Hacker News Reader

Comment by gsgshwyy677 | Hacker News Reader

35 hour battery life? Compare this to Garmin's most modern watch (the Venu 2) with OLED screen and it's just not even worth considering. I get 6-8 days with mine, but I don't use GPS at all.

This G-Shock only gives basic data too. I like the look of it, but $300 is just way too much. Part of the appeal of the G-Shock is 10 year battery, so you'd think they would go for something a little better.

View on HN

>35 hour battery life? >I get 6-8 days with mine,

"On a full charge, which takes around three hours, the watch will run for about a week when using the added fitness features for an hour a day. With them left on all the time, it will be dead in about 35 hours."

If this is like other high-end G-Shocks, you only get a hit to battery life if you actually use the smart features. E.g. GPS-enabled Rangeman runs fine off solar if GPS is only used sporadically.

I wonder if Casio's heart rate sensing is far more power hungry than Garmin's, or is it just that Casio undersized the battery because they could make a lower baseline power draw than Garmin manages. Garmins with MIP LCD screens are more comparable to the Casio line, and they have longer battery life than the OLED models.

Many such Garmins can last for weeks with constant health tracking via wrist heart rate and accelerometer. It is mostly location tracking which increases discharge, e.g. ~5% per day health tracking and ~5% per hour GPS tracking. The heart rate sensor might just use ~1% per day for 24x7 usage.

I agree. They simply fail to identify their niche here, or at least miss the mark.

I think their niche are existing G-Shock fans who want fitness tracking

I am of the understanding that much of the allure of the G-Shock is the 2-15 year battery life. This offering takes what I assume is one of the biggest benefits of a G-Shock and trades it for fitness tracking capabilities that are available through many other solutions that offer much better battery life.

How? I can't wait to order one, there's nothing quite like it on the market. Garmin has a similar watch but it's bigger and heavier - I'm not interested in that.

The fact that this G-Shock is smaller and thinner likely explains the shorter battery life. It's definitely a trade-off that some people (like you) are interested in making. I have a Garmin Fenix 5 and that thing is HUGE.

Garmin instinct 2 is smaller and similar price, and battery lasts about a month

Reply on news.ycombinator.com