It looks like the new Google's Pixel 4 watch comes with yet another incompatible change in charging technology. This is a ridiculous situation.
The original Pixel Watch used one type of wireless charging. Then the Pixel Watch 2 & 3 removed wireless charging and swapped to a different charging mechanism. And now the 4 has changed again.
So three different charging cables in under three years. Progress!
While it would be lovely if watches could support Qi charging, they are just too small to make it work effectively - which is why Apple has a proprietary wireless charging system.
So, why not use everyone's favourite mandated charging standard - USB-C?
The Verge says:
These devices are too dang small, and the technology isn’t there yet. Most standard connectors, like USB-C, are too large to fit within a smartwatch or on devices that are meant to mold to your body. The smaller the device, the more difficult this becomes.
To which I say:
Bullshit!
Watches are small, but the USB-C connector isn't massive.
Here's a modern smartwatch which uses USB-C for charging and data:
But having a USB-C connector means water ingress, right? Wrong!
Does this USB-C connector affect the waterproof rating? No, it doesn’t as the USB-C connector on the watch is IPX8 rated, meaning the internals of the watch are completely sealed from the outside of the connector.
OK, the port itself might get water and dirt in it - but a lug will seal it.
Still, that watch is over £200. Not bad for a pretty high-tech gadget with a limited supply. Are there others?
Here's the Colmi P80
It's a pretty basic watch - although it claims to do heart rate and blood oxygen monitoring. It may be crap for all I know - but it only costs £16!
In the middle of that price-range is this £80 smartwatch which is actually an entire Android device!
Again, with USB-C built right in.
And, yes, it might be rubbish as both a watch, Android device, and masc-coded jewellery - but it shows that USB-C is viable for devices of this class.
Why USB-C?
I don't want to have to buy new accessories every time my hardware changes.
I already have hundreds of USB-C cables.
I only want to take one cable with me on holiday to charge my various gadgets.
I don't want to be restricted to only buying products from one company.
I want something which isn't going to be knocked off its charging pad by a particularly strong fart.
So I've bought the £16 AliExpress special and will review it shortly!
11 thoughts on “Why don't smart watches use USB-C to recharge?”
@Edent Have you seen the new Pebbles? They have contact points on the back with a little magnetic USB-C adaptor for it.
| Reply to original comment on mastodon.rhys.wtf
@rhys that's exactly the opposite of what I want.
Ending up with a dozen different adapters for each device, easily losable or breakable, is *not* the future I deserve.
| Reply to original comment on mastodon.social
@blog
You really are sacrificing a non-trivial amount of interior space, with smaller battery capacity as a result.
Better would be if a flat magnetic pogo-pin style charging connector (or wireless charging system) for small devices got standardized. It's a common solution for really small rugged devices such as running and diving watches; it takes almost no space, and it's easy to make it highly water and dust resistant. They even already all look very similar to each other.
| Reply to original comment on fosstodon.org
@jannem @blog
I disagree. Computers are small and getting smaller. My previous watch had a micro USB charger and it wasn't any larger than modern watches.
But even if every small device did standardise on one flat magnetic pogo thing (they won't) it still means I need to remember to bring multiple cables with me.
I can't be bothered with that. One socket to rule them all!
| Reply to original comment on mastodon.social
I agree with Janne Moren. Having a standard magnetic connector would be better.
Why? Because embedding a USB-C port on such device might be sacrificing longevity. Over time, that port will collect dust and potentially rust, even if the device internals are still protected. This will either cause permanent damage to the precious USB-C port, preventing you from ever charging it again; or cause damage to the not-so-precious USB-C.
You can try to prevent that with a rubber cover, but that cover will deteriorate and eventually get lost.
Some kind of magnetic connector with pogo-pins is certainly more durable and easier to clean.
@edent
I strongly disagree. I've been using USB-C on my eBook for 6 years. I've read on the beach, by pools, and in dusty environments - the USB-C port is still going strong.
Same with all my other gadgets - Bluetooth headphones, laptop, phones, cameras - the USB-C port has been remarkably robust. I don't see why a watch would be any different.
Good to hear that. Maybe I'm underestimating a good quality USB-C port.
Note, however, that an ebook doesn't get submersed in (soapy|salty|dirty|sweaty) water as often as a watch. So I'm still concerned about the durability on a wearable. But I'm now more open to consider it.
@blog Looking forward to the review - What I've seen implies those things are horrid, but I'd be delighted to find out otherwise.
| Reply to original comment on mastodon.online
S. F. Griffin
I don't want a USB-C port on my watch. I am far happier with the concealed contacts on the back and a wireless charger. Like a great many people, probably most, I don't mind having to deal with the proprietary charger. It is a much better situation than having the port that I don't want.
@edent
Hi Stewart. You do realise this is, like, my opinion - right? I'm not advocating for this to be a universal change for everyone. Nor am I in a position to impose my view on others.
If you don't want something, you don't have to buy it.
Why don't smart watches use USB-C to recharge? - Lemmy.World
| Reply to original comment on lemmy.world
More comments on Mastodon.
What links here from around this blog?