Kit Eaton (apologies to Kit, got his name wrong in the original post), writing for Medium, addresses the recent rumors about Apple Watch battery life, calling the whole discussion silly.
19 hours sounds very reasonable. Picture yourself looking at and interacting with your watch for 2–3 seconds at a time as you read notifications, with the occasional 10–20 seconds used to respond to something like a tweet or text message. Add in less frequent longer interactions lasting a few minutes (like making a phone call or playing a game—even though we don’t know how much game play Apple will allow in watch apps) and then that 3-hour “heavy” use window looks quite generous. You wouldn’t want to stare at such a small screen for much longer each day anyway. It’s also a first generation device, and Apple’s proven advanced product development techniques will certainly deliver more power in version 2
The Apple Watch is slated to ship in April. That first generation will go to early adopters who, by their very pioneering nature, will revel in the newness, accept any flaws as the cost of being first.
The rest of Marcel’s essay focuses on the history of the watch, grappling with the problems in making timekeeping portable:
Ever since clockmakers worked out how to make clocks portable there was an almost continuous technological struggle between how much “battery life” and capability the devices had. This affected the first pocket watches and wristwatches, and pretty much every watch ever since.
A solid read.