Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Felix Bomar, Feb 26, 2018.
It seems to me there is room for a third size of Apple Watch: either 46 or 48 MM. What do you think?
I'd like to see slightly larger watch options...
Not interested in a larger watch. I like the fit and size of my AW 42mm.
Strap an iPhone to your wrist---
I doubt Apple would have 3 iterations
Much bigger equals too gaudy and in your face----imho
No. 42 is big enough.
I don’t see Apple venturing onto a 48 mm, not to mention the cost behind that to the consumer. Perhaps a 44 mm, but a 48MM would be way to large for many.
42mm screen works well for my 70+ year old eyes. I'd actually like to see the watch lose a bit of girth while increasing battery life. I know, wishful thinking...
not really needed; but allow the iPad to be the main companion would be great and just a software config ...
And then adding more health-related sensors (my biggest wish would be blood pressure)
What I'd want: A round Apple Watch (but no bigger than 42mm)
It needs to be thinner before going bigger.
I love the size of the 42mm. I think a 44mm might be a decent sell but I don't think it needs to go much bigger.
42MM is a little small in my honest opinion when used for sports. As a fashion accessory it's a fine size. I'd like it a little larger though for workouts and sport activities. I train for and do triathlons and a larger screen would, well you know, make seeing the data on the move that much easier. Try taking a gander at your Apple Watch while swimming...
Here is my Garmin Fenix 5 in 47MM... Not all that large and in all honestly, I wonder if I should have went with their 52MM version instead after using it for several months now...
Agreed, 48mm would be pushing it way too much.
Don't mix up case size with font size and clarity. There's a lot of dead space on that Fenix's screen.
I'm not mixing anything up.. That's my cycling main screen. For running I have 4 data fields and for swimming I have 3. The more data fields, the smaller the font gets and the more screen space is used. But like I said, I think I should have went with the 52mm version of it.
I had the AW Series 2 last year and it's not even close as to which is more readable during vigorous exercise. The fenix 5 flat out demolishes the AW for readability of data when running or swimming. I don't look at either watch when cycling but I assume it's the same.
I am considering getting a 42mm AW 3 but I do worry that it's awful small and hard to read for certain activities, which is partially why I ditched the 2. I don't think Apple will do a larger version but I'd buy one of they did.
I have no desire for a larger AW myself. The display is already larger than the one on my old Garmin 410, and I don't want the bulk on my wrist. My exercise watch before the AW and Garmin was a little plastic Timex Camper.
Agree.. I wonder how much bulk a 46mm AW would add though. The weigh of the Aluminum AW 3 is what's drawing me back to purchasing another. I do notice the weight of the Garmin when swimming, especially choppy open water swims..
been saying this since day 1....should be at least 46mm...
I think there would be a very small demographic for a 46 mm Apple Watch. I think the 42 mm is a great size, if it was slightly larger as a 44 mm, I think that be the most I would want with a smart watch. But I don’t see a large majority being interested in a 46 mm variant. Also, Apples price point for a 46 mm would be something likely not attractive as well, already given the price point for some of the stainless and ceramic models.
44mm would interest me. I'd have to see in person how much 2mm difference would make but on such a small watch I think it would be noticeable..
Personally i like smaller watches.
I think keeping the 38mm and 42 sizes but with a larger display by reducing the bezel (just like iPhone x) would be ideal.
I think I like my 42. You never know... though...maybe a little bigger would e okay? But I am a female with fairly small wrists... so too big might look silly.