Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1.    #1  
    I've followed the threads here and on other sites with great interest regarding the Treo 680 battery life. The main issue (regardless of cause) seems to be a lack of response from Palm. So here's a heads-up on how this issue is progressing in the Asia/Pacific region.

    Firstly, the Treo 680 was released in Australia mid December exclusively by Harvey Norman (where I purchased mine). They had the exclusive until earlier this week (15 Jan).

    So my approach locally was from 2 points:

    1. Call Palm support direct. After the usual run-around the Palm Australia (based in Singapore I am assuming) admitted that the battery issue was already logged and being tracked by Palm Singapore.

    I continued to ask what my options were as a Palm customer, given that the device was not living up to its advertised specifications of "300 hours standby". Palm's response was that the could not do much at this stage however they offered to take full details for their firmware update alert.

    There are no refund or replacement options available as Palm stated that they did not suggest returning the goods for a replacement as this "wont solve the issue". It is also worth noting that the Battery is NOT covered under warranty.

    Conclusion - As expected really. Admit no liability, etc, etc... Was happy at least that it has been acknowledged as a general product issue by Palm.

    2. Called Harvey Norman and put it to them that the product sold was not meeting advertised expectations. I explained that these specifications included 300 hours standby and that most users around the world were getting on average 40-50 hours (on a good day), myself included.

    This is a big deal for Harvey Norman, especially as they did the exclusive release deal with Palm, and that Australian retail law supports the customer in cases such as this.

    Harvey Norman took this quite seriously and I received 3 call-backs today from senior (service) management with the final call informing me that they were meeting with Palm this Friday to get some answers. For those who don't know, Harvey Norman is a HUGE retail chain here.

    Conclusions - I'm not too sure what to expect from Palm or Harvey Norman, but I discovered that the one thing they took very seriously was the mention of product "misrepresentation". So, if you're in the Asia/Pacific region and want some action, get on the phone to Pam (use some of those free support calls) or call your retailer and demand some answers.

    My expectation as a customer is to receive a product that lives up to its advertised performance specifications. I've not seen one posting from anyone stating that they have got anywhere near to 300 hours standby. So, as a customer I have significant rights under Australian law in this issue. I expect some order of fix or compensation (such as a free accessory offer) to be forthcoming.

    Will keep this thread updated.
  2. #2  
    Its nice seeing people not accepting a 'defective' product. good luck to you. keep us posted.

    1 quick question, is there a service center in australia?
  3. #3  
    Thanks for the thoughts from the "Oz" persepctive. I also purchased from Harvey Norman. I am just so annoyed that Palm don't say anything - if they at least say that there is a firmware problem then I'll sit tight because I'm hooked on the way the 680 does things.

    It would be better not to have to draw on the statutory warranty requirements, but we will have to if Palm don't speak up. I assume they understand the damage that will be done to their image if dozens of these phones get sent back? Why don't they think about the long term company reputation?
  4.    #4  
    By way of follow-up on this thread, here's what happened.

    1. Harvey Norman got very proactive and were ture to their word in getting to the bottom of the issue. They called me as soon as the Camera patch was available and also informed me that "Palm say that you will never get 300 hours standby; do you want a refund on your 680?".

    2. Palm support did nothing despite being 'registered' on their alert list.

    So top marks to HN customer support in assuming responsibility for solving the issue and a big zero to Palm Asia Pacific Support who did nothing... and still have nothing posted on palm.com.au. The 680 is not even listed on their support page.

    As a general follow-up on my issue. With the Camera patch installed and the Battery reset performed a few times, with a full 24hrs charge with no usage, I'm now getting a good 2 days standby with moderate usage.

    However I still suspect that opening a GPRS connection is causing some battery issues as this seems to continue to drain even after it has been 'disconnected'. I suspect that the GPRS connection is not being correctly disconnected.
  5. #5  
    Gday fellow Australian 680 users,
    I am glad to hear that Palm are being taken to task by Harvey Norman over their poor support with 680 issues. I just wanted to add one point to this thread. There are plenty of users who seem to be getting excellent performance on standby after the camera patch, including several reports of 0.5% battery drain or better, which does approach the 300 hours standby time with phone on. Check out this thread <Battery life continues to improve>. My 680 can easily do 4-5 days (~100+ hours) with lightish use (I tested this once but normally recharge every 2 days or so due to heavier use), and extrapolation from my standby periods (no use) consistently shows a drain of between 0.3 and 0.5% per hour. I am not denying that there are significant issues with this model that Palm have been very slow to respond to, I just wanted to add that the 680 does have the ability to perform according to its specifications, but there seems to be a couple of glitches that need to be corrected, (eg. camera patch/battery meter). I dont think the evidence suggests that the battery itself is at fault and replacing the battery may not miraculously fix the problems. Also, some people may decide the 680 is simply incapable of lasting more than a day or two with light use. It is clearly capable of going well beyond this, but it requires a few tweaks: Camera patch, battery meter calibration, and disable functions that may not be constantly required such as Bluetooth, Auto time sync, and IR beam receive. These functions will reduce battery life, but this is not really a surprise because they use power.
  6. #6  
    I wanted to point out that auto time synch only operates when you connect to the network. Therefore in a normal day it won't do anything to drain the battery. I've never turned mine off and I get 0.5% drain on a normal day and that's synching 3 accts every 20 minutes and always connected to the network.
  7. #7  
    I wanted to point out that auto time synch only operates when you connect to the network. Therefore in a normal day it won't do anything to drain the battery.
    I am not so sure about this. I tested the effect of timesync on a couple of different occasions earlier on, and it definitely caused a higher drain rate for my 680 (roughly 1.3% per hour instead of 0.5). Not sure why it costs a significant amount of extra power, although the phone connects to the network quite frequently, not just when a call is made, so if timesync is on, it is probably also synching and adjusting the time each time connects. Maybe this doesnt impact on everybody's 680 performance, but it did on mine and I know other users have reported similar findings. I might test this again as I havent tried this after the camera patch - not that I can imagine any relationship.
  8. #8  
    Try this quick experiment. Goto pref/date time and turn off the auto synch. Then turn it back on and read the pop up screen. It requires that if you want the auto synch that you must turn off the phone and turn it on.... That's all I'm saying.

    Obviously it's not affecting me though.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by bigcatny View Post
    Try this quick experiment. Goto pref/date time and turn off the auto synch. Then turn it back on and read the pop up screen. It requires that if you want the auto synch that you must turn off the phone and turn it on.... That's all I'm saying.

    Obviously it's not affecting me though.
    Yep, I noticed that, and when I test it I have turned the phone off and then on. I think that ensures the time is updated there and then (but havent tested whether it happens anyway given time (pardon the pun)).

    I agree, looks like you are getting great performance with timesync on, so you have little reason to be bothered, but I wonder if you have tried turning it off - maybe performance will get even better. Some reports have suggested significantly better than 0.5% per hour.
  10. #10  
    I walked around with time synch off for about 10 days and it made no difference. The same goes with disconnecting from the network when not actively transferring data and again no difference. It can sit actively connected but NOT pulling email and it won't change off 99% for about 4 hours.

    But the point is what software programmer in their right mind writes software to synch the time and date more than one time a day or when the phone turns on and off. To do more than that says you have a real serious problem with the hardware that needs to be fixed first. I have not found my time wandering off during the day or even several days so obviously the hardware does not have a HUGE problem.

    Hey but to each their own. Feel free to turn off your time synch if you prefer, that is why they gave you the option.
  11. #11  
    I tested it again last night - definitely made a difference in my case. This may be another one of those 'possible factors' that can only be determined by testing. IR beam receive is like this. Several people have found it makes a big difference when on, while others (me included) find virtually no difference. I am not trying to argue that you are wrong, I am just saying that I am not the only one who has noticed this, so despite your good fortune, I think it is worth testing for anyone who is not getting 0.5% per hour. I also found that the time did eventually sync, even thought I didnt do the phone off then on step. I would not expect the time to wander if you have time sync on, but several others have reported that it varies widely when timesync is off.

Posting Permissions