Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Watch Screen Resolutions: 312 x 390 for 42mm Version, 272 x 340 for 38mm Version

I usually give apple the benefit of the doubt. But I see no reason to get one of these when everyone already has a phone that can do the same thing. They just INCREASED the size of the phones and now they are offering a tiny screen on a watch. They haven't shown what this watch can do that a phone can't. Its really easy to pull out a phone! What a bad idea.
 
teknikal90 said:
apple watch is a piece of crap.

Up3 + iphone does everything that's needed, if having a wearable is your thing.
Click to expand...

I think you need to expand your definition of a wearable. Wearables are not just for fitness/health tracking and most wearables (not the Up3) can run apps too.
 
It sad to me and disappointing how much time Apple spent on these devices yet they forget about the Apple TV, thunderbolt display, and the Mac Mini and the iPad Mini 3.... :confused:
 
Rogifan said:
Um no. Words like boring and rubbish are OPINIONS not FACTS.
Click to expand...

An opinion doesn’t stop something being fact.
I think a flame is hot, that’s my opinion. It also happens to be a fact.

Anyhow, they are flat, (fact), and there is less to them which makes them less interesting, (fact as they are all the same form), and not very good, (Ok maybe).
 
Deelron said:
I think it'd be bold to not charge the same price for the two sizes, they're watches and I suspect most people who are going to buy them are going to expect the same price for the mens/ladies sizes.

(I'm also very curious if the larger one will actually cost more to make or the difficulties in making things even smaller will matter).
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't see them charging more to people with bigger wrists.
 
futbalguy said:
I usually give apple the benefit of the doubt. But I see no reason to get one of these when everyone already has a phone that can do the same thing. They just INCREASED the size of the phones and now they are offering a tiny screen on a watch. They haven't shown what this watch can do that a phone can't. Its really easy to pull out a phone! What a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I don't think there will be a killer app for the first year or two on the Apple Watch but it's the accumulation of all the apps you already use on your iPhone. For every time you get a notification on any app, you have to pull out your phone. Add up all those apps and you already have a reason for wearables for some users. Others want the watch just for Apple Pay. Others want the health tracking like pulse rate which only the watch can give you. Add up all these reasons and you have a product that appeals to most people who already have phones.

In a year or two there will absolutely be a killer native app for the Apple Watch that will justify it's purchase and soon after that the iPhone will not be necessary for any 4G communications. So I think Apple has a few years and hardware generations already in the pipe.

----------
repentix said:
At least you can flash the newest version of android on the device, can't do that with an iphone 4 with ios 8 can you? ;)
Click to expand...

And hackers also managed to port Doom to play on a printer too.

My point is that users of older hardware already complain about new OS performance on their older hardware. Having the freedom to put any OS on any hardware doesn't make for a good product or user experience.
 
apolloa said:
What did Apple famously call this? Oh yes that was it, fragmented.....

Can't see why the difference in resolution but hey ho.
Click to expand...

It's so that the two have the same PPI. Otherwise, they'd have to have two different production lines for the display. This way they can produce the displays on the same fab and "cut" the right size they need for each model.
 
repentix said:
At least you can flash the newest version of android on the device, can't do that with an iphone 4 with ios 8 can you? ;)
Click to expand...

The iPhone 4 was released in 2010, how many Android phones from 2010 can I flash Lollipop onto right now?
 
H2SO4 said:
An opinion doesn’t stop something being fact.
I think a flame is hot, that’s my opinion. It also happens to be a fact.

Anyhow, they are flat, (fact), and there is less to them which makes them less interesting, (fact as they are all the same form), and not very good, (Ok maybe).
Click to expand...

A fact is not an opinion. I think faux glass, leather, felt and skeuomorhpism is ugly and outdated. But I know that's my subjective opinion, not an objective fact.
 
BCWorld said:
It sad to me and disappointing how much time Apple spent on these devices yet they forget about the Apple TV, thunderbolt display, and the Mac Mini and the iPad Mini 3.... :confused:
Click to expand...

Up until a month ago, everyone said Apple forgot about the Mini but they didn't. I ordered one and it's great because it's a cheap Mac for simple things. Anyone wanting quad core and 16Gb of RAM in a Mini doesn't understand the reason Apple made the Mini.

As far as the other things you mention, updated Apple TV is set to be released in Spring 2015. This is the rumor we've been hearing for over 6 months now. Thunderbolt displays have always been released after the Macs that use them have already been released. iPad mini 3 isn't an impressive update as the iPad Air 2 but it's hardly forgotten. Apple is not up to your speed but they are up to date on all their releases.
 
troop231 said:
BlaqkAudio did here: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/20375310/
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I get a different (more plausible) result using this calculator:

312 x 390, 42mm (1.65"): 303 ppi
272 x 340, 38mm(1.50"): 290 ppi

Since the highest competitor is the Samsung Galaxy Gear at 277 ppi, I find it hard to imagine Apple going with over twice that ppi as BlaqkAudio claims. A low efficiency 600 ppi display would be an extremely poor choice for a watch and contrary to every display choice Apple has ever made in the mobile space. The fact that Samsung, who use PPI as a marketing gimmick, held their own watch to a low ppi shows how vital efficiency is when dealing with a tiny watch battery.
 
Deelron said:
(I'm also very curious if the larger one will actually cost more to make or the difficulties in making things even smaller will matter).
Click to expand...

This is a good point I overlooked. I would be completely unsurprised to learn that the complexities of working smaller offset the costs of materials. There's a good chance it really could cost more to make the small ones.

Not that any of that really matters, though. We're talking about pennies and when it comes to retail price Apple is thinking in $50 increments. Whatever they price it at it will be based on how they want people to view the watch, not how many extra cents one version cost over the other to manufacture.

Deelron said:
...are going to expect the same price for the mens/ladies sizes.
Click to expand...

I have totally not been thinking of the sizes in terms of male/female. In my mind the choice of size will come down to arm size alone and thus there will be many buyers of both models from each gender. Then it's the bands where the people will start looking at gendered designs.

That's my take on it anyway. Am I the odd one out or is it you? I honestly don't know what everyone else is thinking.
 
Stephroll said:
both screens are a little over 330ppi

https://www.sven.de/dpi/
Click to expand...

I get 227. Plug in the following inputs:
Horizontal: 272
Vertical: 340
Diagonal: 1.915" [(38mm^2+30.4mm^2)^.5]/25.4

The math is the old pythagorean theorem (a squared + b squared = c squared). The conversion ratio of mm to inches is 25.4:1.

Or an easier way = 340/38*25.4.

Either way, you get to 227 ppi. By comparison, the iPad Air 2 is 264 ppi.
 
Apple suggests that all content created for the Apple Watch should be "lightweight," as the device is designed for simple interactions that are "accessible and dismissible quickly and easily, for both privacy and usability." Apps must "respect the context" in which the user accesses them, "briefly, frequently, and on a small display."
Click to expand...

Translation: "The battery life kind of sucks, please make us look as good as you can."
 
May be Apple will load a Nano Pet app on there so the watch will have some use after the honeymoon is over in a couple weeks after purchasing.
 
rGiskard said:
Hmmm, I get a different (more plausible) result using this calculator:

312 x 390, 42mm (1.65"): 303 ppi
272 x 340, 38mm(1.50"): 290 ppi
Click to expand...

I get 227. Remember, you need to input the diagonal length of the screen. For the 38mm version, it is 1.915" [38mm^2+30.4mm^2)^0.5]/25.4 = 1.915

Granted, this is low-end because I didn't factor in the bezel, but I think somewhere around 250-270 is plausible.
 
I suspect that the leading "killer app" for this (aside from fitness) will be Apple Pay - because sometimes lifting your phone is too much work. Especially those that upgrades from a 4" phone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back