In terms of price, now that I've had one, the price seems about right when taking into consideration Apple's skill at building in profit ratios that suit them.
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.
Is It Worth $600? HELL NO!!!!!
- Thread starter jds4300
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because to get a band that actually looks classy it's 150 more. My point is they shouldn't be milking people at the higher end of the spectrum. I wear watches....a flouro band on a 10,000 watch simply doesn't make sense. I'm sure it'll change but nothing about it makes any sense.
Based on OPs previous posts, he might not be a Troll but he is very very opinionated. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, some just don't know how to express that opinion without upsetting others with a different opinion. It takes tact to do that ....
Yes, or as Bertrand Russell would have it:
Im betting the bands will be transferable over to the gen 2 apple watch. It would be terribly stupid not to be.
----------
The craftsman ship isn't an issue for me, it's the fact that's it's a "luxury watch band" but used common stainless steel, not the luxury scratch resistant steel. The luxury scratch resistant is 904L steel. Apple picked the common 316L steel.
I'm glad there's disappointment out there... The more negative feedback that gets clearly articulated, the faster it might get incorporated into a new model.
The iPhone has been out for 7 years or so - and the difference between the first gen and now is phenomenal. The difference between this watch and a future watch will be even greater - who knows what kind of sensors and actuators can get built into something you wear on your skin. It will be fun to watch (no pun intended).
Feel free to call this version the dog that it is... Consumers should hold Apple to a higher standard - because Apple prices their products that way.
The iPhone has been out for 7 years or so - and the difference between the first gen and now is phenomenal. The difference between this watch and a future watch will be even greater - who knows what kind of sensors and actuators can get built into something you wear on your skin. It will be fun to watch (no pun intended).
Feel free to call this version the dog that it is... Consumers should hold Apple to a higher standard - because Apple prices their products that way.
lol nice i did not even know about 904L i think you should make a topic on the difference of the steel types or someone they should have used 904L now that i read about it
904L is not "luxury scratch resistant", it has better corrosion resistance but is softer than 316L. The reason Rolex uses it is that it polishes up to a higher sheen.
That differs from what I read on about Rolex. There was a write up stating specifically that the 904L alloy is twice as hard and more scratch resistant.
poking around ... Found it. When they talk about HARDNESS it means "The hardness is a physical characteristic of materials which indicates its resistance to be scratched."
"we can assert, without possible discussion, that the SS 904L of gen Rolex watches is harder than SS 316L of the replicas" - source = http://www.replica-watch.info/vb/sh...F-vs-904L-The-final-VERDICT-A-technical-study
~~
"The 904L has more of the expensive ingredients. The percentages (volume) are listed below. The primary advantage of the 904L is it's corrosion resistence, other advantages include "toughness".
Note the Nickel content of 904L is 2 times that of 316L, Nickel is an expensive component and this will impact the overall cost / price. Also 904L is not as common as 316L, limited supply (production) will also effect the price.
904L
Chromium 19% - 23%
Molybdenum 4% - 5%
Nickel 23% - 28%
316L
Chromium 16% - 18%
Molybdenum 2% - 3%
Nickel 10% - 14%
The balance of materials are similar, with the majority being Iron"
~~
"toughness" is ambiguous, poking more.
More
~~
http://www.ashapurasteel.com/alloy-904l/
~~
"sturdiness" is ambiguous, poking more. . . .
Last edited:
The 9to5Mac link you posted in another thread contains a link to stainless steel grades and mechanical properties. You'll find there that 316L has a hardness of 95 HRB, while 907L is 70-90 HRB.
Those values can be modified substantially through processing, like rolling and forging, of course. Apple, for example, states that they cold forge the stainless steel billets to increase their hardness. Rolex likely do something similar.
In practice, the 907L used by Rolex is no more scratch resistant when polished than the 316L used by other watch makers. It does have a nice luster to it though.
What I find odd is my macbook pro I carry everywhere, tossed into my bag and abused has almost no scratches...
----------
Ok, well metallurgy is obviously far more than I'm ready to tackle, I do however have a scratch solution! https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1883472/
Nope. His entire post history is comprised of trashing the watch, talking up Samsung (oddly enough considering he seems to be an iPhone user regardless), and trashing other forum members.
And crucify Tim Cook? Up the Prozac dosage.
On the one hand, I agree that we need to hold Apple's feet to the fire and provide honest feedback and criticism. But the watch is not a dog (that's not a sentence I write very often...) It's amazingly useful even as it is, assuming you go in with the right set of expectations.
Rolex is one of the only brands that uses 904L. It is more prone to allergic reactions than 316L. There are also lesser grades of steel than 316L that are quite common.
Least it ain't coyote ugly to the point where you wanna gnaw the band off rather than wake it the next morning huh?
Agreed 100%. To anyone who realized what this thing was, it's a $400 gadget. Or a $400 gadget encased in slightly upgraded housing masquerading as a luxury item. Those who fell for that marketing schtick likely have the highest levels of buyers remorse.
I view mine as disposable. Because by the time the new version is introduced, it will be.
just google "polished stainless steel watch" and you will quickly see that nearly every major manufacturer offers them... IWC, Omega, Breitling, Tissot, Tag Heuer and and and ... so highly doubtful that 100% (or even close to it) of stainless steel watches are brushed....
A brushed stainless steel has a more sporty but less elegant look ...
seriously... I'm questioning how many of the
I didn't just conjure up those photos with sorcery, bud. If visual proof and multiple links that I have posted.
Here's the google search for the exact thing you told me to search I see ZERO polished stainless steel watches, a couple of polished watch BANDS but ZERO Polished watches. I own a nice Oris and that's my only $1000 + watch. And no it's not polished like the shiny chrome finish of the Apple Watch or iPod.
Also tech as fine jewelry is a ridiculous concept because in 1 years time it's obsolete. I hate that Apple is trying to even push the Watch in that direction.
Look you don't want people bad mouthing your precious purchase, I get it. But to deny straight up proof, link after link and photos is just ignorance. There are apparently quite a few videos of scratched Apple Watches out there too, even reported on CNet but there's no point of me linking it cause it's a waste of my time... good day to you.
I frankly do not get the Gen2 argument... what about Gen3 when Gen2 comes out? Wouldn't it make sense to go cheap again and wait for Gen3 because Gen3 will be better than Gen2?
As we have seen with the iPhone the Gen2 wasn't all that dramatically better than Gen1... and Gen4 was much better than Gen3....
If
Once the gen 1 has been out. Apple is getting a ton of feedback from EVERYONE. Gen 2 should be a nice refinement on Gen 1. Yes Gen 3/4/5 will be good but Gen 2 will not be a new product but a refinement on first gen tech.
what are you smoking??
http://www.authenticwatches.com/omega-deville-chronometer-43113412102001.html#.VVq7JJNVhBc
http://www.jomashop.com/iwc-watch-i...Z1IVKrm_TM_kcR7Ra5XWk1snP8eqErtHSSxoCxe_w_wcB
and and and
a polished stainless steel watch is really not rare at all...
I do own a polished stainless steel Portofino ... as yes ... it's as shiny as the Apple watch....
While a lot of aluminium alloys are fairly soft in comparison they have a thin protective layer of aluminium oxide. This is chemically the same as sapphire, but not crystalline and not quite as hard. Still, it's much harder than both aluminium and stainless steel.
The thing is that this layer is very, very thin. It will keep light everyday grazes from scratching the surface, but a more forceful impact will break through it and gouge the material underneath.
The result is that the magnetic clasp on my Milanese loop gets scratched by the edge of my Macbook, but if I took a regular iron nail I could impart a deep scratch on the Macbook's surface with a modicum of pressure.
Last edited:
I see a bunch of polished ss watches when clicking that search link you posted above.
B