Can someone explain the need for a ceramic back?

[cleirac]

Yeah, what happened to "Think Different"?

I am going to sell this again , how about the most gorgeous SQUARE WATCH (take note, I said SQUARE WATCH, not square smartwatch). Already considered an art and an icon - a masterpiece that respects the tradition and story of time. I made up this terrible whole thing. But works everytime and shut up the square watch haters IRL.

 

[Julien]

I meant source that the ceramic reference is just a coat. If it was merely a coat it wouldn't say "ceramic back", because it wouldn't be a ceramic back.

Apple doesn't say it's a ceramic back. Apple says it's a cover. A cover is a lot like a coating and not some solid piece of ceramic.


Source: Apple
https://www.apple.com/watch/technology/

...On the back of the case, a ceramic cover with sapphire lenses...

 

[Lennyvalentin]

Apple doesn't say it's a ceramic back.

Well actually they do say it's a ceramic back, it says so right on the Watch itself. You even posted an image in this very thread where you can see where it says "ceramic back" on the steel Watch.

So do you have a source for your speculation it's not actually a ceramic back, but rather just a coat, or not? The sport Watch does have a hardcoat on its back (or at least over the transparent windows), but that doesn't mean the steel Watch does too.

 

[Julien]

Well actually they do say it's a ceramic back, it says so right on the Watch itself. You even posted an image in this very thread where you can see where it says "ceramic back" on the steel Watch.

So do you have a source for your speculation it's not actually a ceramic back, but rather just a coat, or not? The sport Watch does have a hardcoat on its back (or at least over the transparent windows), but that doesn't mean the steel Watch does too.

I provided a quote and link to the Apple Watch web site. All you had to do is click on it and read. Now here is a picture. Also before the site was updated in November Apple referred to the cover as a coating.

Now are you going to ask for any other sources besides Apple?

 

[Lennyvalentin]

I provided a quote and link to the Apple Watch web site. All you had to do is click on it and read.

Always funny when people dig in and decide to be purposefully obtuse; it says ceramic back on the watch itself. Why would it say "ceramic back" if it's not actually ceramic? It says "stainless steel" too, are we to infer from that it's merely vapor deposited steel on top of another material?

And yeah, obviously "back" refers to the round cover on the rear side of the case; "back" and "cover" can be seen as interchangeable descriptions, I think most would agree.

So I take it you actually don't have a source for the claim the ceramic back isn't really made out of ceramic material then?

 

[Julien]

Always funny when people dig in and decide to be purposefully obtuse; it says ceramic back on the watch itself. Why would it say "ceramic back" if it's not actually ceramic? It says "stainless steel" too, are we to infer from that it's merely vapor deposited steel on top of another material?

And yeah, obviously "back" refers to the round cover on the rear side of the case; "back" and "cover" can be seen as interchangeable descriptions, I think most would agree.

So I take it you actually don't have a source for the claim the ceramic back isn't really made out of ceramic material then?

Here is Apple's Feb 7, 2013 patent filing for the ceramic coating process. Is that obtuse enough?

 

[Lennyvalentin]

Here is Apple's Feb 7, 2013 patent filing for the ceramic coating process. Is that obtuse enough?

A patent filing isn't evidence the process is actually being used. Apple has lots of patents they're not using for anything, as do any major tech company.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Here is Apple's Feb 7, 2013 patent filing for the ceramic coating process. Is that obtuse enough?

Image

A coating would not contain lenses, would you agree? Read what you referenced again. Not to mention the pic.

If there was an old page that referred to it as such, I'm sure you can find it cached somewhere.

 

[KeepCalmPeople]

Ceramic may be hard, it may be comfortable, but it is also very brittle. My wife has a $1,000 watch with a ceramic link strap. She dropped it on the bathroom floor and four of the links shattered. It cost $250 to repair.
I foresee some cracked ceramic backs on Apple watches. Hopefully not many though.

 

[kdarling]

If the sensors are facing your wrist, why would it matter if the back is made of ceramic? It would seem that the Sport version's composite back would be adequate protection across all Watch models.

Maybe it's to prevent galvanic corrosion.

If it's carbon fiber composite, then it's okay with aluminum, since the difference in their Anodic Index is less than 0.15V.

However, a carbon based material could heavily react with stainless steel or gold. Thus ceramic would make a good common choice for those.

 

[sjinsjca]

Plastic and ceramic are both RF-transparent.

That would seem to be among the reasons to go non-metallic for the back. That Bluetooth signal needs to come from somewhere. Such as, through your wrist.

Glass would work, too, but can't readily be formed into complex shapes with apertures.

----------

Ceramic may be hard, it may be comfortable, but it is also very brittle. My wife has a $1,000 watch with a ceramic link strap. She dropped it on the bathroom floor and four of the links shattered. It cost $250 to repair.
I foresee some cracked ceramic backs on Apple watches. Hopefully not many though.

Depends on the ceramic. Some is not particularly brittle.

 

[profmjh]

Seriously, why does it matter? You will be steering at the screen and not at the bottom of the watch. It's meant to be hidden most of the time.

My current watch has an open back so you can see all the exciting cogs and whatnot. It's lovely. I can't remember the last time I looked at it.

It's like paying extra for a hotel room with a view. When you check in you're wowed by the incredible view. Then you never look out of the window again.

 

[Julien]

Always funny when people dig in and decide to be purposefully obtuse; it says ceramic back on the watch itself. Why would it say "ceramic back" if it's not actually ceramic? It says "stainless steel" too, are we to infer from that it's merely vapor deposited steel on top of another material?

And yeah, obviously "back" refers to the round cover on the rear side of the case; "back" and "cover" can be seen as interchangeable descriptions, I think most would agree.

So I take it you actually don't have a source for the claim the ceramic back isn't really made out of ceramic material then?

Apple now has the info about the ceramic covering on the website and it confirms it is a cover and not a solid piece of (black) ceramic. The ceramic is a clear crystal (*watch definition of crystal: see below) covering the back. It is made of zirconium dioxide (infamous for cubic zirconia 'fake' diamonds).

*Watch Crystal: a concavo-convex glass [in this case made of zirconia] covering the dial [in this case the back] of a watch —called also watch glass.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/watch crystal

 

[Lennyvalentin]

Apple now has the info about the ceramic covering on the website and it confirms it is a cover and not a solid piece of (black) ceramic.

What is it with you? You couldn't read "ceramic back" off of the rear of the images of the Watch you yourself posted, and now you can't read the text in this image you just posted. It says right in the image that the rear, ceramic back is in fact opaque. IE, black. So yeah, it's obviously a solid piece of ceramic, and it's black (so the heartrate sensor can function), and it's not a surface coat.

 

[virginblue4]

Apple now has the info about the ceramic covering on the website and it confirms it is a cover and not a solid piece of (black) ceramic. The ceramic is a clear crystal (*watch definition of crystal: see below) covering the back. It is made of zirconium dioxide (infamous for cubic zirconia 'fake' diamonds).

*Watch Crystal: a concavo-convex glass [in this case made of zirconia] covering the dial [in this case the back] of a watch —called also watch glass.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/watch crystal

Image

Actually, that confirms that it is a solid piece of ceramic not just a coating.

 

[DreamPod]

Why the ceramic back? What's the advantage?

The Sport doesn't have a ceramic back, so it's obviously something Apple thinks is worth more to people. So what does it do? Is it just more comfortable or something? Less likely to break? Help the fitness sensors? Activate the pleasure sensors of the brain? This is one thing I can't find anywhere Apple talking about, aside from acknowledging its existence.

 

[jabingla2810]

I think it's just the quality of the materials.

I don't think the functionality of the Sport will be crippled in any way.

The ceramic back might feel a tad more solid? Perhaps have a bit more weight to it? Maybe? Since the Stainless Steel Watch is almost twice as heavy.

But that's about it, just higher quality materials.

 

[technosix]

The Sport doesn't have a ceramic back, so it's obviously something Apple thinks is worth more to people. So what does it do? Is it just more comfortable or something? Less likely to break? Help the fitness sensors? Activate the pleasure sensors of the brain? This is one thing I can't find anywhere Apple talking about, aside from acknowledging its existence.

It's hypoallergenic so people allergic to metals can comfortably wear the watch. It can also be polished to a higher sheen. Synthetic, it's extremely durable as well.

 

[Yr Blues]

The Sport doesn't have a ceramic back, so it's obviously something Apple thinks is worth more to people. So what does it do? Is it just more comfortable or something? Less likely to break? Help the fitness sensors? Activate the pleasure sensors of the brain? This is one thing I can't find anywhere Apple talking about, aside from acknowledging its existence.

I think it has to do with keeping a neutral temperature for body sensors.

 

[Luba]

Ceramic vs Composite on the back of watch

The gold and the SS have a ceramic on the back of the watch so I suppose that's better than composite material on the back of the aluminum watch. What are advantages of ceramic over composite. And what's the disadvantage of having a composite back vs. ceramic?

 

[kdarling]

I meant source that the ceramic reference is just a coat. If it was merely a coat it wouldn't say "ceramic back", because it wouldn't be a ceramic back.

I agree with you. I think it's two different kinds of backs.

The Sport model would get a composite back, because it's lighter (and cheaper) material, which goes with the whole aluminum-not-steel and glass-not-sapphire design.

Moreover, as I pointed out previously, the steel and gold versions cannot use a carbon composite (assuming that's what it is) because of galvanic reaction.

I think it has to do with keeping a neutral temperature for body sensors.

Pulse sensors look for contrast, not temperature.