Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Because they won't have enough money left over for groceries.
I know you're joking and I totally agree that watch bands cost more than they should. That said, IF the watch really was able to slim a 500 pound person down to 300, then it'd be saving them a LOT of money. They could buy extra links instead of "get slim fast" supplements; and they'd be saved the money they were spending on medical bills (a lot of heath problems if one is that overweight); they wouldn't have to buy a "breather" device to make sure they don't choke/suffocate in their sleep, or a mobility scooter; and they'd never again have to buy a second seat on a airplane. In short, if an AW can actually help someone slim down like that, then it's worth every penny, extra links included. And this person would end up with more than enough money for groceries left over.
 
Last edited:
  1. Apple is already manufacturing these bands; now they're just selling a smaller portion of the final product. Even if the product were a flop, this seems to be a minimal hassle money-making grab.
  2. Anybody who doesn't consider the Apple Watch a flop most likely wouldn't condenser the ability to expand their watchband a hassle.

AngerDanger, has anyone ever told you you're running the risk of making far too much sense for this place?
 
With the Apple Watch as the buckle? You sir are a genius.
Exactly!

It could get a bit weird talking to your crutch when you get a phone call though!

...and if you had a 34" waist it would cost you around $830 in link kits!
 
With the Apple Watch as the buckle? You sir are a genius.
Two words: wrist detection.

It will be interesting to see the geniuses who actually try that (I am fairly sure some people will actually do that) cutting holes in the front of their pants to achieve skin contact for the Apple Watch. And then they'll wonder why the heart rate detection doesn't work anymore. Aside from the back pain from having to bend over every time you actually want to look at your watch.
 
I'm not saying the watch is a flop, I'm sure Apple will sell lots of them and profit, but I am saying that the apple watch is definitely a clumsy ineligant kludge.

The good news for apple is for what they charge for the watch and it's accessories they don't have to sell that many to make a nice chunk of change. I mean most things Apples sells are overpriced and fine it's a luxury electronics brand but it's the watch and especially the bands are ridiculously priced. Especially the bands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
Which is why I think they should have made a 46mm watch as well. Most everyone I know, including women, chose the 42, and many wanted something larger.

I think many here agree that 101.6mm is the perfect size.


for those too lazy to calculate it, that's 4-inches. Like the former iPhone screens.
 
Well I'm a woman with smaller wrists. I didn't want 42 and certainly wouldn't want anything even largerthan that. I'm glad Apple is one of the few actually catering to women (or men) with small wrists.

I'm a woman with small wrists and can't even fit the Link Bracelet with all extra links taken off, I wear the small sports band on the second to smallest hole and can fit it on the smallest hole, if the milanese loop were just 1cm(maybe even less) longer I wouldn't be able to wear it. I could definitely argue that Apple is catering to people with smaller wrists, I just think they are catering to the average person.
 
I didn't know Apple used Watchdots for their promotional images! :p

EDIT: Apparently light reflects like this. Who knew.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 7.20.48 pm.png
    Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 7.20.48 pm.png
    182.8 KB · Views: 187
Last edited:
It looks like the XL Sport bands can only be bought separately, and not as part of the original watch purchase.

If true, that's a rip off.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.