Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In light of all the threads about damaged Apple watches ...
- Thread starter Dormammu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks everyone. I've opted to not get a case. Just called and had AppleCare+ added to my 
Watch. Thanks everyone for your input!
Going to keep on rocking this nakedWatch!
Watch. Thanks everyone for your input!Going to keep on rocking this naked
Watch!
Last edited:
And too many people on here are stuck with the mentality that their way of thinking is superior to what others may perceive as needed, or not needed.
It's one thing to have an opinion. Its another to belittle others for having a differing one.
Who the **** cares if someone wants a case or not. Are they forcing you to wear one? If not, then shut the **** up and move on.
I got Apple Care+ for the first time. I did also get a Spigen case for when I'm camping (arriving tomorrow, just in time for my Memorial Day weekend camping trip). I got camping often and don't want to have to use Apple Care+ incidents for that, when it's easy enough to protect it.
Im going camping in two weeks as well, though I am purposefully leaving my watch at home and powering off my iPhone
Im going camping in two weeks as well, though I am purposefully leaving my watch at home and powering off my iPhone
I thought about leaving my watch at home, but I'm curious about my activity level while camping versus regular day.
People are free to do as the please, of course, but to me personally, it's like buying a nice car and hanging spare tires off the sides of it.
I often wonder what fans of SS dive/tool watches (Rolex, Omega, etc.), who despise "hangar queens," i.e., watches with no visible signs of wear, would think of people buying stainless steel watches and covering them up with protective cases. These people prefer stainless steel over gold because of its durability.
I'll admit to having already polished my Apple Watch. I can only imagine what the Edition owners will be like. #
Some good points in here. I mean I never once considered looking for or buying a protective shell for my Rolex. Yet Apple releases a watch and people want to cover up the beautiful watch with a ugly protective case. Is it simply the mentality that hey I got a case for my iPhone and iPad, guess the watch needs one too? I'm not sure what the reasoning is but I'm on the side that it's not necessary and damn butt ugly as well.
#nakedwatch
#nakedwatch
I'm a fairly long-term Watch Enthusiast, and a fairly long-term Apple fan. While I don't personally use a case on my Watch, I find it baffling how many people look down on those who do.
The "you wouldn't put a case on your Rolex" argument makes about as much sense to me as the "you wouldn't pirate a car" argument which has been so resoundingly mocked over the years. Comparing the Apple Watch to a Swiss timepiece is silly to me on many levels, not least of which being that their primary functions and design are pretty different.
Did anyone really buy the Watch just to tell the time? I doubt it, considering the compromises compared to a traditional watch in terms of durability and battery life aren't worth it if you don't rate its other functions. Its abilities and drawbacks are very different to those of a traditional watch, so they are designed differently, and used differently.
One of my Rolexes was handed down to me, and has a sizable scratch on the crystal. Because it doesn't in any way impede the functionality of the watch, I haven't bothered getting it repaired yet. On the Watch, this would bug the living hell out of me from the moment it happened as I would be constantly rubbing my finger over it and trying to see around it, since I expect my Watch to deliver more than hours, minutes, and seconds; I expect clarity of tiny text, and smooth touch input. A scratch on a Rolex doesn't hinder my ability to use it as I'd like, but on the Watch it's a real pain.
Most traditional watches are also designed without the exposed, round corners of the Watch screen. If I drop one of my normal watches and an edge hits first, chances are I've dinged the metal rather than shattered the crystal: something that adds character rather than kills its ability to function as intended. Not so with the Apple Watch.
People who buy super high end watches like your Pateks have, on the whole, immense amounts of money, and are a fairly small section of the population. Owners of sub-$1000 gadgets, by contrast, vary more greatly in terms of personal wealth, and are massively more numerous. Purchasing motivation and user behaviour is likely to differ between these groups, so saying "I've never seen someone put a case on their $500K Patek" doesn't mean someone shouldn't put a case on their $500 Watch. The use cases will probably differ, along with environment, and the level of impact replacement will have on their future purchasing ability.
When it comes to luxury items and gadgets, chances are we could all find better uses for our money. The guy buying the Sport could maybe buy some Apple stock instead, and maybe the guy with the Patek could just buy-- Okay, if not Apple, then some other company that would make money for him instead of just looking pretty on his wrist. Saying "don't buy it if you can't afford to replace it" is overly simplistic-- and unrealistic, as well. If I can replace it once, but not a second time, and I total my first Watch, is it foolish to gamble that I won't ruin a second one if I can't afford number three? What if I can absolutely afford to replace it financially, but I would feel like such a plank for being so careless that the psychological cost would be too great to bear?
Some people want to protect their resale value, or would have to do without a new Watch if their original one broke, or would feel guilty if they damaged it, or enjoy the knowledge that their are maintaining their item in pristine condition, or work in a rugged environment, or any number of other reasons. These people want to wear a case. Why is this so frustrating for some who don't?
If you feel a case would give you greater peace of mind, slap one on your Watch. It's your Watch; you can do what you like with it.
If you think cases are stupid and ugly, keep them the hell away from your Watch. It's your Watch; nobody can make you use one.
There's no need to say that anyone who does differently is wrong. Different approaches simply suit different people's situations, preferences, and lifestyles.
The "you wouldn't put a case on your Rolex" argument makes about as much sense to me as the "you wouldn't pirate a car" argument which has been so resoundingly mocked over the years. Comparing the Apple Watch to a Swiss timepiece is silly to me on many levels, not least of which being that their primary functions and design are pretty different.
Did anyone really buy the Watch just to tell the time? I doubt it, considering the compromises compared to a traditional watch in terms of durability and battery life aren't worth it if you don't rate its other functions. Its abilities and drawbacks are very different to those of a traditional watch, so they are designed differently, and used differently.
One of my Rolexes was handed down to me, and has a sizable scratch on the crystal. Because it doesn't in any way impede the functionality of the watch, I haven't bothered getting it repaired yet. On the Watch, this would bug the living hell out of me from the moment it happened as I would be constantly rubbing my finger over it and trying to see around it, since I expect my Watch to deliver more than hours, minutes, and seconds; I expect clarity of tiny text, and smooth touch input. A scratch on a Rolex doesn't hinder my ability to use it as I'd like, but on the Watch it's a real pain.
Most traditional watches are also designed without the exposed, round corners of the Watch screen. If I drop one of my normal watches and an edge hits first, chances are I've dinged the metal rather than shattered the crystal: something that adds character rather than kills its ability to function as intended. Not so with the Apple Watch.
People who buy super high end watches like your Pateks have, on the whole, immense amounts of money, and are a fairly small section of the population. Owners of sub-$1000 gadgets, by contrast, vary more greatly in terms of personal wealth, and are massively more numerous. Purchasing motivation and user behaviour is likely to differ between these groups, so saying "I've never seen someone put a case on their $500K Patek" doesn't mean someone shouldn't put a case on their $500 Watch. The use cases will probably differ, along with environment, and the level of impact replacement will have on their future purchasing ability.
When it comes to luxury items and gadgets, chances are we could all find better uses for our money. The guy buying the Sport could maybe buy some Apple stock instead, and maybe the guy with the Patek could just buy-- Okay, if not Apple, then some other company that would make money for him instead of just looking pretty on his wrist. Saying "don't buy it if you can't afford to replace it" is overly simplistic-- and unrealistic, as well. If I can replace it once, but not a second time, and I total my first Watch, is it foolish to gamble that I won't ruin a second one if I can't afford number three? What if I can absolutely afford to replace it financially, but I would feel like such a plank for being so careless that the psychological cost would be too great to bear?
Some people want to protect their resale value, or would have to do without a new Watch if their original one broke, or would feel guilty if they damaged it, or enjoy the knowledge that their are maintaining their item in pristine condition, or work in a rugged environment, or any number of other reasons. These people want to wear a case. Why is this so frustrating for some who don't?
If you feel a case would give you greater peace of mind, slap one on your Watch. It's your Watch; you can do what you like with it.
If you think cases are stupid and ugly, keep them the hell away from your Watch. It's your Watch; nobody can make you use one.
There's no need to say that anyone who does differently is wrong. Different approaches simply suit different people's situations, preferences, and lifestyles.
Here's the problem I think....
We have a merging of people who are iPod, iPhone, and mac fans who are likely used to lesser expensive watches.
Such people, like me for example, likely have experienced the delicacy of the original iPod nano, and other such polycarbonate Apple products. The polycarbonate period of Apple's history spawned a behavior of buying Apple products and putting them into protective skins straight out of the box.
I made the mistake of touching my iPod nano when it came out of the box. It's surface was permanently damaged upon touching it for the first time.
My iMac G5 was similarly scarred by holding its case as I set it on the table.
We're used to protecting Apple's devices because they are known to have a history of delicacy.
But, most of us have never given a second thought to the condition of our wrist watches.
My current watch for example is now about 10 years old. It has 10 years of being worn while working on cars, roughing it in the backwoods most summers (making whatever you need from anything you can scavenge, firewood hauling, splitting, taking down trees, relying on whatever the land provides because you're not coming out of the woods for months, etc.). Engine compartments are rough on hands. Anything on your wrist is gonna get it too.
But looking at my watch, I can tilt it under the light and can't find a single scrape anywhere. The screen is perfect, there's no scrapes in the housing. And it's a $10 watch.
When they're cheapie watches, we don't think about will it last? And we don't think about whether it will be damaged.
But, then out comes this new Apple watch that kind of sets some hooks into the loyal fan base. And we start to ponder whether this expensive watch can survive our lifestyle.
Some of us are more the "wear it and forget about it" kind. Put it on, use it for what you need and when you need, and not spend your day worrying about it.
To be honest, when I'm beating up my hands, I'm not even thinking about my watch. I'm focussed on the task I'm performing.
So, there's a crossing of sorts... Average people used to durable cheap watches, who also like Apple's iOS devices, who are accustomed to needing to protect iOS devices to keep them functioning, and also not wanting to totally change their lifestyle around a watch.
Simply put, many would like to continue to live as they do now, enjoy the added functionality of this new watch, and not spend their day thinking about their wrist and every motion.
I know the aApple watch would be damaged beyond any use in one day of my life. My $10 watch has survived quite impressively. Reading this thread primped me to take it off and see how it's survived the years. Amazingly not a mark of any kind anywhere.
The Apple Watch is an interesting product. I've checked them out in person. It's nice. But for its price and construction quality, it would spend all of its time in the drawer with my dress watch that I haven't actually laid eyes on in years.
We have a merging of people who are iPod, iPhone, and mac fans who are likely used to lesser expensive watches.
Such people, like me for example, likely have experienced the delicacy of the original iPod nano, and other such polycarbonate Apple products. The polycarbonate period of Apple's history spawned a behavior of buying Apple products and putting them into protective skins straight out of the box.
I made the mistake of touching my iPod nano when it came out of the box. It's surface was permanently damaged upon touching it for the first time.
My iMac G5 was similarly scarred by holding its case as I set it on the table.
We're used to protecting Apple's devices because they are known to have a history of delicacy.
But, most of us have never given a second thought to the condition of our wrist watches.
My current watch for example is now about 10 years old. It has 10 years of being worn while working on cars, roughing it in the backwoods most summers (making whatever you need from anything you can scavenge, firewood hauling, splitting, taking down trees, relying on whatever the land provides because you're not coming out of the woods for months, etc.). Engine compartments are rough on hands. Anything on your wrist is gonna get it too.
But looking at my watch, I can tilt it under the light and can't find a single scrape anywhere. The screen is perfect, there's no scrapes in the housing. And it's a $10 watch.
When they're cheapie watches, we don't think about will it last? And we don't think about whether it will be damaged.
But, then out comes this new Apple watch that kind of sets some hooks into the loyal fan base. And we start to ponder whether this expensive watch can survive our lifestyle.
Some of us are more the "wear it and forget about it" kind. Put it on, use it for what you need and when you need, and not spend your day worrying about it.
To be honest, when I'm beating up my hands, I'm not even thinking about my watch. I'm focussed on the task I'm performing.
So, there's a crossing of sorts... Average people used to durable cheap watches, who also like Apple's iOS devices, who are accustomed to needing to protect iOS devices to keep them functioning, and also not wanting to totally change their lifestyle around a watch.
Simply put, many would like to continue to live as they do now, enjoy the added functionality of this new watch, and not spend their day thinking about their wrist and every motion.
I know the aApple watch would be damaged beyond any use in one day of my life. My $10 watch has survived quite impressively. Reading this thread primped me to take it off and see how it's survived the years. Amazingly not a mark of any kind anywhere.
The Apple Watch is an interesting product. I've checked them out in person. It's nice. But for its price and construction quality, it would spend all of its time in the drawer with my dress watch that I haven't actually laid eyes on in years.
I dunno...
Those cases are hideous & expensive enough that I'm almost tempted to just personally pay the teeny difference between one & AppleCare+ for anybody that is considering it... just so that I NEVER have to see one in public. It's embarrassing how lame the cases look... can we agree that's incontrovertible?
My iPhone 6 just went kerplunk on the floor a couple of nights ago when I was using it as a level. My fault totally, and it's the second time I dropped it at an angle to do screen damage. But this time it shattered a ton of the glass instead of just cracking the edge over the bezel.
So I got it fixed for $109. Took them about 90 minutes today, and the thing looks almost new. I have an Otterbox coming tomorrow since I'm obviously too clumsy with the bi-fold wallet case I have. I've dropped all my iPhones before and only one other time -- with an $8 silicone case -- did it do enough damage to cost me money or "ruin" the phone. I've had nicks on the body, but never had a crack before this one. That other phone slowly had its backlight die, which meant I spent either $149 or $199 on a refurb.
It makes me nervous to spend $399 on a watch. That's why I was even more nervous to spend $599 on the watch I actually liked because of the pretty stainless steel and the ability to get the fancy bands later. After use of a Fitbit a couple of years ago, I still feel a little weird at times without something on my wrist. I got used to it tracking my steps so I felt like every step I took counted. I have used my last two phones for that, but you're less likely to always have your phone on.
I don't plan on putting any sort of case on my Apple Watch. I'm willing to bet a display replacement program for maybe $75 or so will come out in case you crack the face. I bought one with a sapphire display, but as a geology student I know nothing is indestructible. Sapphire has a high hardness, but you put enough force against ANY material and it will give. But if a penny is in my pocket with my watch, there should be no way in hell it will scratch the face. There will likely be smudges and little scratches if I keep it for a while on the body, but it's hard to get better than stainless steel at that price point.
So my long story short, yep. It's a different device. It's not an iPhone, iPad or iPod. When these things are made with enough features that they could potentially replace an iPhone -- and not even the LTE iPads can do that yet -- then maybe treat it like an iDevice. Until then, it's just its own thing.
Meh. I bought a $15 case on Amazon for when I go to the gym or am at work clanking around metal and other blunt objects. Otherwise, I wear it naked and accept what happens to it. The exception is I do use a screen protector. That ionX glass is awful
I personally am not a fan of the look, although I did purchase a case for certain situations where I'd be at high risk for damaging it. That said some people DO like them as they give the Watch a more G-Shock/Wearable Device look. And that is THEIR opinion that THEY are entitled to.
The thing is as much as you, I, or anyone else may dislike the look, there are others that like it. Who in the hell are you, or anyone else, to tell someone what they should or shouldn't do?!?
And seriously, if the though of you being "subject" to seeing one in public is that much of a concern for you, then you really should reexamine your priorities in life.
Who cares? Please re-read the OP's first post, which included the questions:
"For those of you with a case, or AppleCare+, OR both(!?) how did you decide on which to get? Any other pros and cons I am over looking?"
Not loving your aggression, btw.
The more I think about it, the more differences I see between the Watch and a traditional timepiece that makes these comparisons pointless.
When the boys at Rolex or Patek or [your favorite watch makers here] sit down to design a watch, I really doubt the words "planned obsolescence" or "long-term battery life" come up much. They're trying to make watches that will be gifted across generations and worn for decades. Until battery technology evolves beyond the current lifespan problems, this will never be the case for any smartwatch.
Given that the software of the Watch (activity tracking, etc.) encourages you towards continued daily use, I doubt a wide-scale mail-in battery replacement program is in the near future, either. Further, the most long-term Move goal is 1000 days, which is less than three years.
By Apple's own cues, the Watch is not intended as a forever timepiece.
Apple might have done themselves a favor by not using the word "watch" in the name of the product, although if they'd called it something else, the Apple naysayers would most likely have decried the choice as Apple pretending to have reinvented the wheel with a different name.
Apple Watch, for me, has more in common with iPhones and iPads than it ever will with Rolexes and Pateks. Even so, if I saw someone with a case on his Rolex, I wouldn't be offended by it, I'd just assume he'd had a bad experience with damage and wanted to save himself the money and bother of a replacement issue.
I believe the OP has already come to a decision on his choice, but for others considering cases: Spigen has a nice one I looked at when the Watch first arrived. I'm still giving it some consideration because I like that the white one matches the Watch band... But like bands, it'll be a few months before there's any real availability or choice in the market, sadly.
When the boys at Rolex or Patek or [your favorite watch makers here] sit down to design a watch, I really doubt the words "planned obsolescence" or "long-term battery life" come up much. They're trying to make watches that will be gifted across generations and worn for decades. Until battery technology evolves beyond the current lifespan problems, this will never be the case for any smartwatch.
Given that the software of the Watch (activity tracking, etc.) encourages you towards continued daily use, I doubt a wide-scale mail-in battery replacement program is in the near future, either. Further, the most long-term Move goal is 1000 days, which is less than three years.
By Apple's own cues, the Watch is not intended as a forever timepiece.
Apple might have done themselves a favor by not using the word "watch" in the name of the product, although if they'd called it something else, the Apple naysayers would most likely have decried the choice as Apple pretending to have reinvented the wheel with a different name.
Apple Watch, for me, has more in common with iPhones and iPads than it ever will with Rolexes and Pateks. Even so, if I saw someone with a case on his Rolex, I wouldn't be offended by it, I'd just assume he'd had a bad experience with damage and wanted to save himself the money and bother of a replacement issue.
I believe the OP has already come to a decision on his choice, but for others considering cases: Spigen has a nice one I looked at when the Watch first arrived. I'm still giving it some consideration because I like that the white one matches the Watch band... But like bands, it'll be a few months before there's any real availability or choice in the market, sadly.
Planned obsolescence is an ancient, long dead tech concept for old men to tell the kiddies about...
This current electronic landscape is dissimilar to the 1990's that you are remembering. The companies don't have to worry about selling laptops so powerful, they may actually last 8-10 years & they'll get no purchases from the consumer in the meantime... Instead, they're selling smartphones in a flurry to people that wait AT MOST two years between replacements, and many that are on a yearly upgrade cycle. They try to pack a lot of goodies in each iteration, because the tech/software is marching forward SO rapidly, there will certainly be plenty more options of what to include in the next version.
To even intimate that companies "purposefully" hold back important tech or features as a trick to increase repeat sales is folly at best & weirdo unsubstantiated paranoid at worst.
This simply does NOT exist.
Whatever you want to call it or whatever the manufacturer motivations are, the reality (as you acknowledge yourself) is that a lot of consumer tech these days is replaced within a three-year period, and is designed with that in mind.
This does apply to the Apple Watch, but doesn't apply to high-end timepieces. That's the only point I was making, though perhaps I ought to have used a different term to do it.
Absolutely!!!
I agree that they are COMPLETELY different beasts.
I only took umbrage with that term, because it suggests that electronics become outdated in three years NOT by the nature of normal progress, but by some insidious plan.
It sounds like we both agree that the former is true, while the later is false.
No worries... I understand that there were few other descriptors available to say what you meant.
Just to be completely clear, you absolutely do cover cars with protection. There are clear, self-healing coverings like XPEL that most people who spend 75k and up on a car should consider. I almost spent 1k on front end coverage for my daily commuter. In the end just decided it wasn't worth it. But on a car like a Vette, Porsche, Tesla, or similar I think it's a must.
For a watch? No freaking way lol!
In addition to the fact that some people do protect their cars where possible, the car comparison is still a bit spurious, in my opinion. Admittedly I'm not an engineer, but I don't believe there is a cheap, convenient solution for greatly increased impact protection when it comes to vehicles.
If it were easy or cost-effective to dramatically reduce damage in collisions, I have no doubt that every single car manufacturer would make it an option. However, the weight and speed involved in car crashes mean that devising protection is incredibly difficult; the forces involved are huge, so a thin layer of rubber is going to make absolutely no difference.
It's different with the Watch, since it's likely the forces involved in arm-related collisions are much smaller (or you've got more to worry about than your Apple device). The difference in damage between a cased Watch and a naked Watch if you drop it or bash it off a wall is going to be pretty big, and Watch cases seem pretty cheap overall.
Whether it's worth it to an individual to put a case on their Watch is 100% their choice, but from an objective perspective, it would reduce damage enough that it's worth doing in a way it isn't for cars.
Otherwise, we'd either see car cases on the market, or there'd be no such things as Watch cases.
If it were easy or cost-effective to dramatically reduce damage in collisions, I have no doubt that every single car manufacturer would make it an option. However, the weight and speed involved in car crashes mean that devising protection is incredibly difficult; the forces involved are huge, so a thin layer of rubber is going to make absolutely no difference.
It's different with the Watch, since it's likely the forces involved in arm-related collisions are much smaller (or you've got more to worry about than your Apple device). The difference in damage between a cased Watch and a naked Watch if you drop it or bash it off a wall is going to be pretty big, and Watch cases seem pretty cheap overall.
Whether it's worth it to an individual to put a case on their Watch is 100% their choice, but from an objective perspective, it would reduce damage enough that it's worth doing in a way it isn't for cars.
Otherwise, we'd either see car cases on the market, or there'd be no such things as Watch cases.
