Can one rant about Wear OS here since it’s technically still Android?

When Samsung was making watches on Tizen, they released products like Frontier (boasting upto 3 day battery life), original Galaxy Watch (boasting upto 4 days battery life). Cue they switched to Wear OS with GW4 and with the 40mm variant, the battery life doggedly remained at a pathetic 1 day with AOD on.

Even with release of newer generations like Ultra, they are barely hitting 3 days with ~590mAh battery. Why is Wear OS such a battery hog?

I own a Galaxy Watch 6 and the watch OS uses like 6 GB storage and 1+ GB in perpetual RAM. Is it really so that displaying time and running couple of apps in the background takes more memory than GNOME 46?

  • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.oneEnglish
    31·
    2 months ago

    I have a solar powered Garmin with all the biometrics and all the GPS protocols for every satellite system known to man, and a full map feature, same as any WearOS device is capable of, with zero installable apps; the watch lasts 21 days from a full charge.

    I use it to tell me the time, reply to texts and track my workouts. Not sure the point of an entire linux kernel requiring to be run on other watches with only less than a single day of battery. It sounds preposterous that people are okay with this.

      • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.oneEnglish
        12·
        2 months ago

        When I have £500 to spare, I’ll get that. Until then, my £60 Hauwei watch will do.

        This is a very excellent comment, given the context and that this is an Android watch discussion and mine is not running Android.

        What Huawei Android smart watch is fucking 60 Euros? I’ll buy it tonight.

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          It’s not running WearOS, it’s just the most value I could find for £60. It has up to 2 week battery life, sleep and activity tracking, support for some third party apps if you get the GT 3 or up.