Apple Watch 0 vs. 1: 1mm taller

[bluespark]

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.

Exactly. I was worried about this, but the Apple Watch feels chunky and substantial, just like my very nice mechanical watches. Now that I have mine, I like the form, including the thickness.

 

[44267547]

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.

I understand your point. But I think it has to do with what I previously mentioned, that devices, more specifically the Apple Watch, has to be allowed time to evolve.

You mentioned the "Newer" iPhones are more power efficient with the same battery. But look how the iPhone had to evolve over time with OS and Processor efficiency. Same theory applies to the Apple Watch. The Apple Watch has the potential to reach where it will be thinner and more efficient, but we are still talking about a device that is maturing and developing.

 

[keatth]

For all you people who think the original Apple Watch and series 1 are the same are seriously deluded. Here are the measurements:

Original Apple Watch:

42mm x 35.9mm x 10.5mm

Series 1:

42mm x 36.4 x 10.5mm.


I was wrong it's 0.5 TALLER than the original Apple Watch, which makes it taper down to the edge even more and when you compare them it's dramatic because it really makes the series one seem blockier and bigger and not as slick.

Every review article says they are the exact same, sorry but no they are not.

 

[GoSUV]

Instead of worrying over 0.5mm or 1mm of difference, why not just go to a retailer and try the thing on? That way you can tell if it's too big for you.

 

[44267547]

Instead of worrying over 0.5mm or 1mm of difference, why not just go to a retailer and try the thing on? That way you can tell if it's too big for you.

Exactly. Anybody can take measurements and fine line which Apple Watch is bigger from the other. All that matters is how is it feels on your wrist and is it a properly sized for your wrist. I could care less about incremental measurements, when everybody's results will vary.

 

[keatth]

Exactly. Anybody can take measurements and fine line which Apple Watch is bigger from the other. All that matters is how is it feels on your wrist and is it a properly sized for your wrist. I could care less about incremental measurements, when everybody's results will vary.

The 0.5mm difference DOES change the design and look of the Watch, its not just about how it feels on the wrist. It's an Apple product, you buy it for the design. For me the 0.5mm difference would bother me every time I looked at the Watch. The original Apple Watch is slicker.

 

[FrisbeeK9]

Maybe an Apple watch is not for you. The thickness difference is so small!

I read the thickness of gen 2 to gen one is a thickness of a US Dime difference. Hardly noticeable.

 

[Julien]

For all you people who think the original Apple Watch and series 1 are the same are seriously deluded. Here are the measurements:

Original Apple Watch:

42mm x 35.9mm x 10.5mm

Series 1:

42mm x 36.4 x 10.5mm.


I was wrong it's 0.5 TALLER than the original Apple Watch, which makes it taper down to the edge even more and when you compare them it's dramatic because it really makes the series one seem blockier and bigger and not as slick.

Every review article says they are the exact same, sorry but no they are not.

First your use of the term taller is incorrect and open to interpretation (subjective) depending on Watch orientation. I thought you meant taller in the depth measurement, as in 'it sits taller on my wrist'. Judging by responses many or most others are interpreting this as well. The correct and objective terms to use are Height, Width, Depth and Weight.

You tread title and all decision should be about the Watch's Height (Height is a top to bottom measurement) comparison.

Also for comparison a Credit Card has a depth of 0.76mm so the S1 0.5mm increase is over ⅓ less than a CC 'thickness' increase over the S0. No way in real world wearing could you ever notice or perceive of a 0.5mm difference.

 

[BarracksSi]

Clearly a "The Princess And The Pea" situation.

 

[keatth]

First your use of the term taller is incorrect and open to interpretation (subjective) depending on Watch orientation. I thought you meant taller in the depth measurement, as in 'it sits taller on my wrist'. Judging by responses many or most others are interpreting this as well. The correct and objective terms to use are Height, Width, Depth and Weight.

You tread title and all decision should be about the Watch's Height (Height is a top to bottom measurement) comparison.

Also for comparison a Credit Card has a depth of 0.76mm so the S1 0.5mm increase is over ⅓ less than a CC 'thickness' increase over the S0. No way in real world wearing could you ever notice or perceive of a 0.5mm difference.

It's noticable due to the larger taper

 

[44267547]

The 0.5mm difference DOES change the design and look of the Watch, its not just about how it feels on the wrist. It's an Apple product, you buy it for the design. For me the 0.5mm difference would bother me every time I looked at the Watch. The original Apple Watch is slicker.

It's noticable due to the larger taper

I have a few issues with your post(s) on here.

First, no one and I mean no one, purchases an Apple Watch and determines 0.5 MM later effected their purchase from upgrading over the first Gen Apple Watch where it's "Too large" for a Series 1/Series 2. Its not logical, Even if their is a slight variation in measurements, where the size is absolutely Negligible.

Second, Those who purchase Apple products, purchase them for functionality and performance, aesthetic appeal comes second. And this applies to the Apple Watch. It's not the most appealing design, but the functionality is what makes the Apple Watch a great product for fitness and notifications over your design claim.

I think your being slightly pedantic with your arguments about the Apple Watch and it's thinness. It's a new product and give it time to evolve and Develope. Look at the first iPhone and how it evolved where it is today. Newer products need time to mature, which applies to the Apple Watch in the same catergory.

 

[keatth]

I have a few issues with your post(s) on here.

First, no one and I mean no one, purchases an Apple Watch and determines 0.5 MM later effected their purchase from upgrading over the first Gen Apple Watch where it's "Too large" for a Series 1/Series 2. Its not logical, Even if their is a slight variation in measurements, where the size is absolutely Negligible.

Second, Those who purchase Apple products, purchase them for functionality and performance, aesthetic appeal comes second. And this applies to the Apple Watch. It's not the most appealing design, but the functionality is what makes the Apple Watch a great product for fitness and notifications over your design claim.

I think your being slightly pedantic with your arguments about the Apple Watch and it's thinness. It's a new product and give it time to evolve and Develope. Look at the first iPhone and how it evolved where it is today. Newer products need time to mature, which applies to the Apple Watch in the same catergory.

What? People don't buy Apple product for the design? What planet are you living on?

 

[44267547]

What? People don't buy Apple product for the design? What planet are you living on?

It's called functionality. Judging by your posts on here and your concern with appeal, you seem distorted on what you even believe over a fraction of a millimeter, Aside from rudimentary theory on design.

 

[keatth]

Ok so I ended up buying Series 1 I like the 0.5mm difference I like the way the glass sits on the Watch vs the original. Happy with purchase.

 

[44267547]

Ok so I ended up buying Series 1 I like the 0.5mm difference I like the way the glass sits on the Watch vs the original. Happy with purchase.

So, you went for the "Larger" model that you originally argued on here over a 0.5 MM of a difference.

Anyways, hope you enjoy the Series 1.

 

[keatth]

So, you went for the "Larger" model that you originally argued on here over a 0.5 MM of a difference.

Anyways, hope you enjoy the Series 1.

Yeah it seemed like a bigger deal in the pictures than in real life. Once it was on my wrist I didn't care.