this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
247 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
74592 readers
4170 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
Now imagine at best halving the physical space for that hall battery by adding a waterproof USB-C port and associated PD electronics - which at that scale would mean significantly more than a 50% reduction in battery life.