Bad Apple: Sport should have sapphire

[thatappleguytoday]

I understand keeping the cost down and making a device more profitable, but a $350+ USD device that is clearly advertised to the more active crowd would get rewarded with a watch face that is just as durable as the activity that active user is doing.

It's clearly a sport watch. Sporty colorful bands, and noticeably lighter. It's made for the active user. But give us a watch face that can scratch very easily. That makes sense.

Please don't give me "you should of bought the SS model" jibber jabber. I had the SS watch since launch, but prefer the sporty SG watch for my lifestyle.

Love Apple, but some new members need to be at that roundtable.

 

[iConnected]

I'm afraid you will only ever get what you pay for.

The differences between Ion-X glass and sapphire crystal were made clear - and discussed at great length here, there and everywhere else - long before pre-order day.

 

[iamasmith]

That glass may actually be better for heavy active use.

Sapphire is more scratch resistant but it can chip. It's possible that the Ion X glass is more knock resistant?

Maybe on balance a scratch is better than a chip or smash if you are doing a lot of heavy workouts.. otherwise that Sapphire crystal is the better option but they are expensive to make.

 

[acctman]

I understand keeping the cost down and making a device more profitable, but a $350+ USD device that is clearly advertised to the more active crowd would get rewarded with a watch face that is just as durable as the activity that active user is doing.

It's clearly a sport watch. Sporty colorful bands, and noticeably lighter. It's made for the active user. But give us a watch face that can scratch very easily. That makes sense.

Please don't give me "you should of bought the SS model" jibber jabber. I had the SS watch since launch, but prefer the sporty SG watch for my lifestyle.

Love Apple, but some new members need to be at that roundtable.

The Sport's is durable... I find it funny how everyone was saying Sapphire can't be scratched but this forum is littered with people posting photos of scratched Sapphire screens. The price $349 for the AW Sport is comparable to the Polar, Fitbit Surge and other higher end fitness watches that start around $200+ ... You definitely get a little but more for your money with the AW. The sports screen is similar to what's on the iPhone 6.

For me i ended up getting the Spigen Rugged Armor case and that's just because I spend a lot of time at the gym and for about 2wks I was slamming the face of my watch against the metal supports when reaching to change out weights. Most fitness watches have raised bezels to prevent that. I take the case off when I'm not at the gym.

 

[iConnected]

If you want the lighter weight of the Ion-X glass with the superior scratch resistance of the sapphire crystal, I'm afraid it's just not available (yet).

Sapphire is more scratch resistant but it can chip. It's possible that the Ion X glass is more knock resistant?

Is also spot on - Ion-X glass is more likely to survive a very hard knock.

The Apple Watch, as with all things in life, is about compromises.

 

[HowlinAl]

If you want the lighter weight of the Ion-X glass with the superior scratch resistance of the sapphire crystal, I'm afraid it's just not available (yet).

Who wants this? The "lighter weight of the Ion-X glass"? Really? Is there anyone out there saying "I could go for this sapphire ... If only it weren't so heavy"?

 

[MaulRx]

It's not like the ion-x glass is made of clay, it will stand up to most common abuse you may encounter.

 

[ChinaRye]

Unfortunately, they needed to differentiate between the Sport and the Watch beyond aluminum and SS. If the ion-x glass is a worry, get a cheap screen protector. I know that is not ideal, but it will at least give peace of mind.

 

[iConnected]

Who wants this? The "lighter weight of the Ion-X glass"? Really? Is there anyone out there saying "I could go for this sapphire ... If only it weren't so heavy"?

I get you - but some sports types want the lightest possible clothing / accessories / wearables, which I guess is where Apple was coming from. That and the superior resistance to hard knocks.

Keep in mind that Apple is equally obsessive about making everything as small and light as possible - eg the "reinvention" of the notebook > MacBook.

Look after the micrograms and you take care of the kilograms.

 

[HowlinAl]

It was the stories of scuffed and scratched screens on the Sport that made me ultimately decide to change my order to the SS. I've seen photos of watches with screen protectors that look pretty good... I haven't followed closely but I see some photos where I can't see the protector at all. Any Sport owner should get something like that immediately.

----------

I get you - but some sports types want the lightest possible clothing / accessories / wearables, which I guess is where Apple was coming from. That and the superior resistance to hard knocks.

Apple wanted to make the Sport watch as inexpensive as the could, of course. That is where they were coming from. I like Apple as much as the next guy, but c'mon. I want to meet the athlete who says they could have performed better if only it weren't for that darn sapphire screen on their watch.

 

[iConnected]

Who wants this? The "lighter weight of the Ion-X glass"? Really? Is there anyone out there saying "I could go for this sapphire ... If only it weren't so heavy"?

The OP preferred the Sport, as said they "prefer the sporty SG watch for my lifestyle". The only differences between Sport and SS are materials, weight and price. Price wasn't the deciding factor, which only leaves materials (we know the Sport doesn't have their choice of display material) and weight.

 

[Newtons Apple]

I understand keeping the cost down and making a device more profitable, but a $350+ USD device that is clearly advertised to the more active crowd would get rewarded with a watch face that is just as durable as the activity that active user is doing.

It's clearly a sport watch. Sporty colorful bands, and noticeably lighter. It's made for the active user. But give us a watch face that can scratch very easily. That makes sense.

Please don't give me "you should of bought the SS model" jibber jabber. I had the SS watch since launch, but prefer the sporty SG watch for my lifestyle.

Love Apple, but some new members need to be at that roundtable.

Apple makes money on those watches. Apple did not use Ion glass to make them more profit. This model was made so more people could afford it.

Like another member said in this thread, you get what you pay for!

 

[Switchback666]

Bah imo the sport should have been made out of titanium with a proper Sapphire screen, would have been almost as light as aluminum.

 

[HowlinAl]

I think it's reasonable for Sport owners to accept that whacking the day lights out of their watch will result in a permanent dent, and that over a couple years they will probably accumulate a few. It's not reasonable to have your screen scratched and scuffed as easily as it seems is possible on the Sport.

Put a screen protector on it.

 

[iConnected]

Bah imo the sport should have been made out of titanium with a proper Sapphire screen, would have been almost as light as aluminum.

The Apple Watch stealth edition.

Who knows enough to put a price estimate on that?

 

[shenfrey]

Sport version is just a fancy name for budget apple watch, you get what you pay for really. Sapphire would of upped the cost too much.

 

[Knightcastle]

If the Sport had sapphire sales for the $200~ more expensive Watch would have suffered.

Few people would buy it - why would you? $200 for a slightly shinier (and scratch prone) finish, and a ceramic back?

The sport was excused sapphire to set it apart from the more expensive models.

Few options:

1. Buy AppleCare
2. Use a screen protector (cringe)
3. Check out iFixIt's guide to replacing the screen. Either create your own SapphireSport amalgamation or rest easy knowing if anything does happen to your Ion-X it's easily replaced

 

[b3arclaw]

Sport version is just a fancy name for budget apple watch, you get what you pay for really. Sapphire would of upped the cost too much.

"Budget Apple Watch"? LOL
Do you know what the profit margin on the watches (especially the Sport) are?

 

[Knightcastle]

"Budget Apple Watch"? LOL
Do you know what the profit margin on the watches (especially the Sport) are?

How does it being profitable make it any more/less "budget"?

It's the cheapest one. It's the budget one. It's a pretty fair comment.

 

[b3arclaw]

How does it being profitable make it any more/less "budget"?

It's the cheapest one. It's the budget one. It's a pretty fair comment.

Perhaps I should clarify my last comment.
Calling it a "budget" version makes it seem cheap. It's not cheap by any means. It's a luxury item, at the end of the day. I'm not rolling in thousands of dollars and buying a Rose Gold edition.
"If you added sapphire glass it'd cost more". I doubt it. Even if they added sapphire glass to the watch, they would still make a VERY healthy profit margin.
Compare the cost of making a sports band vs retail price.

 

[Newtons Apple]

"Budget Apple Watch"? LOL
Do you know what the profit margin on the watches (especially the Sport) are?

It does not matter what the profit margin is. The sport is the budget Apple Watch. By keeping the cost down more people can enjoy.

So many people feel like they are entitled to more if a company makes money. Our educational system has done a great job with a lot of people.

 

[SarZ]

In my opinion a "quality" watch should have stainless steel and a sapphire screen as a minimum

 

[b3arclaw]

It does not matter what the profit margin is. The sport is the budget Apple Watch. By keeping the cost down more people can enjoy.

So many people feel like they are entitled to more if a company makes money. Our educational system has done a great job with a lot of people.

Potato, potato. We don't have to agree.

Apple could add sapphire to the Sport version and people would still bitch and moan about how they want more because they're paying a premium price.

I knew exactly what I was paying for when I pre-ordered my 42mm sport.
A first-gen product in a whole new area of wearable technology. $400? Not such a concern. It's not a $10,000 Rolex and I don't intend to treat it as one. However, I wouldn't scoff at people who are buying the $400 watches.

----------

In my opinion a "quality" watch should have stainless steel and a sapphire screen as a minimum

I don't disagree with you either. As a minimum if you're going for an investment piece, absolutely..I don't intend my AWS to be an investment piece. It's a test dummy for my interest in watches as wearable technology. Never got a Pebble but I've been using the Jawbone UP 24 and love it. Curious to see what the future holds.

 

[Mac 128]

If the Sport had sapphire sales for the $200~ more expensive Watch would have suffered.

Few people would buy it - why would you? $200 for a slightly shinier (and scratch prone) finish, and a ceramic back?

The sport was excused sapphire to set it apart from the more expensive models.

If that's so, what has Apple done to set apart the $17K Edition from the stainless Watch, when all they did otherwise was add a $1,000 worth of gold?

The reason the Sport does not have a sapphire crystal is because Apple had poor sapphire yields as reported well before we knew how the watch were going to be made. In order to guarantee they had enough sapphire for the higher end models, and could mass produce enough of the lower end models they went with Ion-x glass and the story that it's lighter to make the Sport as light as possible. There is no mention of how superior Ion-x glass is over sapphire, nor how much more impact resistant it is. If that were truly a selling point, you'd think Apple would capitalize on it.

The Sport has already been shown to be far less durable than the sapphire crystal watch, as the Sport shattered following a short drop, and the sapphire did not from the same drop height. My personal experience with sapphire and hardened mineral glass watch crystals supports those drop tests. Further the idea that anybody needs impact resistance of this level on a Sport is not realistic. All watches need scratch resistance more than anything since watches tend to brush against things routinely, and since any impact that could shatter the glass is also likely to injure the wearer.

 

[chabig]

I understand keeping the cost down and making a device more profitable, but a $350+ USD device that is clearly advertised to the more active crowd would get rewarded with a watch face that is just as durable as the activity that active user is doing.

It's clearly a sport watch. Sporty colorful bands, and noticeably lighter. It's made for the active user. But give us a watch face that can scratch very easily. That makes sense.

Please don't give me "you should of bought the SS model" jibber jabber. I had the SS watch since launch, but prefer the sporty SG watch for my lifestyle.

Love Apple, but some new members need to be at that roundtable.

In summary, you want the high end features but don't want to pay for them. Did I nail it?