Skip to content

Why don't smart watches use USB-C to recharge?

Technology
113 64 0
  • As I understand it you can do USB-C at a basic 5V level with 2 resistors, and for a watch that would be plenty of power.

    yeah but that wouldnt be USB C because usb C is a standard that requires a ton of different things like double way data and power rails and handle 60watts etc. If you just need 5v then you can do it in a much smaller way via another connector or even wirelessly.

    I'm gonna assume you know more about this and I do because i cant even light up an LED in a circuit.

  • It does not work with either my Fenix 6 Pro Solar (specifically that one, other Fenix 6 variants are listed as working) nor the Forerunner 230 that somebody just gave me. Both of which are a drag, and I can't be arsed with learning how to add my own support right now at this minute.

    Honestly, I've just been using my Fenix unconnected and it's really surprising all it can still do. The only function I don't have that I cared about was receiving notifications. The sensors and topo map and all still work fine and you can even still track rides and hikes, but you have to offload thr GPX tracks via USB and figure out what to so with them yourself.

    It's almost like the dumbass limitations of the app are all just artificial, to the surprise of absolutely no one.

    Yeah it's a shame the path Garmin is going 😞

  • yeah but that wouldnt be USB C because usb C is a standard that requires a ton of different things like double way data and power rails and handle 60watts etc. If you just need 5v then you can do it in a much smaller way via another connector or even wirelessly.

    I'm gonna assume you know more about this and I do because i cant even light up an LED in a circuit.

    USB C is only the plug… USB 3.2 is the specification

    USB power delivery is part of the specification that you can support without support for the other parts and is incredibly simple to implement by itself

  • yeah but that wouldnt be USB C because usb C is a standard that requires a ton of different things like double way data and power rails and handle 60watts etc. If you just need 5v then you can do it in a much smaller way via another connector or even wirelessly.

    I'm gonna assume you know more about this and I do because i cant even light up an LED in a circuit.

    USB C does not require all applications use all aspects available in the current spec (USB 3), that’s just silly. Take the latest iPhone for example (not the pro series,) they are all essentially running USB 2 through a USB C cable. And that’s perfectly fine.

    The real problem is when a company uses USB C but follows none of the wiring or standards requirements for any standard. Such as running power over data pins making the charger some proprietary Frankenstein of bullshit.

  • yeah but that wouldnt be USB C because usb C is a standard that requires a ton of different things like double way data and power rails and handle 60watts etc. If you just need 5v then you can do it in a much smaller way via another connector or even wirelessly.

    I'm gonna assume you know more about this and I do because i cant even light up an LED in a circuit.

    You don't need to follow the entire spec for a usb c. Usb c has a display port mode, but most laptops that have this won't have it on every port. Most usb c cables also don't support display port mode, which is annoying because they usually won't say if it supports it.

    Usb c extension cords are not allowed and yet they exist

  • A standardized magnetic pogo pin connector

    That's something I hadn't considered before. What a neat idea.

    The charging base is just breaking out the 5V of the USB to the pogo pins!

  • This sounds like an authoritative post. Thread over.

    Unfortunately it's a bit of a misinterpretation. Yes the overall USB C spec is complicated, and cables can support different things without being labelled clearly, but you can use it just to deliver power much more simply.

  • Some watches already have USB - C. but I find it interesting to see if you are correct or not.

    I would see standardizing wireless charging as a decent alternative...if it didnt take up even more space.

    Some do, but the limitations of usb C (or any physical plug) are present and while it sounds nice in principle to have all the devices use the same cord it’s in general not worth the sacrifices that others have mentioned like it taking up extra room and the increased likelihood of water/sweat/particulate ingress

  • The good Garmins last 2 and half months no charge. An hour in the sun adds a week. Ink display and solar glass. It's awesome. In the smart watch health space garmin is second to none. Especially so for battery.

    As a current Garmin user I really like a lot of the features of the Garmin but the app for smart watch health tracking is atrocious and some of the values you get are clearly wrong like it recording my resting heart rate at 15 bps lower than it actually is.

    The battery life is still insane which makes things like sleep tracking really nice

  • This post did not contain any content.

    4x the volume

  • I wrote the post above. So far, the USB-C watch has lasted over 3 days and still has over 50% battery power.

    Obviously, at that price it isn't running a cellular radio or GPS. BLE is amazingly efficient - as are the built in sensors.

    That gives me no information. What's the battery size? I've had multiple smartwatches and all their batteries could last a week or a day depending on usage, setup and features.

    The point is USB C is noticeably larger than pogo pins for the sake of including a whole bunch of additional pins a smartwatch has zero use for. Larger means less room for other stuff. The ideal state for a smartwatch is having an always-on display and heart rate monitoring, among other things. All watches out there, even the most efficient ones, could use more battery and efficiency than they have. Because all smartwatches are coming up short from their desired usage and are working around their limited battery life.

    The idea of making that worse for the sake of having a clearly unfit for purpose connector as opposed to standardizing a connector that actually does the job is really weird. There is no need to have a different charger on every watch, but there certainly isn't a need to sacrifice any functionality or performance at all for the sake of USB C. And not all watches are the same size, so this would impact smaller watches more, which now is limiting what type of watches you can make if you make USB C a standard. And if it's not a standard, then it's not fixing the problem.

    And all that's even before you begin to consider that watches are more comfortable to charge when they have a stand to do so, since they're small, light and fiddly, so it's entirely possible for a bulky USB C cable meant for fast charging to be heavier than them or stiff enough to actively move them around. There's a reason watch chargers tend to come with very thin, flexible wires. All you need to fix this problem is a magnetic stand that can hold any watch. Half the USB C cables I own would knock over my watch stand if plugged into my watch or drag my watch across the table.

    You can make a watch that charges via USB C and still works. That's not an optimal solution, but you can. But it's not a valid standard because you can't very practically make all watches charge via USB C. Standards need to be standard.

  • At that scale, the connector and the necessary electronics are too large.

    Let’s ignore the iPod nano 6th gen, which managed to fit a 30 pin dock connector and a headphone jack into a watch sized body

  • If you mean a USB-C port in general, they can be made waterproof. If you mean something specific to putting one in the most compact form factor possible, that might be true.

    They can be waterproof but are also non functional until the water is fully cleared from the port.

  • Let’s ignore the iPod nano 6th gen, which managed to fit a 30 pin dock connector and a headphone jack into a watch sized body

    With vastly lower power requirements compared to a smartwatch

  • I can't imagine how filthy the port would get on mine. Industrial work plates and open ports are not conductive to the healthy life of electronics.

    I don't know if you looked at the photo in my post - but there's a rubber flap covering the USB-port.

  • This is confirmation bias, you know it’s possible so you’re discounting downsides.

    Yes, a connector can fit in the watch, but the internal footprint of the connector is comparatively huge. All the other components of the watch would need to be designed to fit around a large connector essentially directly in the middle of the device internals.

    If that’s really important to you, more power to you. I don’t have an issue with it existing. I do have a bit of a problem with pretending that compromises aren’t being made in features to accommodate it.

    A standardized magnetic pogo pin connector would meet my needs quite a bit better, personally.

    I'm not discounting the negatives - I'm saying it is possible and feasible.

    As I point out in the article, the Pixel watch is now on its third charging format. None of which seem to be compatible with Apple or Samsung.

    There are also compromises with the pogo-pin connector. You can't charge while wearing it. You have to bring along another cable. Bits of metal can be attracted to the magnets and cause mechanical or electrical damage.

  • Liking that! Pros and cons? I'm pretty damned rough on my gear, why I almost exclusively wear Casio. Water is a serious concern for me.

    Pros? It is cheap, it uses USB-C, step counter and heart monitor work, bluetooth calls work.

    Cons? App is a bit crap, but works with GadgetBridge. UI is a bit slow and janky. Lots of watch faces but you can't design your own.

    Full review on my blog later today.

  • USB C does not require all applications use all aspects available in the current spec (USB 3), that’s just silly. Take the latest iPhone for example (not the pro series,) they are all essentially running USB 2 through a USB C cable. And that’s perfectly fine.

    The real problem is when a company uses USB C but follows none of the wiring or standards requirements for any standard. Such as running power over data pins making the charger some proprietary Frankenstein of bullshit.

    cough cough Nintendo cough cough

  • That gives me no information. What's the battery size? I've had multiple smartwatches and all their batteries could last a week or a day depending on usage, setup and features.

    The point is USB C is noticeably larger than pogo pins for the sake of including a whole bunch of additional pins a smartwatch has zero use for. Larger means less room for other stuff. The ideal state for a smartwatch is having an always-on display and heart rate monitoring, among other things. All watches out there, even the most efficient ones, could use more battery and efficiency than they have. Because all smartwatches are coming up short from their desired usage and are working around their limited battery life.

    The idea of making that worse for the sake of having a clearly unfit for purpose connector as opposed to standardizing a connector that actually does the job is really weird. There is no need to have a different charger on every watch, but there certainly isn't a need to sacrifice any functionality or performance at all for the sake of USB C. And not all watches are the same size, so this would impact smaller watches more, which now is limiting what type of watches you can make if you make USB C a standard. And if it's not a standard, then it's not fixing the problem.

    And all that's even before you begin to consider that watches are more comfortable to charge when they have a stand to do so, since they're small, light and fiddly, so it's entirely possible for a bulky USB C cable meant for fast charging to be heavier than them or stiff enough to actively move them around. There's a reason watch chargers tend to come with very thin, flexible wires. All you need to fix this problem is a magnetic stand that can hold any watch. Half the USB C cables I own would knock over my watch stand if plugged into my watch or drag my watch across the table.

    You can make a watch that charges via USB C and still works. That's not an optimal solution, but you can. But it's not a valid standard because you can't very practically make all watches charge via USB C. Standards need to be standard.

    What’s the battery size?

    The website claims 280mAh. That's a smaller than the newest Pixel watches - but then it is only about 10% of the cost of those models.

    The point is USB C is noticeably larger than pogo pins for the sake of including a whole bunch of additional pins a smartwatch has zero use for.

    Agreed! But that rather depends on what you want to use it for. This model is charge only. But it could be useful to use it as a USB drive to store music, or to get health data off it. The main advantage for my personal use-case is being able to charge while wearing it.

    The ideal state for a smartwatch is having an always-on display and heart rate monitoring, among other things.

    Yes! This does have always-on heart rate monitoring and step count. The screen is only on when you glance at it or tap the button.

    And if it’s not a standard, then it’s not fixing the problem.

    Agreed! But as the Pixel watch has gone through three different charging standards, all of which are incompatible with other watches, we don't seem to be any closer to solving that problem with wireless.

    And all that’s even before you begin to consider that watches are more comfortable to charge when they have a stand to do so, since they’re small, light and fiddly

    That's a personal preference. My Pixel watch stand is fiddly to use - the magnets don't always align. And the puck charger is pretty lightweight and moves around easily. By contrast, my lightweight USB-C cables don't move my watch when it is charging directly.

    Standards need to be standard.

    I agree! But sometimes it is nice to experiment with things to see what works. And I'm very happy that this normal-sized watch is able to charge with the same cable I use for my toothbrush, eBook, headphones, fan, and phone.

  • 4x the volume

    16 times the detail

  • 41 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    V
    Next 3.5 years if we are lucky.
  • 39 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    D
    I mean, for me the child rape on it's own would be enough, but if pissing on farmers for like the 10th time in 6 months is the final straw, then I'm fine with that too.
  • 81 Stimmen
    35 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    AI in this form has been used for like 15 years, to generate trillions of dollars worth of value Suuuuuuuuuuure it has....
  • I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

    Technology technology
    16
    58 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    drdystopia@lemy.lolD
    It's more expensive, true: £76. Not if you order 50 or more!
  • It's 2025, the year we decided we need a widespread slur for robots

    Technology technology
    31
    63 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    T
    [image: b875af36-bb62-437c-8a9e-2cb390bcea47.jpeg]
  • 589 Stimmen
    84 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    thetechnician27@lemmy.worldT
    The short answer is that I really, really suggest you try other things before trying to create your first article. This isn't just me; every experienced editor will tell you that creating a new article is one of the hardest things any editor can do, let alone a newer one. It's why the task center lists it as being appropriate for "advanced editors". Finding an existing article which interests you and then polishing and expanding it is almost always more rewarding, more useful, easier, and less stressful than creating an article from scratch. And if creating articles sounds appealing, expanding existing stub articles is great experience for that. The long answer is "you can", but it's really hard: New editors are subject to Articles for Creation, or AfC, when creating an article. The article sits in a draft state until the editor flags it for review. The backlog is very long, and while reviewers can go in any order they want, they usually prioritize the oldest articles out of fairness and because most AfC submissions are about equal in urgency and time consumption. "Months" is the expected waiting time. If you're not using the English Wikipedia, you can try translating over a well-established article from English. There's no rule that says sources have to be in the language of the Wikipedia they're on, although it's still considered a big plus if sources are in the same language. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are predicated on you understanding other policies and guidelines like "reliable sources" and "independent sources". They're also intentionally fuzzy so people don't play lawyer and follow the exact letter without considering the spirit of the guideline. The English Wikipedia currently has over 7 million articles. There are still a lot of missing articles (mostly in taxonomy, where notability is almost guaranteed), but you really need to know where to look. When choosing an article subject, it's extremely important to avoid COI. Assuming you have a subject you think meets criteria, now you have to go out and find reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject to confirm your hypothesis. Now you need to start the article, and you need to do this in a manner which: Is verifiable (all claims are cited) Is not original research (i.e. nothing you say can be based on "because I know it") Is reliable (all citations are to reliable sources) Is neutral (you've minimized bias as much as you can, let the sources speak for themselves, and made sure your source selection isn't biased) Is stylistically correct (there's a manual of style, but just use your best judgment, and small mistakes can be copy-edited out by people familiar with style guidelines) If the article is nominated for deletion, you have to keep your cool and argue based solely on guidelines (not on perceived importance of the subject) that the article should be kept. New articles are almost always given more scrutiny than articles which have been around; this isn't a cultural problem as much as it is a heuristic one. An article deleted feels much more personal than edits reverted (despite the fact that subject notability is 100% out of your control). Some of these apply to normal editing too, but working within an article others have worked on and might be willing to help with is vastly easier than building one from scratch. If you want specific help in picking out, say, an article to try editing and are on the English Wikipedia, I have no problem acting like bowling bumpers if you're afraid your edits won't meet standards.
  • 338 Stimmen
    141 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    muusemuuse@sh.itjust.worksM
    I gotta admit, I’d love to see what their lobbying could accomplish.
  • Age Verification Is Coming for the Whole Internet

    Technology
    250
    1
    643 Stimmen
    250 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    T
    That is an interesting point of view. Very USA exceptional. It's also dumbed down a lot. ARPANET is a computer network, but it's not internet, nor it was the first. It kickstarted popularity of computer networks in the USA and provided first FTP and (I think) first remote login. Popularity of computer networks in USA definitely was a formative quality over the 20 years of international development of the Internet. But saying ARPANET was the internet is like saying gramophone is Netflix. First computer network to send packets to another computer was British NPL network. Then US government founded ARPANET, built upon that. Except that DARPA besides having own researchers outsourced to Stanford, BBN and University College of London ("How the Internet Came to Be", quoting I forgot whom from DARPA). Then French Cyclades computer network built upon ARPANET and proposed that multiple networks should be able to communicate with each other. Then USA non-profit IEEE looked at all that proposed TCP/IP for cross-network communication, and that is the thing that (after many iterations over a decade) led to the Internet not being separate networks like AOL or Computerverse or whatever. Now we're getting closer to the internet and it's time for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_data_network First was Spain with RETD , then France, then USA with Telenet. Then Canada. Then in 1978 we started connecting those separate networks. I think the first properly working project was https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Packet_Switched_Service between British post office and USA post office. On those public data networks the Internet's physical layer was built. In USA U.S. National Science Foundation was founding more and more computer networks, including CSNET. That's still not internet. It's 1980 and it will take a decade of new inventions (Ethernet, LAN, DNS) and improvements & implementations (like to TCP/IP) before we will get the internet. Here's a nifty source for that decade, because I spent 50 minutes writing this post before I noticed I'm arguing with a guy over the internet about the internet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet (there is a nice timeline list there).