Apple Watches smaller than I thought!

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Michael Scrip, May 2, 2015.

  1. Michael Scrip macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Location:
    NC
    #1
    I finally went to an Apple Store today to see the watch in-person. I was directed over to the demo watches over by the wall.

    Having never seen one in person... I didn't have any basis for size comparison. The watch I was playing with didn't seem big or small.

    Then I found out that all the demo watches were 42mm... and then I asked about the watches in the glass case.

    The 38mm seemed so tiny!

    An employee opened the secret drawer and let me try on both sizes. I will be ordering a 42mm for sure later this summer.

    When you only see something in photos online you don't have anything to compare it to. (I remember thinking the iPads seemed smaller in-person than I thought after seeing the launch video in 2010)

    I had it in my mind that the 42mm might be big and bulky.

    NOPE!
     
  2. LoveToMacRumors macrumors 68000

    LoveToMacRumors

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
  3. Aldaris macrumors 65816

    Aldaris

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake
    #3
    Couldn't agree more.

    Ordered 3 sight unseen, apart from AppleStore App. 2 38's and 1 42. When we opened the box for the 38, I was sure glad I ordered a 42 for myself.
     
  4. MartyCan macrumors 65816

    MartyCan

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Location:
    Near Toronto, ON
    #4
    I've already worn both. 38 is not bad but 42 makes more sense for me.
     
  5. BillyTrimble macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    #5
    Many people have smaller wrists and find the 42 is too bulky for them.

    I don't understand this 42 vs 38 competition. EVERYONE is different. Some want the 38, some want the 42. Some feel the 42 isn't big enough. Others feel the 38 is too big.

    What's the point in all these posts about what a given person prefers? What one prefers has absolutely no bearing on what another will prefer. Really silly stuff here, IMHO.
     
  6. MartyCan macrumors 65816

    MartyCan

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Location:
    Near Toronto, ON
    #6
    It's all anout the Trolls who start the threads with inflammatory titles hoping for a big response.
     
  7. uiop. macrumors 68020

    uiop.

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    #7
    42 covers most of my wrist, which I do not like. Ergo, 38 is perfect (for me) and allows me to put the $50 saved towards a spare band. Win, win.
     
  8. profmatt macrumors 65816

    profmatt

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    I got flamed, too, when I commented that the 42mm was a lot smaller in real life than I was expecting.

    You have to remember that any criticism of Apple or its senior staff or its products makes you an enemy of the people.
     
  9. Apples n' Stone macrumors 6502a

    Apples n' Stone

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Location:
    Greater-than-London (Maidstone, U.K)
    #9
    I went for the 38 simply down to the fact that the 42 eclipsed my entire wrist. The entire point of having two sizes is for people to be able to... wait for it lads... choose the right size for them. The fact this is even a subject for discussion is questionable.
     
  10. Twyntub macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    #10
    The 42mm is perfect for my wrist - and certainly small compared with oversized men's watches. The surprise for me was the size of the charger - it looks from the PR shots like it ought to be some huge mother ship than clamps on to the back of the watch but in reality is teeny-tiny.
     
  11. MacDavey macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    I had exactly the same experience. I was thinking the 38 would be best, but when I went to the store and tried them both, the 38 was tiny and the 42 perfect.

    The 42 seems a lot less chunky that I was expecting from seeing images online.
     
  12. whatos macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Location:
    Maranello Italy / California USA
    #12
    I think Apple's done an excellent job of sizing. Especially as a company that favors thin & small form factors with tiny screens as a basis for their smartphones. Only recently having moved into the modern era of larger displays, Apple is still uncomfortable with spacious screens as witnessed by rumors of slipping back and building another tiny 4" version.
     
  13. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #13
    As an owner of the 38mm, I can say I don't think it is tiny and I'd still like it a bit smaller.
     
  14. jannette macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Bishop's Stortford
    #14
    Me too! The 38mm looks big on me - I think 36mm would be great!
     
  15. largefarrva macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2012
    #15
    My wife got her 38mm on Thursday, and I was surprised at how small it looked. I was really hoping that it wouldn't be too small for me so I could just get a 38mm model since all the 42mm models are taking so long to ship, but nope not gonna happen because it's just too small for me. Apple needs to hurry the hell up and start producing more 42mm watches.
     
  16. respectabilia macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    #16
    I'm not a skinny guy but I've still got relatively thin wrists. 38mm was just about acceptable for me, actually looked better than 42mm and more like a discrete watch, less like a bulky sci-fi gadget.
     
  17. Fwingonga macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Location:
    Paris, France
    #17
    I won't have my watch until tomorrow, but from all the various shots I've seen I am really glad I settled for the 38mm. I have tiny wrists and I know that a 42mm on me would look as if I had stuck an iPhone on my wrist! ;)
     
  18. LoveToMacRumors macrumors 68000

    LoveToMacRumors

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #18
    My wrist is tiny, but the 38mm is just too tiny. Especially if you want to do stuff on the watch.
     
  19. j0han macrumors 6502

    j0han

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Location:
    Sweden
    #19
    The relevance is from person to person, some people tend to overcompensate the size for the watch for some reason ;) Joke aside. It's from person to person, depending on their wrist, their taste and so on. Im 168mm and i have order'd a 38mm Sport.
     
  20. aguyinokc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    #20
    You're not supposed to "do stuff on the watch"
     
  21. AbsoluteMustard macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Location:
    Boston, USA
    #21
    Then what do you do?

    The apps are hard enough to press on the 42mm
     
  22. RogerEast macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2015
    #22
    I'm a guy.

    I own the 38mm.

    I love the 38mm.

    Never considered the 42mm. Just too big for me.

    And no, it isn't too small to 'do things on,' seeing as I've been 'doing things' on my Watch for days.

    It'd be nice if people understood there really isn't a 'one size fits all' with the Watch. Hence the release of two different sizes. The 38mm is absolutely perfect for me. If Apple discontinued it for whatever reason and made 42mm the minimum, there's absolutely zero chance I'd upgrade.

    Measure your wrist. Use that credit card thread, which is amazingly accurate. Then decide what works for you. There is no 'right or wrong' watch. Only the one that's right or wrong for you personally.

    Long live the 38mm. And the 42mm, for those who prefer it.
     

Share This Page