I kept trying to reply to your comment and it keeps saying edit. Anyway, it's 480, not 420.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
42mm Apple Watch Series 4 to Feature Resolution of 384x480
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you really want a round watch then go buy a Galaxy Watch. Those things are huge.
I don't understand this obsession some people have with a round smartwatch. You give up too much screen real estate with a round watch.
Do you also want a round smartphone?
All things being equal that might be the case, but Apple doesn't use a square ratio. Until the forthcoming rumored display area increase, Apple Watch had significantly less screen real estate than a comparable smart watch. Now it's about the same.
That's because you're a little quick on the draw. ;-)
I don't think the dimensions used in that graphic are quite right. Using the reported dimensions, it's a much larger 23.08% increase (not the 15% rumored). Here's how it works out in my rendering using the actual Apple schematics:
Note that using a proportional rectangle, it exceeds the dimensions of the current bezel. However, rounding the corners (orange) easily puts it inside the the glass, with room to spare. That said, it also makes it asymmetrical, which is very un-Apple like. So an easy fix would be to make the watch slightly taller -- but in the absence of any other changes to the case, a very expensive fix.
That brings us to the PPI. Since these dimensions are extrapolations from the PPI using the current ratio, and given that the corners are very likely rounded, it's entirely possible the the ratio is in fact different, and it may be slightly wider than tall this time around. Even in this example, if you take the eliminated pixels that otherwise make the squared corners (red), and redistribute to the sides to compensate for the symmetry (orange), I'd bet the purported PPI of 345 could easily be achieved. And that's a minor adjustment for developers who will already be planning to take advantage of the increased real estate of the display. Existing apps, will still likely work in their original window (white), making the watch appear no different from the previous models. The 38mm watches will get a real treat as they will be able to use the original 42mm-sized display area for old apps, getting an instant size boost for all of their displays (assuming Apple allows it).
Last edited:
While I'm sure many will upgrade, I personally don't think a slightly higher res is enough of a compelling reason to do so. It is no wonder that the Series 1 continues to be the best selling version accounting for 90% of sales. It has the majority of the functionality except for integrated GPS and 50m resistance (which is good for nothing. 100m is really what want you want for the ocean and sea.
As for the sizes, they are right on the money. 38mm (women) and 42mm (men) are right within the normal range for a modern sports watch. 44-50mm watches are monstrosities are very tacky imo. I don't care if it's a Panerai, crap Invicta or a smartwatch. The only guys who can pull off the oversized stuff are those with Schwarzenegger sized wrists and they make up a very low percentage of overall watch users.
[doublepost=1536269427][/doublepost]What I feel the Apple Watch is lacking is a true chronograph "complication." You really need a round watch design for it to work as well as start/stop pushers. A round watch design could also bring a world time dial a la Patek 5110/5230. The problem is that it wouldn't stand out from the rest of the Android smartwatches.
I do like what Samsung has done adding a "power reserve." I like this on mechanical watches and it is a nice feature to have.
As for the sizes, they are right on the money. 38mm (women) and 42mm (men) are right within the normal range for a modern sports watch. 44-50mm watches are monstrosities are very tacky imo. I don't care if it's a Panerai, crap Invicta or a smartwatch. The only guys who can pull off the oversized stuff are those with Schwarzenegger sized wrists and they make up a very low percentage of overall watch users.
[doublepost=1536269427][/doublepost]What I feel the Apple Watch is lacking is a true chronograph "complication." You really need a round watch design for it to work as well as start/stop pushers. A round watch design could also bring a world time dial a la Patek 5110/5230. The problem is that it wouldn't stand out from the rest of the Android smartwatches.
I do like what Samsung has done adding a "power reserve." I like this on mechanical watches and it is a nice feature to have.
That's because you're a little quick on the draw. ;-)
I don't think the dimensions used in that graphic are quite right. Using the reported dimensions, it's a much larger 23.08% increase (not the 15% rumored). Here's how it works out in my rendering using the actual Apple schematics:
Note that using a proportional rectangle, it exceeds the dimensions of the current bezel. However, rounding the corners easily puts it inside the the glass, with room to spare. That said, it also makes it asymmetrical, which is very un-Apple like. So an easy fix would be to make the watch slightly taller -- but in the absence of any other changes to the case, a very expensive fix. That brings us to the PPI. Since these dimensions are extrapolations from the PPI using the current ratio, and given that the corners are very likely rounded, it's entirely possible the the ratio is in fact different, and it may be slightly wider than tall this time around. Even in this example, if you take the eliminated pixels that otherwise make the squared corners, and redistribute to the sides to compensate for the symmetry, I'd bet the purported PPI could easily be achieved. And that's a minor adjustment for developers who will already be planning to take advantage of the increased real estate of the display. Existing apps, will still likely work in their original window, making the watch appear no different from the previous models.
Yeah that seems more right than your earlier one. I was thinking there was no way that could be right. You also have to take into account the 2.5D glass. Apple doesn't like what Samsung did by putting their display under a curve on the edges. I'd think they would keep it inside the curve—and it at least looks that way from the leak. Maybe it is a little taller? The nice thing about making something slightly taller is that 1, it still works with existing bands, and 2, you can either have room for additional battery or make it thinner. Apple tends to want to make things thinner, and given the Series 3 was the thickest yet (by a small amount), I bet they at least want to get that back. But they could just put that into PPI. The problem with that, however, is that it makes UI elements/text smaller, as shown in the watchOS simulator on 9to5Mac. It may be a blend of multiple things. Either way I am looking forward to upgrading to this from my Series 0!
[doublepost=1536271223][/doublepost]
Skip it. I want there to be enough for my wife and I on launch day.
Yes of course it was always 42mm. 42.5mm to be exact.
No it didn't. The watch case was 42.5mm tall. The display area was considerably smaller at 30.42mm tall.
These schematics are directly from Apple with my addition of the rumored 15% display area increase (but presumably with rounded corners):
Indeed, I stand corrected.
Yes of course it was always 42mm. 42.5mm to be exact.
No it didn't. The watch case was 42.5mm tall. The display area was considerably smaller at 30.42mm tall.
These schematics are directly from Apple with my addition of the rumored 15% display area increase (but presumably with rounded corners):
okay does this mean that we will have watch sizes larger than the current 36mm and 42mm? thank you
No, it makes zero logical sense because all you need to designate that it's new is a number next to it. Adding another word is pointless.
You don't seem to know how a computer monitor works. Supporting those default resolutions at 2x scaling would still mean that the interface would be too small the use. The native resolution would simply be twice as large.
It’s unlikely. See this graphic with the new display watch face as rumored. Unless Apple decides to make a larger watch, they’ll likely fit the rumored display into the existing watch as depicted, by rounding the corners (red) and slightly widening the sides (orange):
Last edited:
Your post makes me slightly nervous. If they widen the sides will the existing bands still fit?
I know at this point it is all wild rumour until we see the models on stage and reporters get to handle them in the demo but still.... jingle jangle very, nervy.
Your post makes me slightly nervous. If they widen the sides will the existing bands still fit?
I know at this point it is all wild rumour until we see the models on stage and reporters get to handle them in the demo but still.... jingle jangle very, nervy.
Widen the ratio of the display area — NOT the watch itself. Note the schematic is of the original unaltered Apple Watch case. The rumored new larger display area fits neatly within it.
If you're referring to Series 0 then yeah, it was terrible But Series 1 and above have been good. 3 was even better.
I know exactly how a computer monitor works. Nothing I said was incorrect. It seems that you don’t know how a display works.
The physical panel on the 13” is 2560x1600. When rendering the point resolution @2x you end up with 1280x800.
Scaled @2x (every drawn pixel is made up of 4 physical pixels) results in the UI elements looking larger. Running the panel at native resolution of 2560x1600 on 13” would make all elements look extremely small.
Its called basic strategic marketing. _Any and every_ company tries to make their products unique to the consumer how they can identify it by adding specific monikers. It’s not unusual and for the record, Clearly its working based on differentiation.
The Apple Watch (AW) is still the AW. In how it looks, its size, its function, its interaction with the iPhone. Aside from some under-the-hood enhancements, the physical package and all that it really is, is still the AW from 5 years ago (or whatever the # is). Using "Series" underscores that it is just an AW of a different generation, which is consistent with the naming approach used all over the place elsewhere. For instance, see any product named "XXX Gen 2", "XXX Version 2.0", or "XXX Season 2". Apple just chose to use the word Series. That's a pretty low bar to cross to be accused of being pretentious.
True. LTE was a game changer. I’m definitely going to get LTE for my S4 so it can be independent of the iPhone.
I know the S3 would offer my nice improvements, but I don’t want that Lol. I want the latest and greatest. Why settle for the S3 when I can get even MORE enhancements from the newer model even if it means paying a little more.
Apple events are still exciting to me because they’re actually showing off the product and features live. Yeah most of the features have leaked in the past, but it’s still cool to see them reveal it.
Also, this year there really haven’t been much leaks. Will the 5.8” & 6.5” have Face ID 2? Will they have Pro Motion displays? Will a USB-C adapter come in the box? How will the cameras/processors be improved?
Etc. Idk. I’m still hyped.
Yeah. 0. Idk what we officially call it. I know Apple Doesn't call it 0, do they? I tried to use a descriptor that made sense, at least in my mind lol.
Believe it or not my wife is still chugging away with it. Been this specific since Best Buy had their blowout on the stainless units when series 1 and 2 launched. These days it's used for texts and telling the time with watch faces featuring our kids lol. She may upgrade to a series 4 but the price point is holding her back.
[doublepost=1536334815][/doublepost]
My s3 has much worse reception than any of the phones I've had in the last five years. At this point I'm no longer "testing" it to check, but I have zero reception on the watch in places I have 2 bars with my phones.
I thought I could go without my phone a lot more than I do. But it is still nice for runs without a phone.
I'm intrigued to see if Apple claims they've done anything with reception strength on the series 4. It's my only real (somewhat minor) gripe about the s3. I see no reason to upgrade my watch unless they've come out the gate with a much more robust wireless antenna.
Last edited:
TimeGate... when people find out the new series 4 watch doesn't tell accurate time under certain situations and Apple's response after denying it for 6 months is it affects very few units but if yours happens to qualify you must let them fix the scratches on the face before they will fix the time.
and your point? Apple did not have to use it did they? Sounds alot like an IVE inspired idea!
I’m still wearing a series 0. It is terrible.
[doublepost=1536357922][/doublepost]
Huh?
Apple offers a subsidized battery replacement for any device that fails battery diags.
Mine was $99 canadian for the replacement.
