Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: iPod Battery Life
Re: iPod Battery Life
From: Peter C. Gravelle <xoder83_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:04:24 -0500
My Nano's 8-9 hour (14+ hour is spec-ed by Apple) battery life agrees.
Not as bad a drop off as the HD-based players (by percentage), but
still, not good.
On 12/15/06, mat holton <mat_at_lessermatters.co.uk> wrote:
> Is this true for the nano as well?
> Mark Fiorucci wrote:
> > Oh I blame apple. And of course they wouldn't release the info. It sucks tho because it's hard to justify using Rockbox when I'm going to lose 1/2 of my battery life.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se [mailto:rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of Jonas H
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:09 PM
> > To: Rockbox
> > Subject: Re: iPod Battery Life
> > desowin wrote:
> >> It's sad but rockbox isn't optimised for battery usage on iPod (it
> >> gets about half battery life comparitively to original firmware),
> >> while on some other targets it beats original firmware with battery life.
> > The problem here is that there is no available documentation for the important parts of the Ipod. This means that the developers are to a large degree in the blind about how to operate the chips. The result is that some parts of the Ipod are most likely in an "awake" state, consuming power, when they really should be turned off and the developers practically no idea how to turn them off. Finding out these details by reverse-engineering the Apple firmware is a hard and very time-consuming job and not something a lot of the developers are very keen on doing.
> > So you can really only blame Apple and PortalPlayer for using and producing chips with no documentation.
> > --
> > Jonas H
> > rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.19/587 - Release Date: 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
Received on 2006-12-15