Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rugmankc

macrumors 68020
Sep 24, 2014
2,196
648
Strap an iPhone to your wrist---;)

I doubt Apple would have 3 iterations

Much bigger equals too gaudy and in your face----imho
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple_Robert

44267547

Cancelled
Jul 12, 2016
37,642
42,491
It seems to me there is room for a third size of Apple Watch: either 46 or 48 MM. What do you think?

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.
 

ChristianVirtual

macrumors 601
May 10, 2010
4,122
282
日本
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)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paninnguaq

raqball

macrumors 68020
Sep 11, 2016
2,323
9,573
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...

17424720_772960809547336_3970990678718071309_n.jpg

17424618_772960816214002_5559879509988076290_n.jpg

17362414_772960812880669_4454991458878589208_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fthree

BarracksSi

Suspended
Jul 14, 2015
3,902
2,663
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...
Don't mix up case size with font size and clarity. There's a lot of dead space on that Fenix's screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blancavena

raqball

macrumors 68020
Sep 11, 2016
2,323
9,573
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.
 

BarracksSi

Suspended
Jul 14, 2015
3,902
2,663
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raqball

raqball

macrumors 68020
Sep 11, 2016
2,323
9,573
I don't want the bulk on my wrist.

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..
 

44267547

Cancelled
Jul 12, 2016
37,642
42,491
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.
 

raqball

macrumors 68020
Sep 11, 2016
2,323
9,573
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..
 

satchmo

macrumors 603
Aug 6, 2008
5,021
5,694
Canada
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPhysicist

tl01

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2010
2,350
649
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.