Ceramic back is only on cellular versions of the S3 Apple Watch Sport

[ideal.dreams]

The Series 0 and Series 1 Apple Watch Sport both come with a composite back, which is just a fancy way of saying plastic. The Series 2 Apple Watch Sport came with a ceramic back, but it seems Apple has changed it up once again with the launch of the Series 3, as now, the GPS only model comes with a composite back while the more expensive cellular version comes with the ceramic back.

It's a small change, sure, but I'm disappointed that Apple is providing a "lower quality" Apple Watch to those that do not need the cellular functionality offered in the higher priced versions. Thoughts?

 

[ftaok]

It's actually no different than last year. Only the S2 got the ceramic back. If you didn't want GPS, you got composite. This year, if you don't want LTE, you get composite.

 

[ideal.dreams]

It's actually no different than last year. Only the S2 got the ceramic back. If you didn't want GPS, you got composite. This year, if you don't want LTE, you get composite.

Yes but last year it was series 1 and series 2. This year there's two versions of series 3 and still series 1. In my opinion, both versions of the more expensive series 3 should feature the ceramic back.

 

[ftaok]

Yes but last year it was series 1 and series 2. This year there's two versions of series 3 and still series 1. In my opinion, both versions of the more expensive series 3 should feature the ceramic back.

I guess you have a point, but it's just semantics. Would you be any happier if they named them series 4 and series 3?

 

[ideal.dreams]

I guess you have a point, but it's just semantics. Would you be any happier if they named them series 4 and series 3?

No, you're missing the point. Last year Apple offered two versions of the Apple Watch Sport - the cheaper Series 1 with composite back and more expensive (and better) Series 2 with ceramic back. This year, Apple is still offering the cheaper Series 1 with composite back, meaning the Series 3 should feature a ceramic back on all versions (regardless of whether they have cellular or not), as Series 2 did.

I'm not surprised Apple did this at all because it's all about the profit for them, but it's an unappreciated move that they're "rewarding" people who buy the $70 more expensive cellular enabled Series 3 sport with the ceramic back.

I don't NEED cellular. I'm never anywhere with my watch where I don't have my phone. It's a waste of money. Why should I be forced into buying that version to get the better build quality?

 

[iamMacPerson]

No, you're missing the point. Last year Apple offered two versions of the Apple Watch Sport - the cheaper Series 1 with composite back and more expensive (and better) Series 2 with ceramic back. This year, Apple is still offering the cheaper Series 1 with composite back, meaning the Series 3 should feature a ceramic back on all versions (regardless of whether they have cellular or not), as Series 2 did.

I'm not surprised Apple did this at all because it's all about the profit for them, but it's an unappreciated move that they're "rewarding" people who buy the $70 more expensive cellular enabled Series 3 sport with the ceramic back.

I don't NEED cellular. I'm never anywhere with my watch where I don't have my phone. It's a waste of money. Why should I be forced into buying that version to get the better build quality?

If you really want to look at it, the Series 3 without cellular is more akin to that of a Series 1 upgrade with GPS and a better CPU. Series 3 with Cellular is the direct successor to the Series 2 last year.

Also, what improvements have come from the composite vs ceramic back? I had a Sport S0 before getting my Stainless S0 and didn't notice any difference in workouts or heart rate. I find it hard to believe there is any real tangible difference other than the material used.

 

[ideal.dreams]

If you really want to look at it, the Series 3 without cellular is more akin to that of a Series 1 upgrade with GPS and a better CPU. Series 3 with Cellular is the direct successor to the Series 2 last year.

Also, what improvements have come from the composite vs ceramic back? I had a Sport S0 before getting my Stainless S0 and didn't notice any difference in workouts or heart rate. I find it hard to believe there is any real tangible difference other than the material used.

It's the principle of it. If you don't buy their most expensive model they are "punishing" you with a watch using a cheaper material, when they're both branded as "Series 3," their best model.

 

[iamMacPerson]

It's the principle of it. If you don't buy their most expensive model they are "punishing" you with a watch using a cheaper material, when they're both branded as "Series 3," their best model.

The price also dropped $70 to $329 for the non-cellular Series 3 vs the Series 2. All the features of the Series 2, except faster, at a lower cost, and yes with a composite back to cut costs. Otherwise, the cellular starts at the same price as the Series 2 did: $399. You are not buying their most expensive model. If you were buying the ceramic Edition and getting a composite back, I'd understand. You're buying the entry level model of this year's model. The first gen Watch Sport had the composite back, irregardless which Sport edition you bought.

 

[ftaok]

No, you're missing the point. Last year Apple offered two versions of the Apple Watch Sport - the cheaper Series 1 with composite back and more expensive (and better) Series 2 with ceramic back. This year, Apple is still offering the cheaper Series 1 with composite back, meaning the Series 3 should feature a ceramic back on all versions (regardless of whether they have cellular or not), as Series 2 did.

I'm not surprised Apple did this at all because it's all about the profit for them, but it's an unappreciated move that they're "rewarding" people who buy the $70 more expensive cellular enabled Series 3 sport with the ceramic back.

I don't NEED cellular. I'm never anywhere with my watch where I don't have my phone. It's a waste of money. Why should I be forced into buying that version to get the better build quality?

I get it. You don't need celluar but want the ceramic back. Forget naming conventions for the moment.

Last year, you could get a watch with a composite back for $269 or one with a ceramic back for $369. That's a $100 difference for the upgrade in materials. Plus you got waterproofing and GPS as an added bonus.

This year, you can get a watch with a composite back, waterproofing and GPS for $329. An upgrade to a ceramic back will cost an additional $70, with an added bonus of a LTE chip.

 

[iamMacPerson]

Last year, you could get a watch with a composite back for $269 or one with a ceramic back for $369. That's a $100 difference for the upgrade in materials. Plus you got waterproofing and GPS as an added bonus.

No, the Series 2 only came with ceramic backs and started at $399 for the Sport, same as LTE + GPS Sport Series 3 this year.

 

[ftaok]

No, the Series 2 only came with ceramic backs and started at $399 for the Sport, same as LTE + GPS Sport Series 3 this year.

You misread my post. I know the S2 had the ceramic back and the S1 had the composite one. My point is that the OP is getting caught up on names.

This year, if you want a ceramic back you have to get LTE whether you want it or not. Apple could have called them S3 and S4 and maybe folks wouldn't be so upset.

Nevermind. I misread your post. The 38mm S2 was $369. The 42mm was $399.

 

[eagleglen]

Honestly, I'm more disappointed the non-LTE S3 lacks the sapphire crystal. The LTE and non should be identical except for the cellular connection, IMHO.

 

[ideal.dreams]

Honestly, I'm more disappointed the non-LTE S3 lacks the sapphire crystal. The LTE and non should be identical except for the cellular connection, IMHO.

That's what I'm saying. The watches should be identical, less the cellular capability, but instead, in paying an extra $70, you get LTE, 8GB more of flash storage (bringing the total to 16GB), and the ceramic crystal back.

 

[BarracksSi]

Regarding sapphire...

I dunno; it seems like the lighter aluminum LTE-plus-GPS "Series 3 Sport" (that's what I'll call it for this thread) needs the more shatter-resistant "gorilla glass" crystal, not sapphire.

 

[edhchoe]

I usually find the right price point for an item. May it be cars with different trim levels or smartphones with different size screens. I usually pick what I can afford and rationalize my choice. I want the SS model but by choosing aluminum model, I save enough money to pay for 20 months of data service on the watch.

 

[danielceleste]

For me, the reason why this leaves a sour taste in my mouth is not just because they are showing a lack of consideration/cheapness toward those who do not feel they need LTE; it’s because, for some (most?) of us, it isn’t even an option. For example, your country/carrier may not even support it. Why am I forced to be stuck with a plastic back? From having it on the original Apple Watch, it scratches so easily from just the charger and is not a good look.

 

[2010lexus]

It's the principle of it. If you don't buy their most expensive model they are "punishing" you with a watch using a cheaper material, when they're both branded as "Series 3," their best model.

Maybe it's cheaper material because it a cheaper version of the watch.lol
You really can't expect them to use the same material in the cheaper version of the Apple Watch.

 

[ideal.dreams]

Maybe it's cheaper material because it a cheaper version of the watch.lol
You really can't expect them to use the same material in the cheaper version of the Apple Watch.

As is to be expected, but not when in the same series. That would be like Apple using higher end materials in the cellular capable iPad and lower end materials in the Wi-Fi only version. It doesn't make sense.

 

[2010lexus]

For me, the reason why this leaves a sour taste in my mouth is not just because they are showing a lack of consideration/cheapness toward those who do not feel they need LTE; it’s because, for some (most?) of us, it isn’t even an option. For example, your country/carrier may not even support it. Why am I forced to be stuck with a plastic back? From having it on the original Apple Watch, it scratches so easily from just the charger and is not a good look.

It is cheapness on your part . If you don't need the LTE but want the better materials buy it and don't turn the LTE on. And if you really don't want to part with a little extra money buy the cheap one.
[doublepost=1505367153][/doublepost]

As is to be expected, but not when in the same series. That would be like Apple using higher end materials in the cellular capable iPad and lower end materials in the Wi-Fi only version. It doesn't make sense.

Except in the original Apple Watch.

 

[ideal.dreams]

It is cheapness on your part . If you don't need the LTE but want the better materials buy it and don't turn the LTE on. And if you really don't want to part with a little extra money buy the cheap one.
[doublepost=1505367153][/doublepost]
Except in the original Apple Watch.

The expectations were clear in the original Apple Watch. By introducing the ceramic crystal on the series 2 sport models, they set the expectation that all new sport models would have the ceramic crystal.

 

[eagleglen]

The expectations were clear in the original Apple Watch. By introducing the sapphire crystal on the series 2 sport models, they set the expectation that all new sport models would have the ceramic crystal.

Did the series 2 sports have sapphire, I don't remember. I have a SS series 0 now and the crystal looks flawless, after wearing it daily for two year. This time I'm conceding that I'll want to upgrade the tech long before the materials of construction wear out, so I'm opting for a sports model. I have the cellular option on my iPad but never use it. I thought about doing the same with the watch, but it seems extremely foolish. I may regret the decision after this series 3 sports gets its first scratch. We may object to some of Apple's decisions, but there's not much we can do about it.

 

[MrGimper]

Did the series 2 sports have sapphire, I don't remember. I have a SS series 0 now and the crystal looks flawless, after wearing it daily for two year. This time I'm conceding that I'll want to upgrade the tech long before the materials of construction wear out, so I'm opting for a sports model. I have the cellular option on my iPad but never use it. I thought about doing the same with the watch, but it seems extremely foolish. I may regret the decision after this series 3 sports gets its first scratch. We may object to some of Apple's decisions, but there's not much we can do about it.

Series 2 aluminium watches had Ion-X glass, not sapphire crystal. The aluminium watches have never had sapphire.

 

[Chancha]

for some (most?) of us, it isn’t even an option. For example, your country/carrier may not even support it. Why am I forced to be stuck with a plastic back? From having it on the original Apple Watch, it scratches so easily from just the charger and is not a good look.

This is exactly the sentiment in Hong Kong right now, where it seems none of our carriers are content with Apple's offering and we are left without the LTE S3 option at all. The irony is we are in total rush to buy out all the remaining stock of the S2 in shops these 2 days, particularly the stainless steel models. Regardless of battery life and faster chip, the S3 that we can get is inferior than what we can get with the S2's, at least material wise.

 

[maflynn]

Why should I be forced into buying that version to get the better build quality?

I think you're making a bigger deal out of it. My S0 with its composite rear is in pristine condition, I think composite vs. ceramic is a non-issue. The back of the watch is against your body all day, so it doesn't matter. For me if I'm not wearing it, I'm charging it.

I dunno; it seems like the lighter aluminum LTE-plus-GPS "Series 3 Sport" (that's what I'll call it for this thread) needs the more shatter-resistant "gorilla glass" crystal, not sapphire.

At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to justify my own decisions with the S0, I will say that my watch face is scratch free. I hate to jinx myself but overall I think the sport watch with the gorilla glass is more then up to meet the demands of daily use.

 

[jschu22]

I think you're making a bigger deal out of it. My S0 with its composite rear is in pristine condition, I think composite vs. ceramic is a non-issue. The back of the watch is against your body all day, so it doesn't matter. For me if I'm not wearing it, I'm charging it.


At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to justify my own decisions with the S0, I will say that my watch face is scratch free. I hate to jinx myself but overall I think the sport watch with the gorilla glass is more then up to meet the demands of daily use.

You're right that it can be a non-issue to some, even many, but in a watch I value materials just as much as features which is why in two iterations so far, Ive chosen the SS model. Not everyone feels that way but I can certainly empathize with those disappointed in the plastic back in a comparable version that previously had ceramic.