Is Stainless Steel Worth It?

[parseckadet]

Fact is you throw the watch away due to the battery being dead more so than the tech being outdated. It's bad design to make a device with limited functionality such as a watch with a non-replaceable battery.

It still is an impractical value over time for the devices limited use to not have a non friendly replaceable battery. In mint condition the stainless steel watch is worth $50 to $75 used. $80 to replace a dead/dying battery costs more than its value.

You're being a revisionist here. Originally your argument was that the watch was totally useless after three years and might as well go in the trash because the battery couldn't be replaced at all. Now you're saying that battery is too difficult and costly to replace, and there value of the watch is too little after three years. You've adopted the points that I've made without acknowledging it, which makes it seem like that was your position all along.

Let me interject this argument before I continue to my main point. Most watches that cost more than $100 don't have user replaceable batteries. And even those that do, I wouldn't call the process "friendly." In fact, I would challenge you to show me ANY watch whose battery replacement process is "friendly." I don't consider dealing with tiny screws that get lost the instant you unscrew them "friendly." But I digress. My Tag Heuer watch, for example, requires that I either send it to Seattle to have the battery replaced, or I take it to a Tag Heuer certified jeweler. And it typically costs $100-$120. When taken in that context, the process of replacing the battery in the Apple Watch is typical.

Now, addressing your NEW position. Yes, it probably is not worthwhile to replace the battery in the original Apple Watch at this point. But that device was under powered when it was new. I think three years from now, when people are contemplating replacing the battery in their series 3 vs. buying a new series 6 the calculus will be different. But that is just a guess on my part, and I could easily be wrong. Nobody should buy a SS watch today assuming they'll replace the battery in three years and continue to use it, just like nobody really does that with cell phones. BUT, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that three years from now any series 3 still in good working order will be worth more than nothing and throwing them in the trash will be foolish. You know, just like it is today with the original Apple Watch.

Finally, I reject your original premise that the residual value should play any role in the decision process anyway. I dare you to show me a Timex that was $20-$50 new which is worth the cost of a replacement battery on the used market.

 

[Mabus51]

You're being a revisionist here. Originally your argument was that the watch was totally useless after three years and might as well go in the trash because the battery couldn't be replaced at all. Now you're saying that battery is too difficult and costly to replace, and there value of the watch is too little after three years. You've adopted the points that I've made without acknowledging it, which makes it seem like that was your position all along.

Let me interject this argument before I continue to my main point. Most watches that cost more than $100 don't have user replaceable batteries. And even those that do, I wouldn't call the process "friendly." In fact, I would challenge you to show me ANY watch whose battery replacement process is "friendly." I don't consider dealing with tiny screws that get lost the instant you unscrew them "friendly." But I digress. My Tag Heuer watch, for example, requires that I either send it to Seattle to have the battery replaced, or I take it to a Tag Heuer certified jeweler. And it typically costs $100-$120. When taken in that context, the process of replacing the battery in the Apple Watch is typical.

Now, addressing your NEW position. Yes, it probably is not worthwhile to replace the battery in the original Apple Watch at this point. But that device was under powered when it was new. I think three years from now, when people are contemplating replacing the battery in their series 3 vs. buying a new series 6 the calculus will be different. But that is just a guess on my part, and I could easily be wrong. Nobody should buy a SS watch today assuming they'll replace the battery in three years and continue to use it, just like nobody really does that with cell phones. BUT, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that three years from now any series 3 still in good working order will be worth more than nothing and throwing them in the trash will be foolish. You know, just like it is today with the original Apple Watch.

Finally, I reject your original premise that the residual value should play any role in the decision process anyway. I dare you to show me a Timex that was $20-$50 new which is worth the cost of a replacement battery on the used market.

My position hasn't changed. I can't help you guys for having reading comprehension problems and making a bigger deal out of simple question. That question being is the stainless steel watch worth it?

Let me put it in a way maybe you can understand. If throwing away a $600 watch is ok with you in 2.5 to 3 years then yes get the stainless steel model. If not get the aluminum model as it's more practical for your livelihood.

I gave very sensible reasons as to why you'll be fine with the aluminum over the stainless steel models. I'm not arguing what you chose to do with your money or what you perceive is right/wrong practical or impractical. I personally don't care what you do. As I've stated I own the stainless steel, I've bought two versions of the stainless steel, and my stance is still the same. In two years from purchase when the battery is no longer worth keeping it, I will throw it in the trash. Because that's all it is worth at that point to me. I will either buy another or I won't time will tell.

 

[parseckadet]

In two years from purchase when the battery is no longer worth keeping it, I will throw it in the trash. Because that's all it is worth at that point to me.

Where are you getting this notion that you have to throw it in the trash? You're arguing that it has zero value to the user after two years. The point we are making is that you can continue to use it even after the battery needs replacement. Either replace the battery, through a process which is no different than other watches in this price range, or drive down to Best Buy and trade it in. Further, the value of an item is often greater to the owner than what one could sell it for on the used market.

 

[LotusLord]

I'm really considering moving to a stainless model. I have a huge deep scratch in the middle of my AW2 Sport, coincidentally the width and shape of a thumb nail. I've had the thing a little more than a year and until last week it was fine but one hefty bump and here we are. Luckily I have Apple Care so I'll get it fixed down the line (I'll need to find and charge my FitBit first).

 

[Mabus51]

Where are you getting this notion that you have to throw it in the trash? You're arguing that it has zero value to the user after two years. The point we are making is that you can continue to use it even after the battery needs replacement. Either replace the battery, through a process which is no different than other watches in this price range, or drive down to Best Buy and trade it in. Further, the value of an item is often greater to the owner than what one could sell it for on the used market.

It's cheaper for me to throw it in the trash than it is to take the time and go out of my way to get measly trade in value out of it. These aren't watches you keep around, they're simply devices that happen to tell time in short bursts.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to get that. If $600 is a lot to you, then you should go for the aluminum model as there is nothing wrong with it and it looks fine. Or in other words, if you have to ask how much it costs than it's to expensive for what your livelihood affords. I am not at all stating that the Apple Watch is junk, it's just not something you keep long term for what it is and there is no reason to frivolously over spend on it.

 

[44267547]

I'm really considering moving to a stainless model. I have a huge deep scratch in the middle of my AW2 Sport, coincidentally the width and shape of a thumb nail. I've had the thing a little more than a year and until last week it was fine but one hefty bump and here we are. Luckily I have Apple Care so I'll get it fixed down the line (I'll need to find and charge my FitBit first).

Moving to the stainless model basically gives you two things, aesthetics with the 316 L stainless casing and the Sapphire display. The main adVantage being with the Sapphire display, which I find to be absolutely crucial in terms of protection against scratches. If Someone concerned about scratches, especially looking at a 38 or 42 MM display, then I think your transition would be beneficial to you, as it has been for me.

 

[BoneHead001]

No, not worth the extra money at all.

 

[ManicMarc]

I have the aluminium S0 and SS S2. I would say:

• If you plan to upgrade every 1-2 years: probably not
• If you plan to keep the watch for 2+ years, then yes

 

[parseckadet]

It's cheaper for me to throw it in the trash than it is to take the time and go out of my way to get measly trade in value out of it.

I don't know if I can roll my eyes any harder than it is when I hear statements like this. You walk into Best Buy, 15 minutes later you walk with with $70. You make it sound like it requires donating a kidney or something.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to get that. If $600 is a lot to you, then you should go for the aluminum model as there is nothing wrong with it and it looks fine. Or in other words, if you have to ask how much it costs than it's to expensive for what your livelihood affords. I am not at all stating that the Apple Watch is junk, it's just not something you keep long term for what it is and there is no reason to frivolously over spend on it.

When did I ever say $600 was too expensive for me? Who are you to tell me what my livelihood can and cannot afford? Could you possibly be more arrogant?

 

[sean000]

My Series 0 aluminum Sport still looks new. I don't have any protection on it, and I have worn it every day for almost three years. I wore it while my kids were active toddlers. I have worn it mountain biking. It has taken some smacks from branches (or me smacking it into a wall) that I expected to leave marks, but it still looks pristine.

I plan to upgrade to the S3 or S4 later this year, and I plan to stick to aluminum for now. The stainless steel sure is beautiful though. If money wasn't a factor I would get the stainless steel, but for now I'm going to stick with aluminum and might upgrade to SS when I have a bit more disposable income.

One thing about SS that I'm sure others have mentioned is that it scratches (talking about the stainless steel case and not the display). These are fine micro-scratches that can be buffed out, but that means you either embrace the patina or you have a little maintenance to perform. I personally like the slightly worn look, so it wouldn't bother me.

 

[rjbruce]

I have only owned the aluminum but FWIW I consider myself very very active. I have a desk job but it often involves carrying boxes and digging through files and filing cabinets and things like that. Fitness wise I wear my watch for running 5 days a week, playing softball 2 days a week, and lifting weights when I can squeeze it in. I have two dogs I play with and walk every day and my downtime hobbies are active as well—fishing and riding ATV’s and anything outdoors. Aside from an active occupation, I think I’m as active as they come. I’ve had my SG aluminum since the series 3 LTE came out and it’s in perfect condition (knock on wood). I only have a thin flexible film screen protector on it which looks fine and I don’t even notice. I don’t like how stainless steel often gets micro scratches on it. If you’re active, the aluminum IS in fact totally fine and I see no reason to spend the extra money.

Agree with this. I bought the S1 on sale and have had no issues with durability. I have a desk job too, but still pretty active otherwise. I've done construction around the house and work on the car and there are really no scratches or nicks to speak of. Maybe a few very light scratches on the glass, but I don't use any cases or films.

 

[Nell]

I went with aluminium when the Watch came out and stainless steel for a change when I got a Series 3 LTE. I like both a lot. My original watch is now 3 years old and not really showing any signs of wear (unless I look really, really closely).

The additional weight of the stainless steel watch isn’t generally an issue but it is noticeable and in hot weather I’d prefer aluminium. The other negative is that the screen of the stainless steel watch often looks foggy (surface grease from finger marks) and needs cleaning.

I’ll be keeping my Series 3 a few years I would think but I’m genuinely not sure what I’ll buy next time. I’d guess it’s 60:40 in favour of aluminium.

 

[barjam]

It is completely worth it to me because I hate scratches. I tried the aluminum watch and the glass was scratched within the first week in multiple places. My previous near launch S0SS that I abused had zero scratches.

 

[macdragonfl]

I would say after making the switch from aluminum to SS, I would never buy the aluminum again. I had a sport for 2.5 years and had very few issues with scratching. I had a few small nicks in the screen none on the body. I am planning to keep for 3 years so the 200 dollar difference at 66.66 per year is nothing for the benefits you receive. It is heavier which I like, as I used to wear fine watches. It feels and looks like a fine watch. If you don't wear fine watches or care about fashion it wouldn't make any difference at all other than durability. Even on that point it's worth it alone. Some people are worried about resale. One must realize that electronics generally have horrible resale value. Macs and iPhones do have better resale than most. At this time the watch does not. Fine watches also have horrible resale value. Their are exceptions but very few. When you combine the two together it's even worse. I don't sell any old Apple stuff anymore, I just give it to a deserving person who may not be able to afford it. They are very grateful and I feel I did something nice for someone. You cannot put a price on the happy look on their face when they receive it!

 

[44267547]

Lots of good posts. But all that matters, is the value is appreciated by the owner. Tech in general doesn’t hold value, utilizing the watch daily pays for itself Over the course of time.

 

[TooDarkPark]

Lots of good posts. But all that matters, is the value is appreciated by the owner. Tech in general doesn’t hold value, utilizing the watch daily pays for itself Over the course of time.

This is true. I bought a series 2 ceramic edition a year ago on February and after 6 months, couldn't even sell it for $500 so I just kept it. In December, I still bought a SS series 3 knowing what I went through with the ceramic edition. Not only did I buy the SS, I bought a silver aluminum and a Nike +.

I'll most likely buy whatever comes out for the next series again. You just gotta be ok with knowing you won't get much for it if you sell it the next year.

 

[QCassidy352]

Not worth it to me because I prefer the lighter weight of the aluminum model. But the SS does look nice.

 

[geesus]

Been wearing my first SS today and love it. I don't find it that much heavier, despite the weight stats, and the improvement in build quality is significant.

The only thing concerning me, is bluetooth range seems reduced, but I moved from Gen 2 to 3 also, so that might be responsible rather than the housing change.

 

[nokkynuk]

Been wearing my first SS today and love it. I don't find it that much heavier, despite the weight stats, and the improvement in build quality is significant.

The only thing concerning me, is bluetooth range seems reduced, but I moved from Gen 2 to 3 also, so that might be responsible rather than the housing change.

Interesting observation. Can you test it further? Maybe turn off wrist detection and see how far you can go with different types of devices (e.g. airpods, reg. bluetooth headphones). I had a similar experience when i went from my Series 1 to Series 3 LTE Aluminum SG model. For some odd reason i feel like i have lower range than i did before.

 

[geesus]

Interesting observation. Can you test it further? Maybe turn off wrist detection and see how far you can go with different types of devices (e.g. airpods, reg. bluetooth headphones). I had a similar experience when i went from my Series 1 to Series 3 LTE Aluminum SG model. For some odd reason i feel like i have lower range than i did before.

I still have my old S2 aluminium and tested it earlier and I definitely get a few more metres away. Unfortunately it is all boxed up now so further testing won't be an option. Not a big deal with cellular coverage anyway but just interesting - as you mention, I wonder if maybe if I turned off the cellular option it would reach further.

 

[parseckadet]

I still have my old S2 aluminium and tested it earlier and I definitely get a few more metres away. Unfortunately it is all boxed up now so further testing won't be an option. Not a big deal with cellular coverage anyway but just interesting - as you mention, I wonder if maybe if I turned off the cellular option it would reach further.

My guess is they made changes to he Bluetooth antenna to accommodate the one for LTE.

 

[j.dstasio]

I'm on my third Apple Watch...

1st: S0 Sport- I hated how light it was and managed to scratch the screen and casing within just a few days.
2nd: S0 SS- Much better. I decided I wanted a S2 for swimming and the extra battery life. Sold it in like new condition after a quick buffing.
3rd: S2 SS- When the S3 came out I didn't want to spend the extra money on the SS model with LTE because I had no interest in the LTE. I bought a used 42mm AWSS on ebay with Apple Care for $250 and it suits my needs just fine.

My wife upgraded to the LTE S3 and got an aluminum sport. Her screen is covered in small scratches just from day to day use and working out at the gym. My SS looks like it just came out of the box even though it gets abused and slammed around quite a bit when I work on cars, doing yard work, hiking, etc. I never give damaging my watch a second thought where as my wife is constantly taking hers on & off when she thinks it might get another scratch. I wouldn't want to pay the huge premium for a new SS watch every year though. For me buying the previous model after the depreciation kicks in makes it almost a no-brainer. I'd much rather have the older model SS than a new model sport if the price point is essentially the same or cheaper even to pick up a SS.

 

[44267547]

I'm on my third Apple Watch...

1st: S0 Sport- I hated how light it was and managed to scratch the screen and casing within just a few days.
2nd: S0 SS- Much better. I decided I wanted a S2 for swimming and the extra battery life. Sold it in like new condition after a quick buffing.
3rd: S2 SS- When the S3 came out I didn't want to spend the extra money on the SS model with LTE because I had no interest in the LTE. I bought a used 42mm AWSS on ebay with Apple Care for $250 and it suits my needs just fine.

My wife upgraded to the LTE S3 and got an aluminum sport. Her screen is covered in small scratches just from day to day use and working out at the gym. My SS looks like it just came out of the box even though it gets abused and slammed around quite a bit when I work on cars, doing yard work, hiking, etc. I never give damaging my watch a second thought where as my wife is constantly taking hers on & off when she thinks it might get another scratch. I wouldn't want to pay the huge premium for a new SS watch every year though. For me buying the previous model after the depreciation kicks in makes it almost a no-brainer. I'd much rather have the older model SS than a new model sport if the price point is essentially the same or cheaper even to pick up a SS.

This is a good post from a perspective of daily use between both models of the Apple Watch in aluminim and Stainless. It shows you the resiliency with the Sapphire display in the stainless model and how much more protective it really is. But the sport model does have its appeal for the lighter weight and for those who are not too worried about scratching the display. But after having using the stainless model myself, I don’t believe I could use the aluminum sport watch again. I think Apple Watch pays for itself over the course of time depending how you use it.

 

[Shanghaichica]

^ Some don’t understand that’s the nature of technology. You can’t really complain about something that’s not lasting over three years for in terms of an Apple Watch. Some users first generation Apple Watches are well over the three year Mark and still holding strong. Battery usage is completely variable based on how somebody’s using it, how often they charge, etc. If you factor the cost of how often somebody uses an Apple Watch, it likely pays for itself, by a certain point, somebody wants to upgrade to have the latest features/model anyways. Not to mention, as software progresses, it will supersede the hardware that will be dated inside the watch. Again, its the evolution of technology.

I think the iPhone, iPad and MacBook age a lot better than the watch and still work well after 3 years.

I got the S0 aluminium watch on launch day. In August of 2015 I upgraded to the SS. By the end of 2016 the watch had become really slow and by the beginning of 2017 the battery life was so terrible that I couldn't even get 12 hours out of it even if for 8 of those 12 hours it was being put into aeroplane mode and theatre mode. Basically I'd be up for work at 4 am and by 7 am I'd have put it into aeroplane mode and theatre mode and by 3 pm the thing would have gone into low power mode. So my watch was not even 2 years old at that point and was performing terribly. So for the S3 I went with the aluminium. I'd like to keep it for at least 2 years but based on my past experience who knows.
[doublepost=1529567148][/doublepost]

This is a good post from a perspective of daily use between both models of the Apple Watch in aluminim and Stainless. It shows you the resiliency with the Sapphire display in the stainless model and how much more protective it really is. But the sport model does have its appeal for the lighter weight and for those who are not too worried about scratching the display. But after having using the stainless model myself, I don’t believe I could use the aluminum sport watch again. I think Apple Watch pays for itself over the course of time depending how you use it.

The SS is better, no doubt. It's more durable and looks better but I can't justify spending that much on a watch again if it's going to degrade so quickly after less than 2 years.

 

[Endorphine88]

I prefer the stainless steel cause it just looks and feels more solid and premium. However, I know I am most likely going to want to upgrade when S4 comes out sometime soon so I decided to just get an aluminum body for now.
Stainless steel is a little heavier (not that noticeable in my opinion) but the finish is way more attractive compared to aluminum. Either way - apple care is a must