Most Europeans can not think in 2 units. When you talk miles, gallons, Fahrenheit or even AM and PM they get completely confused. They can't even tell you how many inches are in a foot!
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 Series 8 Model Rumored to Feature 5% Larger Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I still don’t know why I keep buying apple watches, 85% of the “time” they don’t work as intended and now I found out that you can’t even swim with them despite me using them the swimming workout on apple fitness 🤷 my last vacation I came back from, it just sat on my wrist rebooting endlessly making me wish I had my mechanical watch.
I hope the battery life changes, that is the only thing holding me back from getting one. I can’t be charging it daily…charging a phone is already a lot.
If you find charging a watch overwhelming how on earth could you manage with an electric car! Better hope those internal combustion engines stick around.
It’s time to make a smaller watch. Large screen, small body. Something the size of a Cartier Santos.
To be fair… Those freedom units also makes it much more complicated than it needs to be. Anyone can learn either system, but the metrics/SI is just more simple and thought through.
12 inch = 1 foot
3 feet = 1 yard
1760 yards = 1 mile…
1 gallon = 230.933.. cubic inches = 0.1337… cubic foot = 16 cups
1000 mm = 100 cm = 1 m = 0.001 km…
1 m3 = 1000 L = 1000 dm3 etc…
no need to complicate it.
Last edited:
Those are very nice renders, but there’s no chance in hell the Apple Watch will be that thin anytime soon.
I am still rocking the AW4, it works great and tracks all my bike rides through strava flawlessly.
Apple need to put focus on the software, make measurements more accurate, give us a personal AI trainer that goes way beyond the glorified speech to text SIRI.
Something that helps us organise our life better by learning to know us in a offline method so your data is not out there. helping you to train better and more accurate for your needs, helping you with chores and reminders based on GPS and your habbits when you are at these places.
Make the smartwatch actually Smart!
- Occational handsfree call
- Tracking excersizes via the Strava app
- checking Crypto stats.
Apple need to put focus on the software, make measurements more accurate, give us a personal AI trainer that goes way beyond the glorified speech to text SIRI.
Something that helps us organise our life better by learning to know us in a offline method so your data is not out there. helping you to train better and more accurate for your needs, helping you with chores and reminders based on GPS and your habbits when you are at these places.
Make the smartwatch actually Smart!
Last edited:
Sounds like you want to eat your cake and have it too…
Imo, consumer oriented mass produced devices come with pluses and minuses and each of us has our own unique list. The way I think if it, I’ll buy a mass produced device if the positives outweigh the negatives / compromises.
It just sounds like an Apple Watch isn't for you, which is totally fine.
Get rid of the AW and get into proper watches. You’ll find much more enjoyment I think. I wear an AW most of the time but when I put one of my mechanicals back on for a day or two I realise how much nicer they are to wear. The AW will never replace that feeling and I’m far from alone in that opinion which is great for the Watch industry
It’s totally fine not to need the AW btw.
I agree. Most people don’t realize what a time investment it takes to set up an Apple Watch properly for the first time. It took me about 4 full days to get mine to do what I wanted it to. It doesn’t “just work” as Apple likes to say. If that’s not something you want to do, the Apple Watch isn’t going to be a good experience for you. It’s also not a status symbol, unlike many mechanical watches.Get rid of the AW and get into proper watches. You’ll find much more enjoyment I think. I wear an AW most of the time but when I put one of my mechanicals back on for a day or two I realise how much nicer they are to wear. The AW will never replace that feeling and I’m far from alone in that opinion which is great for the Watch industry
It’s totally fine not to need the AW btw.
It’s actually only 26.17% bigger. Math is as follows.
The screen is almost a square, and the length is diagonal. So, each edge should be:
Triangle is 1:1:sqrt(2), i.e, 1:1:1.414
45/1.414 = 31.82 mm
32.83^2 = 1012.8 mm^2
1.99 inch = 50.546 mm
50.546/1.414 = 35.747 mm
35.747^2 = 1277.85 mm^2
(1277.9 / 1012.8) - 1 * 100% = 26.17% bigger
Last edited:
Some of us do.
More of us should.
The metric system is an easy win, for length and mass, at least. We took a step in the right direction in, what, the 70's? But it was beaten down by people who were convinced converting wouldn't work and then did their best to make sure it wouldn't work.
The 45mm Series 7 Apple Watch has a screen of 396 x 484 pixels. That's really quite a bit off from square (turns out it's 9:11, BTW).
Let's really do the math...
Apple's technical specifications for the 45mm Series 7 reports:
396 by 484 pixels
1143 sq mm display area
and Wikipedia reports the diagonally measured screen size of the 45mm Series 7 to be 48.29mm
Computing the width, height, and area of the screen from this, we get:
# angle = math.atan2(height_px, width_px)
angle = math.atan2(484, 396)
angle = 0.8850668158886104
# width_mm = diag_mm * math.cos(angle)
width_mm = 48.29 * math.cos(0.8850668158886104)
width_mm = 30.579052891523215
# height_mm = diag_mm * math.sin(angle)
height_mm = 48.29 * math.sin(0.8850668158886104)
height_mm = 37.37439797852837
# area_in_mm = width_mm * height_mm
area_in_mm = 30.579052891523215 * 37.37439797852837
area_in_mm = 1142.8736925742573
(Ridiculous number of decimal places because I'm just letting Python do all the math)
That 1142.87... result seems to match Apple's officially reported 1143 sq mm, so assuming we're working with properly square pixels, that nails down the screen size pretty accurately. 48.29mm is 1.9011811 inches, and the article discusses a 1.901 inch screen on the 45mm Series 7 - close enough.
The rumored screen is a 1.99 inch screen, which would be 50.546mm. Assuming the same aspect ratio as the existing screen (and, once again, square pixels), we can re-run the math above with a 50.546mm screen and we get:
width_mm = 50.546 * math.cos(0.8850668158886104)
width_mm = 32.0076373463436
height_mm = 50.546 * math.sin(0.8850668158886104)
height_mm = 39.12044564553106
area_in_mm = 32.0076373463436 * 39.12044564553106
area_in_mm = 1252.153037049505
Series 7 screen is 1142.87 sq mm and proposed Series 8 (1.99") screen is 1252.15 sq mm. Doing the math:
((1252.153037049505 / 1142.8736925742573) - 1) * 100
= 9.561804177074219
So, it's an increase in area of approximately 9.56%, which is much closer to 10% that @lucas stated, and quite a bit off from either the 5% the article stated or the 15.14% you calculated.
By the way, running the numbers through the screen size script I normally use, I get this for the current screen:
48.29mm at 396w x 484h ==> 30.57905mmW x 37.3744mmH (9.0:11.0*44, 0.82:1) x 328.93105dpi
And this for the new screen:
50.546mm at 414w x 506h ==> 32.00764mmW x 39.12045mmH (9.0:11.0*46, 0.82:1) x 328.53409dpi
Exact same aspect ratio, and pretty close on the DPI. The minor difference in DPI I expect comes down to the actual screen size being something slightly different than 1.99 inches given in the article. Assuming they're not changing the pixel size... let's see...
# screen_size -v -m 50.485 414 506
50.485mm at 414w x 506h ==> 31.96901mmW x 39.07323mmH (9.0:11.0*46, 0.82:1) x 328.93105dpi
That hits the same exact DPI as the S7 screen, using a screen measurement of 50.485mm. That's 1.98759843 inches. So, I'd guess the 1.99 inch number quoted in the article should be closer to 1.9876 inches (or just go with 50.485mm, because that's probably how it's written in the specs at the factory).
Sounds like the real number is in the vicinity of 1.9876, and one source rounded that up to 1.99, and then another source rounded that up to 2 inches.
By the way, if the screen was 50.485mm (1.98759843 inches) diagonal (to have the same DPI), the ratio to the S7 screen would be 1.092975, or about 9.3% larger.
Last edited:
Don't need a new design. Give us more watch faces please Apple! Or at least open it up to folks with some design sense. Most of the watch faces are lack vitality, inspiration and aren't overly well designed. Even their utilitarian value is hampered by the constraints Apple places on you for the amount of things you can place on each watch face.
Thank you for your dedication and the exact math!
I am buying the big one this year just for this.
