Not really relevant: power requirements would affect battery size much more than charging port size. And USB-C supports much greater power transport than the old dock connector.

Given that an iPod nano only lasted a few hours on a charge and most smartwatches can last multiple days, I'm pretty sure that's not so. Even if they had apples-to-apples identical functionality I think a modern device would consume less power simply due to current chips being more power efficient via using smaller dies and lithography processes.

Plus, an iPod has to crank its weedy little processor full time as long as it's playing music. Your smartwatch pretty much only has to do anything when an external stimulus wakes it up, be that pressing a button or tapping its screen or receiving an alert or whatever. I've developed software for some of the Garmin models myself and I can tell you that the power consumption and processing time limitations imposed by the system are extremely stringent. The majority of the time even in a second-by-second basis your watch is completely idle, specifically to consume as little power as possible and conserve the battery.

16 times the detail

Hold on, so now you want to use USB C for data transfer? Which means you want to what? add more storage to the watch? That sure seems like a solution looking for a problem you're only floating as a result of choosing USB as the charge port, which we probably shouldn't do.

And that's not just much less battery than on the Pixel at 420mAh, it's even smaller than the CMF Watch 2, which reports 305mAh and is only seventy bucks (and if anything seems smaller than all of your examples). So yes, there is an impact on battery. And no, that's not acceptable. Because again, ALL smartwatches need more battery than they currently have.

The point of the always on HR monitoring and screen isn't that they exist, it's that they are a massive battery drain. A smartwatch where you turn those off will last several times more than the same watch with them on, particularly on entry-level devices like ones you point at. And you would ideally wnat those on in a perfect smartwatch while still getting multi-day battery life. Right now we just don't have that because you can't work your way around physics.

Now, for an experiment? Sure, go nuts. Put a solar panel in there. A hand crank. Who cares, weird hardware is weird and weird is fun.

But to solve the problem with the ever-changing charger standards from the mainstream manufacturers weird won't cut it. You need a solution that fits all cases with near-optimal performance. USB is just not it for this form factor, and if anything focusing on it distracts from the very real need to come to a proper standard in this space, which I find somewhat annoying.

Hold on, so now you want to use USB C for data transfer?

Sure, why not? My headphones have a built-in MP3 player which I can load up with 32GB of music. Flash memory is tiny and cheap - why shouldn't my watch have my music collection on it? Is grabbing a CSV of my data via USB easier than trying to send it via BT? Might be. Let's find out.

Because again, ALL smartwatches need more battery than they currently have.

For you, maybe. This £16 one has lasted nearly 5 days of doing continual heart monitoring and is still on 40% battery. Even better, I don't need to take it off if I want to charge it. Weekly charging is better than my phone or laptop.

I slightly disagree with you about the screen needing to be always on. I'm not always looking at my watch, so it might as well save battery where it can. I don't leave my laptop screen on when I walk away from it, and that has a much bigger battery.

weird hardware is weird and weird is fun.

On that we can agree! This is a fun experiment.

You need a solution that fits all cases with near-optimal performance.

I disagree. I think it is OK to have some choice in the market. Some people will prefer magnetic wireless, some wired, some plutonium batteries.

and if anything focusing on it distracts from the very real need to come to a proper standard in this space, which I find somewhat annoying.

Like, mate, I don't have the power to enact anything. I'm just one guy blogging. I'm not involved in the design, manufacture, or standardisation of anything watch related. I don't understand why you're getting annoyed by me talking about it though.

Flash memory is tiny, but it's not replacing anything, it's being added, which is a problem for cost and size. If you were going to take BT out then... sure, but that's not what's happening here.

Now, the conversation is different if you reframe it as "I just like this quirky dirt cheap watch with a USB port on it". At that point I have nothing to say other than... sure, why not.

What I don't like is the notion that USB C is either a better alternative or a candidate for standardization, which is how the post came across to me.

Oh, and I disagree about the always on screen, too. In all honestly, the two things that make smartwatches still less polished than traditional watches is a) battery life, and b) the fact that there is at best a second of lag when you try to check the time and at worst you need to shake your wrist to try to get your watch to realize it's being looked at so it decides to wake up.

There's no question that having a display of the time on at all times is better. It's just not practical with the energy costs and battery storage. At one point I bought that Garmin watch that has a standard old digital watch screen on top of the modern display (speaking of weird). It was a neat idea, but it turns out that the battery life for it on normal use wasn't much better than other watches and the dumb thing still had a backlight it turned on via motion detection, so it was just as laggy as a normal smartwatch.

I'd take a better iteration on that tech over a USB C charger any day, if we're doing weird.

When my latest Fitbit dies, I'll be taking a look at the UNA watch.

USB-C charging and repairable.

The only thing lacking is some Fediverse presence.

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

Not conductive? Isn’t that a good thing?

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.

The last gen iPod nano touted a 30-hour battery life. Also, you don't need to peg the CPU for rendering audio - this can be accomplished with a very low-power DSP. The lack of radios also offers significant savings when compared to a smart watch, which you forgot needs to be able to receive notifications, not just wait for low-power sensor input.

I've professionally developed the firmware for several embedded systems and consumer electronics devices with very strict power requirements.

Not conductive? Isn’t that a good thing?

The 7th gen iPod Nano which you're referring to (not the 6th gen the commenter above posted, which had a rated 24 hour battery life) had a 200 mAh battery.

A lowly Garmin Forerunner 230 like the one strapped to my wrist right now has a 150 mAh battery and achieves five weeks of battery life with notifications enabled (which I did not "forget") and the BLE radio twittering away all day, GPS time and position updates, activity tracking, and the screen displaying content all the time. Not 30 hours. 840 hours.

Just acting as a plain watch with the connectivity turned off Garmin claim it'll last 12 weeks (2016 hours).

I should not have to point out to anyone that it is physically impossible for an iPod to achieve a significantly shorter runtime on a larger battery without consuming more power in the process.

For a charging port?

While it would be lovely if watches could support Qi charging, they are just too small to make it work effectively

Ha ha ha.

I can charge my wife's Samsung watch off Qi on my phone. We had to learn how AND do it while on vacation when the Samsung inductive rig for it was left at home.

Worked like fucking gangbusters.

This article is shit.

When my latest Fitbit dies, I'll be taking a look at the UNA watch.

USB-C charging and repairable.

The only thing lacking is some Fediverse presence.

Didn't know this was a feature so I just tried it and... my watch thinks my phone is "gym equipment" and asks for permission to send my heartrate to it. How do you setup charging?

But the other person said they don't know anything about electronics and that means they are a straight shooter and that means they are more correct