Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by SHNXX, Sep 28, 2014.
Good article, I wonder if Ariel Adams was granted an additional pre (alpha) review or were his pics and hands on impressions from the Apple Event? At least couple of pics appear to be NOT from the event display.
EDIT: If granted an additional pre (alpha) review it shows that Apple by targeting watch heads before tech heads IS positioning the aWatch as a respected time piece that is also smart/tech.
The watch looks realy nice
I find it strange that all the photo's on wrists we seem to see of the Apple Watch at the moment, seem to be taken as just the right angle, to make the device look about half the thickness it really it.
Almost as if people have had the back of their wrist scooped out to absorb the bulk of the device, making it only look about 5mm thick, which would be great.
I may be wrong here totally, but right now, I think many would be surprised how much of a lump there is sitting on their wrist in reality, if they only view these type of carefully angled photos.
Naturally, I don't blame anyone from going thru all the pics they took to try and find the one that shows off the device the best and minimizes any weaknesses.
It is evident that when someone here looks for a competitors product, generally to ridicule it, they look for the worst photo at the worse angle to show it at it's worse.
I guess that's to be expected.
These are NOT Apple publicity shots. They are pics taking by Ariel Adams who has no reason to 'cover up' or 'scoop out' his partners wrist to 'fake' the aWatch's wearability. While I can appreciate a level of skepticism, your obsessive cynicism borders on paranoia.
Oh yes, I know.
But the same applies.
He is taking and selecting a Nice Shot of the device on his wrist for his web review.
He's not showing it from a much lower angle to demonstrate it's thickness
I don't blame him, It does show some bias as you COULD pick an angle to be more critical of it's size.
I'd suggest his intention was to show it in a positive way, than to highlight any negatives, so not really a neutral review.
You should show good and bad points if you wish to be regarded as unbiased.
I did not know this blog was from California.
So another confirmation that the gold watch is indeed 18-karat gold.
I think that was confirmed on day one when the photos showed "18-karat gold" stamped on the back of the watch. It would be illegal to sell it in many countries if it was stamped as such and it was only a gold plated finish.
So basically you're saying he is biased. Because anyone who might say something good about Watch must be biased.
Apple watch hands on review by Ariel Adams
Let's stop with the apple watch is thick thing.
It is not thick when compared to mechanical sport watches.
The Apple watch is not a dress watch one wears to a black tie event.
In fact, most of the customers buying this watch will be the kind who rent tuxedos a couple of times in their lives and won't have a need for any dress watch.
The apple watch is 38 or 42mm lug to lug and supposedly only 12.5mm thick, making it comparable in size and thickness to the Rolex Submariner or the Rolex Daytona, two of the most popular watches in the world.
Yes. And I've always thought that. But several posters here are convinced elsewise which I don't quite understand. This would be something pretty stupid for Apple to lie about. And considering John Gruber and others have confirmed that the Gold watch is noticeably heavier than the aluminum (and steel) watch it doesn't seem likely that is just a thin gold shell over an aluminum frame. A thin gold shell wouldn't way that much would it?
I think you are confused.
A thin gold case is still solid gold case.
That doesn't mean the inside will be filled with gold.
A watch case always wraps around some innards, like the movement, dial, etc.
But since apple watch has many inner components, the case doesn't have to be as substantial.
In the end this will be a good thing since the gold edition won't cost as much as a normal gold case watch (usually above $20000).
I don't get it either. Perhaps they want to buy it but wouldn't be able to afford it if it is made from solid gold?
There are also a few posters who are convinced the Sport model will be positioned as the mid-range model, even though it obvious that it is made from lower cost materials.
If I may clarify that statement.
the Apple watch is not thick when compared against a mechanical watch that's been designed to be thick.
I could say, that lady I saw shopping for cakes in the UK yesterday is not fat, as I have some photo's of some American's who are fat, and look, she's the same size, so she's not fat.
Well, perhaps they are all fat?
I accept there are watches fatter, most watches are thinner.
Could can draw a line as an average anywhere.
There is no right thickness for a watch. Some people, like myself would love a simple classy classic ultra thin timepiece, others want something large brash and loud to make a macho statement about BIG and STRONG.
I suppose the difference it.
The mechanical watch has been set out to be that large as the company wanted to try and make a large watch.
The Apple watch has to be that large as it technically can't be any smaller and perform the same function.
The truth is, and we dam well know it, so don't deny it as if you deny it you are lying.
If this was a Samsung watch, and the Apple watch was half as thin, and many were expecting something very different.
You would not be ripping into the samsung model saying what a joke it it and look how thick and ugly Samsung have made it, not think and elegant like the Apple watch.
I suppose that's what irritates me the most, defending something simply based upon brand, and if the brand were different your views would switch instantly.
Exactly the same as if it were Samsung phones which were shown to have bent, and the Iphone was top of the charts for strength.
You be ripping into the stupid cheaply poorly made Samsung model and bragging about how better and stronger the iPhone is.
20K watches would generally not be 20k because there is 20k worth of materials in there. They are priced that way for many other reasons.
I agree, people seem to have a misguided view of what a case has to be.
Not at all.
I like reviews that are balanced.
You could say the MacBook was good as it's made from Aluminium, and it feels nice to the touch.
However you could also say, whilst this is nice, you have to be away how easy the material is to dent and bend, so whilst it's lovely you do need to take extra care with it.
Showing both plus and minus in your comment.
Depends how thick a shell has to be.
A case is a case.
I put my cloths in a CASE. It's just a thin shell
they could make my case out of gold and say it's a solid gold 18k case.
Still a very thin case, percentage wise.
Oh and as for the heavier comments.
Take a group of people.
Take 2 things.
One aluminium finished, one gold finished.
Tell them one is lightweight and aluminium, tell them the other is gold, so it's heavier.
See how many of them say, oh yes, I can see what you mean, the gold one is heavier, it's much nicer.
When it's just thin gold plate and they weight exactly the same.
I'm not saying that's what happened here, but Visual and being told something fools the brain VERY easily
It's going to be heavier, but of course, they don't want a watch to be HEAVY in the 1st place. We'll all just have to wait for a total strip down so we can do the maths on the scrap metal price of the amount of gold Apple use.
As it won't cost Apple really any more the machine that as any of the other materials.
But is a thin gold case that heavy? Because reports are the gold watch is much heavier than the aluminum one (and even the steel one).
Probably because it was positioned in middle in Apple's marketing so far. But I think Apple's positioning is Watch as the standard watch with a sport version on the low end and gold version on the high end as alternates.
Thank you for posting. I thoroughly enjoyed the article.
Still think it would be funny to see a Celeb now going around with their $5000+ Gold iPhone1 still
I don't think average watches are thinner.
If we are talking popular mechanical watches (by sales), these brands should cover more than 90% of total sales in watches:
A. Lange & Sohne
Which among these sells many watch models that are significantly thinner than the Apple Watch?
Rolex - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
Omega - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
Swatch - probably most of their models are thinner than the Apple Watch
Tissot - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
Cartier - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
Hublot - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
Breitling - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
Audemars Piguet - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch (all Royal oak offshores)
Patek Philippe - almost all watches thinner than the Apple Watch
Vacheron Constantin - almost all watches thinner than the Apple Watch
Breguet - almost all watches thinner than the Apple Watch
Chopard - not sure
A. Lange & Sohne - almost all watches thinner than the Apple Watch
Casio - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
Seiko - most watches are similar or thicker than Apple Watch
So as you can see, except for Swatch's plastic watches and some haute horlogerie brands like PP, VC, ALS, Apple watch is comparable.
Here is a site that does a plausible job of calculating the depth at 12.3mm (38mm) and 12.46 (42mm) based on the known length. Keep in mind this is maximum depth and at the highest point of the sensor. Most watches have a flat back, so the 'on wrist' perceived thickness will likely be considerably less since the 'point' of the sensor will rest between the ulna and the radius (natural divot). The watch body (sans sensor) of the 42mm is 10.6mm deep which will probably be closer to what wearing it will be like.
Also this is the same or less than my Garmin 620 at 12.5mm. The Moto 360 is about 11%/12.4% thinner at 11mm and no HR sensor.
Is 12.3mm/12.46mm thin? No
Is it as thin as Apple would like? Probably not
Is it as thin as Jony Ive & Marc Newson would like: No
Is it as thin as the 2ed Gen? Probably not
Is it as thin as I would like? No
Despite all of the above the aWatch will fall in the mid thickness range and is NOT a thick or bulky watch.
You leave out Zenith, really?
This is by market share, not by how nice the watch is.
Zenith watches are nice but they're pretty niche.
They don't sell as much by number of watches or by revenue compared to those on the list except for maybe A Lange & Sohne.
I think part of it is the form that makes people think it is thick.
Most watches have cases that become very thin around the lug area, making the profile look sleek.
Apple watch opted for a very short lug area so there is no slimming toward the end.
Thus it looks a little boxy, making the overall watch look thicker in some angles, despite the fact that it's not a thick watch compared to all watches except dress watches.
actually he has. if he critics the watch too much or posts negative comments about it, it will be the last time apple invites him to new product preview.
He reviews a lot of watches worth a lot more than the Apple Watch.
Although it was a positive review, there is no serious reason to believe that he had to fake it other than conspiracy theories.
Wow. Great read, thank you for posting that.