Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Aluminum vs SS

  • Aluminum

    Votes: 94 46.5%
  • Stainless steel

    Votes: 108 53.5%

  • Total voters
    202
On this year's S4, are there any difference on the quality of materials on the back of the watch? I recall last year the non-lte sport was different than the others.
 
On this year's S4, are there any difference on the quality of materials on the back of the watch? I recall last year the non-lte sport was different than the others.

As someone else mentioned, *all* the Apple Watch models for the Series 4 do include ceramic backings. In years past, it was either a composite backing for the sport model Apple Watch and a ceramic backing for the stainless steel/ceramic Apple Watches.
 
I've had a launch day SS but will be switching to an aluminum on the 4. You just cant look at these as quality timepieces to keep for many many yrs, like a traditional watch. They are literally upgrade every 3 yrs and the old one is worth nothing. Also battery replacements on the SS's are more expensive than the sports. I am nervous about getting scratches on my screen though. My sapphire screen has held out well.
 
You just cant look at these as quality timepieces to keep for many many yrs, like a traditional watch. They are literally upgrade every 3 yrs and the old one is worth nothing.

I am wondering if that is going to change with this new chip and technology lasting longer than the 2-3 years on the AW and maybe this version making it 4-5 years or longer.

I am possibly dreaming but I do feel the more they improve their chips and technology in the watch it will last longer than the S0 timeframes we are seeing now. Or at least I hope so.
 
I am wondering if that is going to change with this new chip and technology lasting longer than the 2-3 years on the AW and maybe this version making it 4-5 years or longer.

I am possibly dreaming but I do feel the more they improve their chips and technology in the watch it will last longer than the S0 timeframes we are seeing now. Or at least I hope so.


Even if! New operating systems, apps will only make use of the newer hardware and Apple isn't going to let us off the 'need' to upgrade that lightly. It will come to a point though, when they've literally put everything in that they can ever possibly put in. But we'll still have Jonathan Ives voice coming on during a keynote saying this is the most futuristic best Apple Watch ever, and we'll all be take my money !
 
It really is a non-issue. If you’re used to wearing watches you won’t notice, if you’re not, it’ll take a day to get used to. Makes me laugh how many people say the SS is too heavy.
What is heavy is subjective. You can get used to anything. But some people are not used to wearing decent sized mechanical watches on their wrists which is about the weight of the SS model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foliovision
I went with gold stainless steel this time around. I've always gone for aluminum in the past.
 
I am wondering if that is going to change with this new chip and technology lasting longer than the 2-3 years on the AW and maybe this version making it 4-5 years or longer.

I am possibly dreaming but I do feel the more they improve their chips and technology in the watch it will last longer than the S0 timeframes we are seeing now. Or at least I hope so.

I believe this is going last for at least 4-5 years. My S0 watch still going strong after 3 years.
 
I got the 44mm gold aluminium watch and it looks great!
 

Attachments

  • 19568B1A-46F5-4192-8E0D-02BFC85DBA23.jpeg
    19568B1A-46F5-4192-8E0D-02BFC85DBA23.jpeg
    254.5 KB · Views: 407
  • EF634110-CFE0-4772-AD44-09C752967EB3.jpeg
    EF634110-CFE0-4772-AD44-09C752967EB3.jpeg
    288.6 KB · Views: 435
  • Like
Reactions: Cnasty
In Canada, the aluminum watches start at $519, while the SS ones start at $929. Since I don't need cellular (which would add $130 to the aluminum cost and make the difference in price smaller between that and the SS), it's extremely difficult for me to justify paying double for SS.

My Apple watch history:
I had an Aluminum 38mm Series 0 for a couple of years, then got a great deal on a used SS Series 2. The SS absolutely looks nicer and matches my bands better (since the Milanese and Link Bracelet have SS lugs) but I actually found it worse functionally because the vibration from the notifications wasn't as strong due to the SS being so much heavier.

With the watch still being in what I consider "early days," I'm probably going to drop back down to aluminum this time around and maybe jump back up to SS in a few years when the upgrade cycles are longer and I can justify the huge premium.

As far as "scratch resistance" goes, the glass on my aluminum Series 0 never got scratched and I wasn't exactly delicate with it. I haven't noticed a difference between it and the sapphire screen on my Series 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magrat22
Aluminum first. Once the battery life model increases to my liking, I’ll get the ss.
 
What is heavy is subjective. You can get used to anything. But some people are not used to wearing decent sized mechanical watches on their wrists which is about the weight of the SS model.

Stainless watch is actually 40% heavier over the aluminum, but I can understand why someone may not want that because of the weight. But I do agree with that poster if you’re not used to wearing heavier mechanical watches, then the stainless Apple Watch would be considered on the ‘heavier’ side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foliovision
I prefer the SS look over the Aluminium.
The silver Aluminium looks very cheep.
But ai checked the resell value of the SS watches compared to the aluminum.
In Germany, you pay 300€ extra for the SS (the LTE is not important for me).
After a year the resell price is nearly the same like the aluminum price. 50-70€ more maybe. So for an upgrade every year, the SS cost me ~250€ more per year. Which is much, as the resell price of the aluminum ist 250-300€. At the end the SS is ~ double the price for an upgrade every year.
 
Stainless for me. I ave a stainless series 0 and this is the first time I think it's worth the upgrade. I have plenty of bands that match a stainless watch so really it's an easy choice. That and the price difference isn't that different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quadchick10
Is this true? Do stainless battery replacements cost more than aluminum? Why would that be? And how much are they btw?

That wouldn’t make any sense. Why would a battery cost more for the stainless model over the aluminum model, when they share the same batteries for both sizes in terms of the 44 and 40 mm. Unless I am missing something, I didn’t find anything in terms of why the battery be more expensive for the stainless or aluminum from my research.

For display replacements though, the cost would be different based on Apples link below:

https://support.apple.com/watch/repair/service/pricing
 
I just bought the aluminum 44 this week. Last watch I bought was a series 0 stainless steel which is now literally worthless in Apple’s eyes. I really like the series 4, night and day compared to the series 0, but still kind of on the fence. I think I’m more of a mechanical watch person.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.