Bad Apple: Sport should have sapphire

[magicMac]

If the OP is so disappointed the apple watch sport doesn't have a heavy durable sapphire display (very useful when going for a run /sarcasm) why doesn't he take it back and buy a sport watch with sapphire display (for $350) from one of the other manufacturers... Oh wait there aren't any.

I've worn my apple watch sport daily for almost a month and bashed it a fair few times and not a scratch on it so I think apple have done a good job with the lightweight ion-x glass.

Sapphire might be more scratch resistant but it is far more likely to shatter when dropped. Given the usage of the sport watch and the lower cost - it might not be handled with as much care as the heavier, fashionable and more expensive watch that the stainless/sapphire model is appealing to.

Haters got to hate.

 

[thatappleguytoday]

Never said I was disappointed, just offering some conversation instead of the "when is my watch shipping" threads.

It's not about "you get what you pay for"..like I said I had the SS watch for a few weeks but prefer the look of the SG sport.

Most $350/$400 watches come with sapphire watch faces correct? I'm asking seriously because even with being a daily watch wearer, still not sure what major brands use.

Will be interesting to see what the future holds for the Apple Watch

 

[SarZ]

Here's an article which explains why Apple used Ion-X screen on the Sport model

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2015/03/...etween-sapphire-and-ion-x-glass-displays.html

 

[jds4300]

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.

Neither watch display material nor band material was built to last. That should be clearly obvious by now. Apple obviously cut every corner possible to greatly maximize their profit margins and give those consumers blinded by Apple branding the shaft. As is apparent, the Apple Watch is simply a shiny toy with a very short lifespan in real world use.

 

[Michael CM1]

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.

I'm a geology student, so let me provide some insight. Any material can get scratched. We have the Mohs Hardness Scale that indicates resistance to scratching, on which sapphire (a variety of corundum) is a 9, compared to diamond topping it at 10. "Glass" is usually in the 5.5 range, but it depends if gets different minerals added, such as quartz, which is a 7.

That's taking one mineral and trying to scratch the other or scratching a scratch plate, which also has a hardness of 5.5. This does not mean that these minerals are completely scratch-resistant against softer minerals. If someone trips and falls on concrete or any other hard ground with a rough texture, there's a chance it can get scratched because of the force applied. Same thing if you were to -- now this is ridiculous -- drag your watch behind you down the highway. Yeah, the forces applied at 70 mph might just leave a scratch.

The same principle is behind cracking. Don't test the scratch resistance of a watch by bashing it with a hammer. That's totally different. The whole sapphire vs. glass of any sort benefit is sapphire should be more scratch-resistant. But it's not a guarantee. It's just like the pigs making their homes out of straw, sticks and bricks. That brick house could still get blown down if the big bad wolf controlled a tornado.

 

[Mac 128]

Sapphire might be more scratch resistant but it is far more likely to shatter when dropped. Given the usage of the sport watch and the lower cost - it might not be handled with as much care as the heavier, fashionable and more expensive watch that the stainless/sapphire model is appealing to.

The Sport Watch is also lighter than the Stainless Steel. That alone could make a difference with the impact in protecting the crystal. However, of the YouTube Videos that have tested dropping the Watch, both watches have shattered in some tests. Neither exhibiting more resilience than the other. However, there seem to be a few more videos of the Sport shattering. In the end, with the entire crystal sitting on top of the watch with exposed edges, it would seem both are equally as prone to shatter from relatively minor drops. So give me scratch resistance any day, since that's the most likely scenario a watch wearer is going to face while wearing it.

 

[magicMac]

Neither watch display material nor band material was built to last. That should be clearly obvious by now. Apple obviously cut every corner possible to greatly maximize their profit margins and give those consumers blinded by Apple branding the shaft. As is apparent, the Apple Watch is simply a shiny toy with a very short lifespan in real world use.

Have you tried buying a swatch watch before? I think they're built to last exactly a week until they start getting pretty well scratched and discoloured.

For the record, since apple make watches now I believe that classifies as being a watch manufacturer.

 

[Mac 128]

Here's an article which explains why Apple used Ion-X screen on the Sport model

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2015/03/...etween-sapphire-and-ion-x-glass-displays.html

Sorry, they are not quoting Apple. They are giving their opinion as to why Apple made that decision. In reality they have no idea.

 

[magicMac]

Personally after getting my hands on an apple watch sport I can say it's very well made. Very profitable ? I'm sure but that doesn't automatically = low quality.

 

[Smileyboy]

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.

This title should read... I should have bought a SS model....

Why buy a less expensive model and then complain that you wish it was made with unicorn horns?!

 

[KPOM]

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.

We have yet to see an actual example of a scratched sapphire crystal. Some have noticed the oleophobic coating wear down, and I think we saw one example of a chip.

 

[Mac 128]

Personally after getting my hands on an apple watch sport I can say it's very well made. Very profitable ? I'm sure but that doesn't automatically = low quality.

I find all Apple products to be well made, even if some have engineering design defects that are ultimately rectified.

I will say that iFixit's tear down of the stainless and Sport has revealed the Sport to contain what appears to be lower quality items for the same parts in both watches.

 

[Knightcastle]

. 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.

They're never going to publicise its (apparent?) superiority over a more expensive model?

You can't "capitalize" on telling customers your cheap products are better than your more expensive ones?

Everyone knows the Ion-X is worse, having the difference in the two helps sell the mid range Watch.

 

[mistertomlinson]

I'm not so sure I agree the Sport model should have sapphire. I actually prefer the ion-X glass. I'm wearing my Sport model to work where it is sure to suffer some blunt force trauma from time to time. Sapphire would surely shatter under these conditions, but my watch actually has a fighting chance with ion-X glass (sapphire is brittle and while more scratch resistant, shatters easier). I would rather have scratches than a shattered screen.

 

[perezr10]

Like Garmins putting scratch proof sapphire on their $450 watches? Not.

 

[Newtons Apple]

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.

----------

There is no making some people happy, no matter what.

Apple simply needed to distinguish different models at different price levels. It is the same when you buy a new car off the lot. They will have the same model but with different options for the buyer to pick.

It is the way it has always been. It is called marketing and Apple does it quite well!

 

[Zxxv]

Due to its sports nature it should have a pop off replaceable screen.

then you can use your beat up one for workouts and your nice one for all other time.

wouldnt hurt them would it.

 

[b3arclaw]

There is no making some people happy, no matter what.

Apple simply needed to distinguish different models at different price levels. It is the same when you buy a new car off the lot. They will have the same model but with different options for the buyer to pick.

It is the way it has always been. It is called marketing and Apple does it quite well!

That was can agree on; there is no pleasing some people..

As far as distinguishing different price levels, they did a hell of a job. Starting at $349 up to $17,000.00.

I wonder if their marketing idea was most (not all) would fall somewhere in the middle around $600 and think they're getting a good deal because they're in middle ground of both models? Not quite the least expensive and not the Rose Gold?

 

[Newtons Apple]

That was can agree on; there is no pleasing some people..

As far as distinguishing different price levels, they did a hell of a job. Starting at $349 up to $17,000.00.

I wonder if their marketing idea was most (not all) would fall somewhere in the middle around $600 and think they're getting a good deal because they're in middle ground of both models? Not quite the least expensive and not the Rose Gold?

Not sure about how Apple does it but there is a LOT of information gathered to make these choices in marketing. I have been with Apple a long time and the only problem I see they have created for themselves is the larger iPhone 6+ took a toll on some of their iPad sales, but I am betting that Apple knew it would.

Being the most profitable and successful company on earth, I can not say they do not know what they are doing.

 

[b3arclaw]

Not sure about how Apple does it but there is a LOT of information gathered to make these choices in marketing. I have been with Apple a long time and the only problem I see they have created for themselves is the larger iPhone 6+ took a toll on some of their iPad sales, but I am betting that Apple knew it would.

Being the most profitable and successful company on earth, I can not say they do not know what they are doing.

I'm so glad they made the 6+. I'm incredibly happy with the size of it and I'm excited to see what the 6S+ has to offer.

 

[Newtons Apple]

I'm so glad they made the 6+. I'm incredibly happy with the size of it and I'm excited to see what the 6S+ has to offer.

Force touch and 2Gb ram will make many more happy. The Force Touch will open a lot of new features in the UI on the 6+S for sure.

Whatever is offers, I will be getting it as I can't help myself

 

[Mac 128]

I'm not so sure I agree the Sport model should have sapphire. I actually prefer the ion-X glass. I'm wearing my Sport model to work where it is sure to suffer some blunt force trauma from time to time. Sapphire would surely shatter under these conditions, but my watch actually has a fighting chance with ion-X glass (sapphire is brittle and while more scratch resistant, shatters easier). I would rather have scratches than a shattered screen.

Quoted as if from a textbook. Google "Apple Watch drop tests". There is clear evidence that neither the Ion-X nor the sapphire are any better at preventing the screen from shattering on impact. indeed there seem to be more videos of Sport's shattering than sapphire. In which case, I'd rather have better scratch resistance than not.

 

[phpmaven]

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.

"littered with people posting photos of scratched Sapphire screens?"
There are 3. And those seemed to be just marks in the Oleophobic coating.

 

[burgman]

The true marking genius of Apple is creating the need in customers to desire their products, by playing on the ego. Lots of ego in Apple customers and boy does Apple get it. Had Apple not incorporated the screen material into the marketing blitz then would this discussion exist? That's the genius of Apple PR.

 

[anez]

Had Apple not incorporated the screen material into the marketing blitz then would this discussion exist? That's the genius of Apple PR.

Considering there are only three differentiating factors between different models (screen, case material, band options) which have wildly different prices, I'm guessing it was always going to be a point of discussion.

I don't debate the effectiveness of the Apple marketing machine, but given that there's no difference between the Watches in terms of innards (like there is with, say, the Macbook Pro vs. the Macbook Air vs. the new Macbook), people are obviously going to fixate on whatever differences do exist.