the tolerances. Would 200g be ok? I really don’t know.

However … making phone calls is not the main use case for smartphones. You
just cannot design them with that in mind as something to optimise for. That’s
non-sensical, weird, and a total non-sequitur. Your comparison makes zero
sense in that regard. It just doesn’t even apply, so it’s not a valid argument
in any way, shape or form.

~~~
jacquesm
> making phone calls is not the main use case for smartphones

Try marketing a smart phone that can't make phone calls and see how it goes.

> You just cannot design them with that in mind as something to optimise for.

Every smartphone has been primarly a phone, secondary a camera and thirdly
something that runs apps.

It's essentially a computer with a telephony interface but that telephony bit
is absolutely essential and not an afterthought.

~~~
bostik
> _Try marketing a smart phone that can 't make phone calls and see how it
> goes._

I think that's called a (mini) tablet.

~~~
jacquesm
How many people that have mini tablets also have a phone? How many people that
have a phone also have mini tablets?

------
bpodgursky
If phone manufacturers weren't in a constant race to cut the last .1 oz off of
their phones while still being barely-sufficient to get through a day, this
wouldn't even be an issue. I'd be happy to double my phone's weight for 3 days
of life.

~~~
jcfrei
For most manufacturers and models battery life has actually increased
marginally with each model (one notable exception being LG's G2 vs G3). See
for example: [http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/mobile-phones/1402071/best-
ba...](http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/mobile-phones/1402071/best-battery-
life-2014-60-smartphones-tested)

------
userbinator
Also related: _easily removable_ batteries, and preferably in standardised
sizes. The fastest way to get from empty to full is not to wait for it charge,
but to swap in an already-charged battery.

I think thinness is overrated too, as a device thinner than ~10mm starts
getting rather difficult to pick up from a flat surface and hold comfortably
(I have big hands.)

~~~
adamgravitis
I massively disagree with the importance of swappable batteries. While I
suppose there are people who are pretty happy hauling around a bunch of
batteries with them, I haven't considered such a thing since camcorders were
cool. A big part of keeping technology mainstream is to not require a utility
belt.

(n.b. I don't mind if they're user-removable for replacement once they've
totally died, but this also seems to have become rather rare for what I assume
are manufacturing reasons)

~~~
jschwartzi
I took advantage of this when my phone's original battery began to swell. With
a new phone I suppose I would have to send it in and pay hundreds of dollars
to get it fixed. Instead I bought 4 replacement batteries off of Amazon for
$6.00 each and fixed it myself.

------
ufmace
I am often disappointed by the battery life of my phone, but I think that what
we need isn't bigger batteries, but better software. Supposedly, when working
on Lollipop, Google engineers left a Nexus phone running on Airplane mode, and
it lasted a month on a charge. I'm not sure if it actually happened, but it's
believable. Goes to show the point that if we can manage power usage well,
multi-day run times are perfectly practical without mammoth batteries.

I'm not sure what's going on with it in the iOS world, but Google seems to be
working on this with the power management changes in Lollipop. They still have
a long way to go, since the first thing I noticed on upgrading to it was
random massive battery drain for no apparent reason. It seems to have gone
away since I uninstalled Foursquare, but that was a random guess, and I'm
still not sure if it was the main reason. Anyways, point is that the OS-level
changes to make it easier to sip power are good, but app compliance is still
spotty.

I think that what we really need in Android is a good, OS-level way of
monitoring which apps are actually causing idle wakelocks, GPS usage, and
other non-obvious power drains. If the users can see that App X is what's
killing their battery, they will presumably uninstall it and yell at the App
developers instead of at Google, or maybe decide that the app does actually
need to do that, and it's worth it, but at least they know it's the app's
fault, and not Android's. Possibly some sort of option to notify the user if
an app's idle power usage is over some threshold and ask them if they're
really okay with that.

~~~
derekp7
The thing I never understood -- back in the days of pagers, a pager could last
for a month or more on a AA battery. A pager has to be constantly listening
for a signal, then wake up and take action. So couldn't a phone be designed
the same way? Have the main processor at idle, and offload event
listening/processing to another low power processor chip. Then, wake up the
main CPU when more advanced processing is required.

~~~
jobposter1234
Umm... smart phones do this? It's a big reason phones can last so long with
serious power requirements. A big reason for the phone/mobile specific
chipsets was to enable these features.

~~~
derekp7
But what I'm still confused on -- if a pager can sit an listen to a signal for
2 - 4 weeks on a AA battery, why can't a phone (smart or otherwise) do the
same thing? Or in other words, what specifically is there about listening for
a "You have an incoming call" radio signal, that causes more power drain than
listening for a "You have a page with this message contents" signal? For
simplicity sake, lets assume even a dumb phone, with no internet -- just calls
-- they never did have a fraction of the standby time of a pager.

~~~
jobposter1234
Late to see this. But the answer to your question is because even though they
are superficially accomplishing the same end result, they are not nearly doing
the same thing. Your smartphone is running a full blown modern operating
system, with all the processors and memory and store requirements.

The pager is likely running a very lean embedded processor and doesn't have
nearly the same energy requirements.

------
vinceguidry
The company that wins the jackpot on this isn't going to be the one with the
most advanced batteries. It's going to be the company that figures out how to
cut platform bloat down to a reasonable size, reducing energy consumption by
an order of magnitude.

They're also going to have to figure out ways to keep third-party apps from
undoing their hard work.

~~~
kalleboo
Apple's pretty good at that - the last time I looked at the ifixit teardowns
their batteries were 30-40% smaller than the competition, and battery life was
comparable. But they use that advantage not to increase usable battery life
but to decrease device size.

I doubt "order of magnitude" is going to happen barring some revolutionary
display technology.

~~~
vinceguidry
You can get to order of magnitude with a combination of getting the software
right and using the best battery available. After all, it's not like the
company on this path is going to use crappy batteries, they'll use the best
available like everyone else.

------
dorfsmay
True. I'm one of those people who religiously plug my phone every night, yet,
I often ran out of power when I really needed it (eg: browsing / tethering on
a long train trip).

I recently got a One plus one, and I really couldn't tell you all the good
geeky spec, I actually don't care about all it's little flaws, but I loves the
amazing battery life. I will not buy another phone with lesser battery life.
There is no other geeky spec that can trump that.

------
marknutter
What percentage of people don't/can't charge their phone every night? And of
those who don't/can't, what percentage of them aren't satisfied with the
myriad external battery cases and on-the-go-chargers available for smart
phones. I challenge the assumption that the majority of people are asking for
better batteries. I think it's like people asking Ford for a faster horse.

~~~
JangoSteve
> what percentage of them aren't satisfied with the myriad external battery
> cases and on-the-go-chargers available for smart phones.

Well, from the article, I'd say the answer is around 33%. Specifically, this
was in the article:

> Meanwhile, consumers indicated that the new smartphone feature they were
> most excited about — picked by 33 percent of respondents — was "improved
> battery life."

Also...

> I challenge the assumption that the majority of people are asking for better
> batteries.

I don't think anyone said it's a majority. And this article isn't about an
assumption, it's about a survey.

~~~
marknutter
Surveys don't provide perfect information. People may say they want better
battery life because that's the only thing they can think about their phones
that could get better. 10 years ago if you asked people what they wanted in
cell phones they would have said "smaller, thinner flip phones please". Very
few people would have asked for a smart phone that was was easy to use and
with no physical keyboard. In other words, asking customers what they want is
often a terrible way to figure out what to build next.

Also, the type of person willing to respond to a survey like this is likely
already an outlier and more prone to running into the limits of what their
battery will allow them to do.

If people truly wanted better battery life they would buy huge cases with big
batteries built into them. I know very few people who own one of them.

------
kemiller
"Forget self-driving cars. People really want anti-gravity."

I mean, of course they want better batteries, but it's not like there is a
lack of investment in better energy storage.

~~~
icefox
And while people might want anti-gravity they are only actually willing to pay
for the car that has the cooler look.

------
Kiro
So I must choose? Wearable tech or better batteries but you can't have both!
Of course people want better batteries but I don't see how that leads to the
conclusion of the headline.

------
jokoon
other alternative, just make slower hardware, and optimize the software
running on it.

optimizing and reducing the amount of functionalities might also save a very
big amount of battery.

Honestly, what I'd buy, is a

* 4 inch e-ink screen device

* that can close like a laptop, with a physical keyboard,

* with a CPU that sacrifice features and speed for less power consumption

* no camera,

* only wifi, or with 3G disabled by default, no phone function

* browser with a very limited set of feature: limited to css 2, js deactivated by default: it's amazing the amount of firefox modules that can be disabled: [http://sourceforge.net/projects/lightfirefox/](http://sourceforge.net/projects/lightfirefox/)

* no video acceleration, no graphics acceleration, and no fading/smooth window transitions, 10hz refresh rate is more than enough to read text

I wonder which of those things save the most battery, but I guess all of this
would easily double battery life. Also I guess that device would cost much
less and be very attractive for students, and be enough to just code if you'd
have an online compiler. If you want calls, just buy a candybar phone, like
the the latest nokia 100 or 200 series.

I'd buy it even if it cost $300. I wonder how expensive e-ink screen are, but
I would not be surprised it's mostly a patent issue.

~~~
feedjoelpie
> browser with a very limited set of feature: limited to css 2, js deactivated
> by default

I think I speak for every web developer in the world when I say that I hate
you, and I'm extremely happy that almost no one else wants to buy your dream
product. :)

~~~
jokoon
> web developer

you can be a "web developer" without using js. the problem with js is that it
can be abused. there can be very well made js, but I'm sure there's plenty of
js that is just a waste of CPU cycle.

~~~
Gdiddy
You may find it easier to redesign your dream phone than the entire web.

~~~
fidotron
Or . . . you could just disconnect from the web completely.

------
k-mcgrady
If Apple announced the next iPhone and it had a battery that lasted twice as
long as the current one I think a lot of people would be happy. I've noticed I
get about 1.5 days now with my iPhone 6 and not having to worry if I forget to
charge it at night is great. If it could get me to the end of the next day it
would be perfect. It seems that every year phone manufacturers make battery
improvements but these are offset by the new sensors and screens. If they
skipped everything except battery for one generation, doubled it, and then
went back to features would they be able to continue adding features at the
previous rate while maintaining the new battery life?

~~~
marknutter
But what if you forget to charge it at the end of the second day? Maybe what
you need isn't a better battery but something that reminds you to charge your
phone at night?

~~~
k-mcgrady
The point is more - "I can't get to a charger tonight but I don't need to
worry as it'll last until tomorrow night." Charging each night isn't an
inconvenience for most people and they would probably continue doing that
(nobody waits until 0% to charge) but it provides extra breathing room on the
occasions it's just not possible for you to charge.

------
hyp0
NB. People may _want_ better battery life, but they'll still _pay_ for better
features or performance. Of better batteries would give both, but we've had
intense R&D for decades, and it's a difficult problem. (and if we had them, do
you think it will go into battery life or features/performance...?)

also, 4K looks incredible - but where do you get 4K shows?

BTW I'm sick of refreshing HN 3 times to make sure my vote was counted. I'm
not voting anymore.

------
jacquesm
This is one of the main reasons I still don't have a smartphone. Battery life
on an old Nokia is well in excess of 5 days, it works whenever I need it when
on the road even when there are no wall sockets for miles around.

~~~
kalleboo
If you use your smartphone for what you use your dumbphone for it will last
just as long if not longer. I have a spare Android phone I use as my on-call
phone where I have data turned off and it lasts 2 weeks no problem.

edit: I used to use my dumbphone as most people use their smartphones today.
It was a Sony Ericsson so it had multitasking Java J2ME support[0], a high-
quality camera, GPS so I was continually shooting, tweeting, on IRC, Google
Maps, Facebook etc. I had to swap batteries halfway through the day same as I
do now. Not much has changed.

[0]
[https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2612/4022002606_b6c5935cf4_o....](https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2612/4022002606_b6c5935cf4_o.png)

------
jordanpg
Is it worth noting that if wearables caught on, this would offload some of the
work from phone batteries, effectively extending battery life? A big if, to be
sure.

------
acd
I think wearable watches has to be designed differently. Think a watch
bracelet with the battery around the arm, also add solar cells to recharge
that battery.

~~~
Retra
I am very happy with smartphones. Mostly because having one means I don't have
to wear a watch.

~~~
mod
I'd be very happy if my watch could take over the majority of my phone's
functions--calling, texting.

Mostly because then I wouldn't have to carry a phone in my pocket.

~~~
Retra
Just attach a chain to your smartphone and call it a "smartpocketwatch."

------
kalleboo
The dream technology: Wearable/mobile electronics that pull energy from your
body.

"Oh, my battery is low. I better eat some chocolate."

~~~
VLM
Wireless charger in your pocket would be close to "from your body" request. Of
course this leads to heavy pocket syndrome.

------
cheatdeath
Is there some sort of Parkinson's Law that phones will consume as much power
as is available to them?

------
shocks
I got an LG G3 recently and the battery life is excellent. It'll happily last
two days.

~~~
jordanpg
An LG G3 with the auto brightness feature enabled, maybe.

With brightness bumped up to a more user friendly level, my battery lasts <<1
day. I like this phone, but consider the battery life to be laughably bad.

~~~
shocks
I don't use auto brightness. I have it set to 50% pretty much all the time.

------
mikeash
It's really interesting how much improved batteries could improve all sorts of
tech. Phones and wearables are pretty much the least interesting of them, too.

Imagine for a moment that batteries are 1000x better than now. A ton of
problems are magically solved. Renewable energy is suddenly trivial. Run the
world on solar and wind, done! Electric cars are now the only reasonable kind.
Trucks and trains too. Even airplanes. Many satellites could be replaced with
long-duration drones. Those that remain can be built lighter and cheaper.
Supersonic airliners might even come back, since fuel costs would drop through
the floor.

Oh, and your smartphone could run for three years on a charge. Woohoo.

Compare with something like fusion power, which only solves a tiny fraction of
the above. Without storage, fusion isn't that interesting. With good storage,
it's not necessary!

~~~
noir_lord
Yup, Generation is the 'easiest' part of the equation and has been since we
had reliable nuclear power the issue is distribution via batteries.

If you look at the energy density of gasoline vs a battery for the same weight
it, Petrol (Gasoline) 44MJ/Kg, Li-Ion batteries (the best ones, 0.875MJ/Kg).

Obviously there are conversion efficiencies to take into account (ICE's have a
lower conversion efficiencies than Electric Drive).

1000x wouldn't be required, 10x would revolutionize many fields and 100x would
be incredible.

------
shpx
Just like people wanted a faster horse?

