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.
Apple Watch 0 vs. 1: 1mm taller
- Thread starter keatth
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you referring to the overall thickness? That would apply to the Series 2. And most have stated its negligible.
I went from 0 to 2 and it doesn't feel any different or change how comfortable the Watch is
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
For me even the 6 feels nicer than the 7 for the same reason so I'm definetly in the 'thinness' camp
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
Ugh it was already thick enough to begin with, how could they do this. Getting a series 0 I guess.
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.
Last edited:
That makes a big difference to someone who already thinks the Watch was too thick and was hoping it would get thinner.
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.
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.
[doublepost=1485729303][/doublepost]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.
[doublepost=1485729303][/doublepost]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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe an Apple watch is not for you. The thickness difference is so small!
I've read reports here on macrumors saying the series 3 will not have any major redesign
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.
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.
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.
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.
[doublepost=1485802800][/doublepost]
Of course it can get smaller. Components shrink all the time. And I've no doubt it will happen.
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.
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.