Apple Watch 0 vs. 1: 1mm taller

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by keatth, Jan 28, 2017.

  1. keatth macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    #1
    So the new Apple watched are 1mm taller? Is that correct? Anyone that went from the original to the series 1/2, do you notice the difference? If anyone has both can you post pictures? Thank you.
     
  2. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #2
    Are you referring to the overall thickness? That would apply to the Series 2. And most have stated its negligible.
     
  3. telefono macrumors 6502

    telefono

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    #3
    I went from 0 to 2 and it doesn't feel any different or change how comfortable the Watch is
     
  4. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    I think the difference is so slight its virtually indistinguishable. Perhaps initially you might notice the difference but after a few minutes the watch will feel natural. Just my $.02
     
  5. clauzzz203 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    #5
    The added thickness is in the screen so it has a different (less flat) tapering. It's not noticeable day to day but it is different looks-wise. Imo I prefer the series 0 taper

    For me even the 6 feels nicer than the 7 for the same reason so I'm definetly in the 'thinness' camp

    [​IMG]
     
  6. keatth thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    #6

    Ugh it was already thick enough to begin with, how could they do this. Getting a series 0 I guess.
     
  7. Julien, Jan 29, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2017

    Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #7
    It is why Apple did it and not how could they. It is to make room for the larger battery. Also the S1 has the same battery and thickness and the S0.

    Also it is 0.9mm depth, 4.2g on the 42mm or 3.2g on the 38mm difference.
     
  8. keatth thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    #8
    That makes a big difference to someone who already thinks the Watch was too thick and was hoping it would get thinner.
     
  9. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #9
    It makes a difference? You wouldn't even notice the thickness if you were wearing it. It's hardly noticeable even by side by side comparisons. I own both stainless models and it's literally indistinguishable to tell them
    Apart, and this applies aesthetically.
     
  10. rbrian macrumors 6502a

    rbrian

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    #10
    I noticed it when I upgraded from 0 to 2, and I still do months later. It's possibly worth it for the waterproofness, but it is irritating.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 29, 2017 ---
    I'm slim, my wrists are thin, and I like close fitting clothes. I live in a relatively cool climate, so I often have long sleeves. The watch doesn't quite fit under, and it gets stuck outside.
     
  11. the future macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #11
    I would like the Apple Watch to be much thinner in general, like maybe 50% thinner, as it would be much more elegant then (IMO); the difference between S0 and S2, on the other hand, is absolutely negligible wrt the overall look and feel (IMO).
     
  12. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #12
    Fighting physics: Since all other components besides the battery require a minimum volume then any reduction would have to be by reducing the battery size. For a 50% reduction in depth would require a 7 to 10 hours battery life and this is unacceptable in a smart watch. We are 'stuck' with the basic relative size for the foreseeable future.
     
  13. clauzzz203 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    #13
    This is what a company would like you to believe to save manufacturing costs. The proper way to do it is via shrinking the processor to a lower nanometer manufacturing process
     
  14. The Doctor11 macrumors 603

    The Doctor11

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    #14
    I wore a Series 0 from launch day to the launch day of the Series 2. Never did I notice a difference wearing the watch. Side by side difference is small. Don't worry about the thickness of the watch at all.
     
  15. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #15
    I can't speak for the processor manufacturing. But I think it goes beyond shrinking down the processor, implementing a larger battery to incorporate features for GPS and perhaps the future generation of LTE.

    And I think most seem to forget, traditionally larger mechanical watches are top-heavy and thicker based on style and substantiality. Other seem to subject the Apple Watch into a category of its own believing it should be thinner, when that's not the answer to everything just because it's a smart watch or piece technology.
     
  16. rbrian macrumors 6502a

    rbrian

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    #16
    I never wore a traditional mechanical watch for just this reason. I had a cheap, thin, light Casio F91W digital watch. It was half the thickness of an Apple Watch, and the battery lasted a good 7 years. I would have been happy to give up 5 years of battery life to make it even thinner.

    Isn't thinner what Apple has been training us to expect for years?
     
  17. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #17
    If you look at the history of Apple devices, when they first launch, they tend to be larger and bulkier. As the years pass and the generations of the Apple devices continue to experience redesigns. That's when they seem to start slimming down the device and it's internal components. The Apple Watch has only been on the market for two years. That said, it's the exact same physical design for the first generation Apple Watch and Apple Watch 2.

    When the Apple Watch three lunches, assuming it's a complete redesign internally and extra, that's likely when we will see some changes to the actual physical casing.

    Even if you compare the first generation iPhone to the iPhone 7, their astonishingly different/thinner, mainly because devices have to be allowed to be changed over time.
     
  18. clauzzz203 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    #18
    Lower nanometer processor means proportionally lower consumption because of the way it works electrically, phisically it's almost no difference.

    The GPS and LTE chips also have nanometer process size, every chip does. If you have smaller nanometer chips there is no need for a larger battery. This is why newer iphones are more powerful and more power efficient at the same time and with the same battery.
     
  19. Newtons Apple Suspended

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #19
    Maybe an Apple watch is not for you. The thickness difference is so small!
     
  20. LoveToMacRumors macrumors 68000

    LoveToMacRumors

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #20
    I've read reports here on macrumors saying the series 3 will not have any major redesign
     
  21. BarracksSi Suspended

    BarracksSi

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    #21
    What I think is so funny is, some people wish the AW were larger.

    Can't please everyone.

    Besides, I don't see how the AW could get any smaller than it is. There's no extra room inside the case at all. The teardowns posted by iFixit are like opening up a clown car -- more and more panels and bits of hardware keep coming out.
     
  22. the future macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #22
    I'm sure the Apple Watch right now is as thin as it can be given the state of the electronic art and the design targets (battery life, screen brightness, gps etc.). If or when it can get thinner (and you just KNOW Jony wants this) depends upon progress in the former and targets/priorities (4g? always-on display? more sensors?) in the latter area.
     
  23. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #23
    I fundamentally disagree with that. It was obvious to me when I picked up a Series 2, and was one of numerous reasons why I didn't keep it.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 30, 2017 ---
    Of course it can get smaller. Components shrink all the time. And I've no doubt it will happen.
     
  24. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #24
    I don't think it's necessarily fundamental. But perhaps you noticed the thickness, others don't. Everyone's experiences are different. Between both of my stainless models, I have zero indication of the differences on my wrist.
     
  25. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #25
    I should've specified more. What I meant was, when the Apple Watch 3 releases or the newest revamped Model debuts (Perhaps March 2018). It will likely have a completely different design with a thinner casing.

    I wasn't referring to the Series 3 rumored this fall with the possibility of LTE.
     

Share This Page