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 Stands Up to 1,200m Swim Workout and 10m High Dive Test
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The point is that the Apple Watch is most emphatically not simply a "watch", just as the iPhone is not simply a "phone". The traditional functionality associated with those names is a tiny part of what these devices do. If you are hung up on saying it's "just a watch", and then applying the traditional definition of "watch" as though it has more than just a tiny bit of relevance, then you are missing most of the truth.
Why does the brittleness thing persist, despite some of the arguments made in the GTAT threads?
Brittleness is not directly related to Mohs hardness. There's a correlation in the case of some common materials, but it's not a causal relationship, and there are plenty of examples to the contrary. Spring steel is much harder than iron - it is certainly not more brittle. Hardness and rigidity are not the same thing.
Sapphire does have lower flexure than most (or all) glass formulations - glass can be very flexible. But in both cases, the material can be flexed to a breaking point (which is what we commonly consider "brittleness"), and both will break sooner if scratched than if they're pristine - that's why it's so easy to "cut" plate glass.
It's a matter of how the material is applied that matters, and what properties are most critical in a particular application. I'd argue that, day-to-day, scratch resistance is more important in a watch face than impact resistance.
When it comes to impact resistance, sapphire's scratch resistance is still a key property - it will be less likely than a softer material to have defects that lead to premature failure (scratches). It's more likely to flex to something resembling its theoretical maximum, while a scratched bit of glass will fracture at the point of weakness far sooner than a pristine bit of the same material.
Maybe sapphire watch covers depend more on the "inelegance" of brute-force engineering - just make the thing thick enough that it will not flex to the breaking point when exposed to a specified force. Make any kind of watch strong enough, and the real problem is that a force sufficient to break the watch may also do serious damage to the arm. Between pain, potentially permanent impairment of hand/arm function, and the price of U.S. medical care, I'm not going to give a damn whether my $900 watch survived.
I have no idea why the watch wouldn't last for 1200m or 12000m. Simply splashing the watch at the surface of the water I would think wouldn't cause any problems. After all, Apple says to run water over the watch to fix the crown problem, so I'm assuming simply splashing at the surface won't be an issue. Now take it 50ft underwater and let me know.
This I understand.
The Apple watch is a smartwatch; just like other smartwatches. Smartwatches are a different category of watch. The additional functionality doesn't change the fact that it's a watch.Changing the tone of what I actually said by adding 'simply' doesn't add gravity to your assertion. It's still a watch. The first function mentioned on the Apple watch page? The watch function. When the watch hits Reserve Mode it reverts to it's most basic function. The watch function.
The 'just a watch' comment. I'm just going to chalk that up to more editorializing of my actual comments.
The iPhone? Land lines, dumb phones, and yes smartphones are phones. Just like with the Apple Watch, the additional functionality of smartphones doesn't change the fact that they are indeed phones. I'm not diminishing the added functionality of the smart watches and phones. I'm just saying the 'smart' descriptor doesn't negate the reality of watch or phone.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Great technical definition of brittleness. What I think just about everyone means when they toss around the word is shatter-resistance. Sapphire shatters more readily than GG. It's not about flexing; it's about the ramifications of dropping something with one kind of material vs. another and not wanting to then have to go spend a wad of cash to get rid of the cracks.
The use of sapphire seems to primarily be about resisting scratches better than glass. It should do that better than glass. But the problem many have with portable mobile electronics is not so much scratching as it is shattering. If you could scan thousands and thousands of posts about iDevices looking for those unhappy about scratches vs. those unhappy about a shattered screen, you'd likely find that there's no contest there at all. One is not really that common while the other seems to be very common.
So spin brittle as a poor choice of words. But I bet the intended meaning of that choice was to talk to the concept of shatter resistance, which, in general, still means GG wins in just about any fair use case.
Interestingly, my own watch has a sapphire crystal (not glass). But it's a classic watch with a raised metal bezel that acts a bumper against most impacts. The concern of shattering a relatively tiny screen on an
watch may be much less, especially since this is a mobile device that is strapped to an appendage that is pretty good at avoiding getting struck in ways that might shatter GG or Sapphire.Great technical definition of brittleness. What I think just about everyone means when they toss around the word is shatter-resistance. Sapphire shatters more readily than GG. It's not about flexing; it's about the ramifications of dropping something with one kind of material vs. another and not wanting to then have to go spend a wad of cash to get rid of the cracks.
The use of sapphire seems to primarily be about resisting scratches better than glass. It should do that better than glass. But the problem many have with portable mobile electronics is not so much scratching as it is shattering. If you could scan thousands and thousands of posts about iDevices looking for those unhappy about scratches vs. those unhappy about a shattered screen, you'd likely find that there's no contest there at all. One is not really that common while the other seems to be very common.
So spin brittle as a poor choice of words. But I bet the intended meaning of that choice was to talk to the concept of shatter resistance, which, in general, still means GG wins in just about any fair use case.
Interestingly, my own watch has a sapphire crystal (not glass). But it's a classic watch with a raised metal bezel that acts a bumper against most impacts. The concern of shattering a relatively tiny screen on an
I weighed the options of Ion-x VS sapphire. While Ion-X is more flexible and hence more capable of handling an impact shock when dropped, the likelihood of dropping a device strapped to your wrist is negligible, unless you are very clumsy putting yours on. Sapphire glass does shatter more easily, but not easy enough in the sense that you will bang your wrist hard enough into something that will shatter. If you do manage to shatter the crystal, then you likely also need a doctor. With that being said Ion-X's softness makes it more vulnerable to scratching, which is more likely going to happen with a device that is strapped to your wrist. Clear winner in my eyes is sapphire for watch, and Ion-X for iPhone and other portable devices. I don't regret my decision either.
I'll be impressed when they attach an Apple watch to the rotor of a motorboat and the watch is found to be ticking after a run around the harbor
You are right. It seems I am conflating hardness and brittleness. Maybe I need a better thesaurus for the equivalent descriptive terminology.
But afaik sapphire and gorilla glass (Ion-X) of equal dimensions exhibit different strengths relative to their composition. Sapphire exhibiting superior scratch resistance because of it's hardness and GG superior fracture resistance because of its flexibility. This is from the perspective of a phone panel. The smaller dimensions of the watch panel could change the equation some. I've seen the unscientific impact test that cracked a sapphire screen where GG survived.You're also right about the thickness solution. A thicker panel, especially one on a small watch face would definitely lessen the chance of fracture. Not sure if Apple used a sapphire panel as think as traditional watches.
The fact that the Apple Watch survived these tests is really only useful if we know that Apple would service or replace it under warranty had it not survived the tests. Otherwise this is at best just mildly interesting.
They are "phones" and "watches" and all that as far as the basic fundamental abilities they provide in relation to already existing understanding that people have of how these devices would be worn/carried/used in general. Despite the naming and the fundamental abilities, these days they are really more computing devices that also support those fundamental functions that they are named after.This I understand.
Changing the tone of what I actually said by adding 'simply' doesn't add gravity to your assertion. It's still a watch. The first function mentioned on the Apple watch page? The watch function. When the watch hits Reserve Mode it reverts to it's most basic function. The watch function.
The 'just a watch' comment. I'm just going to chalk that up to more editorializing of my actual comments.
And the toy cars of your kid or his little car with pedals and your own car all are called "cars", yet they're really not the same... Likewise, a chair and a wheelchair are both chairs, yet their functions are not at all the same - the main function of the wheelchair is to move while the main function of the chair is to remain static. Human language is complex enough that you can't pull part of words and pretend they're the same because some parts match.
The phone part of the smartphone is just an addition, not the main component. Historically, smartphone come from PDA. Meaning that the smart part has existed standalone for a decade before the phone part was grafted on it. For instance, I also own an Android smartphone, but I have no SIM card in it. So I can't use it to phone at all. Yet, it's still pretty useful. The phone function in smartphones is usually a minority use case.
The same holds for the smartwatch. The 'watch' part of the word is mostly marketing. It's purpose is to identify the device with existing devices, to facilitate adoption. Moreover, it allows Apple to market it as a luxury device, since that's what watches are (they have no real use anymore nowadays).
But the technical and objective reality of the device is the smart part. Sure, it can tell the time. But so can smartphones, computers or parking meters - and they're not watches. Its capabilities all come from the "smart" part, being a computer on your wrist is what it truly is.
----------
Another data of importance is reflectance. It's lower for Ion-x. And the OLED panel is not that bright though it has excellent contrast. Some tests comparing both the Sport and regular version have noted that the later was harder to read in bright daylight as a result.
Then again, those dive computers costs $1000+, have low resolution displays, don't have anywhere near the processing power/battery life ratio of an Apple Watch, and are a little too big, heavy, and ugly to wear with a suit.
Image
They don't have the processing power and screen resolution because it's not needed for what they do. And not all of them are huge! My suunto stinger (200m waterproof, with buttons and a speaker, price 350 euros when I bought it) is like a regular watch, i wear it when I dive and during my normal work day. It has 10 years, battery lasts for a couple of years and yes...I wear it with a suit! If the Apple Watch 2 is waterproof I'll buy it. =)
Attachments
Which means that most of the price and available space can go towards water resistance...
Now, if you must have that level of waterproofness on top of a powerful processor and a big screen and the huge battery to power all that (like in most recent Apple products, the battery is probably made to exploit every bit of available space), you're going to have a watch that will be much more expensive and very bulky.
You can't really compare both products. Your suunto is built for a single purpose and is very good at it - and it has to, because your life can depend on it. Since it's mostly single purpose, its electronics can be very efficient and small.
The Apple Watch, like a smartphone or a computer, is a generic purpose device, there is no way it can be as efficient on a single task. Just like your CPU is much less powerful and efficient at doing 3D (or bitcoins) than your GPU (which itself is much less powerful or efficient than an ASIC for bitcoins).
Harder, yes, but to impossible. I find myself still able to read the watch outside.
I've never owned a watch that I didn't scratch the face on, so I ordered the sapphire version and got AppleCare for it. I think sapphire breaks more easily, though, so I'm not sure which would have been better in this case.
I'll probably get mocked for asking this but why would you even consider wearing a piece of tech like this into the water? Is simply removing it from your risk that much effort? Do you need to know what time it is in the pool?
Because you probably have a higher probability of it being stolen in your locker than of damaging it in the water ?
Which really makes something like a watch all that much more useful when it's just not being used.Or you could just leave it home for the day.
And because every single buyer of these watches takes it deep underwater, a huge portion of the $1000 has gone into making it extremely water proof. Unlike the Apple Watch, where being water proof is about at #20 in the list of priorities.
----------
There is the level of water that Apple guarantees the watch will survive, and there is the level that these guys tested it, and there is anything in between. I sure feel more confident that a watch will survive things that slightly exceed what is guaranteed, if these watches die.