Gender roles and identities with Apple Watch

[IphoneIssues]

Come on, seriously... at what size does a woman need to be, to be real?

what?? o:

 

[ladytonya]

I'm sorry but size 0 is not a size! Those plus size models someone posted are wearing wide belts, not big huge buckles. I wear an 18 and even in my younger days would have never in a million years wore one of those belts! They do nothing but accentuate your size.

 

[ericwn]

OMG, that thing is ugly as sin! I know no woman in her right mind that would actually wear that thing. Yuck!

True, that's the gross contrast between fashion show crap and women in the real world.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Those plus size models someone posted are wearing wide belts, not big huge buckles.

But the proportionality of the buckle to the band portion of the belt is really no different from that of the Modern Buckle. For example, compare the proportionality of the buckle to the band in these two photos:

The reason you perceive the Modern Buckle as huge is that the buckle is oversized relative to the watch body, as illustrated in the photo below:

Really no different from how these wide belts are oversized relative to the female body (height wise, regardless of whether they're size 0 or size 18).

 

[IphoneIssues]

I'm sorry but size 0 is not a size! Those plus size models someone posted are wearing wide belts, not big huge buckles. I wear an 18 and even in my younger days would have never in a million years wore one of those belts! They do nothing but accentuate your size.

i guess if youre a size 0 then thats what youre showing off

 

[Giftzwerg]

Historically men's watches ranged from 35-37mm wide, going up to 37-39mm in the 90's and now sitting in the 45-48mm range. The 38mm Apple watch might be 38mm high, but it measures only 32.3mm across which makes it smaller even than the historical average for men's size watches. It is not "akin" to men's watches at any point in time.

This is true for round watches but absolutely not for vintage rectangular or square shaped watches. Take a look for instance at the measurements of the famous Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso or some rectangular Patek Phillipe models. They measure close to the height of the 38mm Apple watch but are smaller in width.

I have 180mm/60mm wrists and recently bought the 38mm Apple watch because it looks like a classic men's dress watch size wise. I tried the 42mm on but it just looked too big and too much like a smart watch to me. I have always worn (vintage) watches with a maximum diameter of 38mm and never liked the big watches that have become the norm over the past ten years.

The biggest issue I have with the Apple watch are the circular faces that Apple includes. To my eyes the circular watch faces look silly on the rectangular shape of the Apple watch and they make the 38mm watch look smaller than necessary. I wish Apple developed some watch faces that take the rectangular shape of the watch into account. The Hermès watch face shows how it should be done.

 

[sean000]

The biggest issue I have with the Apple watch are the circular faces that Apple includes. To my eyes the circular watch faces look silly on the rectangular shape of the Apple watch and they make the 38mm watch look smaller than necessary. I wish Apple developed some watch faces that take the rectangular shape of the watch into account. The Hermès watch face shows how it should be done.

The round face on the rectangular watch does leave more room for complications in the corners or along the bottom, but quite often a single complication is enough (and X-Large face has no complication). It is curious that they don't yet offer a rectangular face that has a single complication like the Hermes face. Such an elegant face would surely be popular. Was the omission of such a face on other AW models in order to reserve a distinctive look for the AW-Hermes? Seems like they could just change the number font and remove the branding from the existing Hermes face without damaging the preciousness of the Hermes model. Hopefully they will add one to Watch OS3 before it is officially released.

Of course if they would allow third party watch faces then we could have many rectangular face options to choose from.

Sean

 

[Giftzwerg]

The round face on the rectangular watch does leave more room for complications in the corners or along the bottom, but quite often a single complication is enough (and X-Large face has no complication). It is curious that they don't yet offer a rectangular face that has a single complication like the Hermes face. Such an elegant face would surely be popular. Was the omission of such a face on other AW models in order to reserve a distinctive look for the AW-Hermes? Seems like they could just change the number font and remove the branding from the existing Hermes face without damaging the preciousness of the Hermes model. Hopefully they will add one to Watch OS3 before it is officially released.

Of course if they would allow third party watch faces then we could have many rectangular face options to choose from.

Sean

As far as I can tell the number fonts that Hermès used for their watch face are not proprietary. Judging from pictures, the number fonts are quite common and have been (and are) used by other watch brands. All Hermès owns is their name.

I can understand that Apple does not allow third party watch faces to prevent all those silly Rolex and Omega cloned faces but surely they can design an analogue face themselves that is aesthetically more pleasing on a rectangular shaped watch? I don't even need numbers, simple dots in a rectangular shaped face will already satisfy me.
I find the watch faces that Apple includes, even the digital ones, very pedestrian. There are so many ways to display time and especially on a smart watch with a led screen the possibilities to be original are almost endless.