Poll: Would You Prefer Aluminum Vs Stainless Steel If Prices Were the Same?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by MICHAELSD, Mar 15, 2015.


If they were priced the same, which case option would you prefer? (Regardless of glass.)

  1. Aluminum! "Aluminim"

    19 vote(s)
  2. Stainless steel, as reflective as it is.

    71 vote(s)
  3. I just came here for the free popcorn.

    8 vote(s)
  1. MICHAELSD macrumors 68040


    Jul 13, 2008
    Frankly I think a big part of the perception that the stainless steel model is superior to the aluminum is that it costs $200 more. If there were no cost difference, I do think a lot of people would perceive the aluminum to be just as high-end. If prices were reversed buyers would most likely see the stainless steel as the lower-end model. Bottom line: stainless steel is preferred due to price. If both aluminum and stainless steel were priced the same, which would you prefer? As prices become more uniform, I believe they will be priced the same.

    For me, I would prefer stainless steel if it was matte but I'm not a huge fan of a mirror finish on a watch. Although I am getting a bit tired of all Apple devices I have being aluminum, I would go with aluminum regardless of price.
  2. Armen macrumors 604


    Apr 30, 2013
    Los Angeles
    I'd still take Stainless steel because of the Sapphire glass and I like a bit of weight on my watches. I also don't like that the Alumimum has a white crown compared to the Stainless.
  3. troop231 macrumors 603

    Jan 20, 2010
    Honestly I would like to see the sapphire crystal and zirconia back on the aluminum model. The matte look is just so nice!
  4. The Doctor11 macrumors 603

    The Doctor11

    Dec 15, 2013
    New York
    If prices of all the watches were the same I would still get a 42mm Space Grey with Black band. Although I would like a milanese loop to go with.
  5. iamMacPerson macrumors 68030


    Jun 12, 2011
    Really? I'd get the 42mm Gold, remove all the internals and take the case in for cash. Then, with what I get from that go back and get a Sport model lol.

    If they were the same price, I would get the Stainless just for the Sapphire display. Now, if they made an aluminum Sport with Sapphire glass, I'd get that in a heartbeat.
  6. FCDP macrumors regular

    Nov 16, 2007
    Toronto, Canada
    If they were the same price, I'd get the Space Black Stainless Steel version. But seeing as they're not, and the Space Black SS version costs a minimum of $1k... no thanks. Aluminium Space Grey will do just fine.
  7. sjinsjca macrumors 68020


    Oct 30, 2008
    Aluminum. Lighter.

    But: Add milanese loop.

    I do wish titanium was an option.
  8. J4B3 macrumors regular


    Mar 18, 2012
    Gamma Quadrant
    If all prices were equal:

    Space black (Steel) > Space grey (aluminum) > Reg. Aluminum > Reg. SS

    I'd go for the darker color first.
  9. The Doctor11 macrumors 603

    The Doctor11

    Dec 15, 2013
    New York
    Haha ok let's say they are all worth the same.
  10. Wallabe macrumors 6502a

    Mar 15, 2015
    Melt the aluminum case, sell the metal, trade it for 24k gold bars and coins at a 1:1 ratio.

    Rinse, repeat, stack.

    Plenty of aluminum cans around; forget the watch, lets drink beer.
  11. telefono macrumors 6502


    Dec 17, 2007
    If prices were the same I would still get the SS, if the SS was 3 times the price of Alu I would still get the SS. If the Alu was cheaper than what it is now I would still get the SS.
  12. camtechman56 macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2015
    Warren, pa.
    I would still get the aluminum, it is a better choice for my job. Aluminum is to me sturdier and the ionx glass is less breakable than sapphire glass, and price is better
  13. Bigserver1 macrumors regular

    Sep 26, 2012
    The only thing that attracts me to the stainless watch is the sapphire crystal, and to a lesser extent, the ceramic back. To me those two things aren't worth $200, and on looks alone, I prefer the space grey sport over any other Apple Watch from any collection.

    With that said, if the stainless was $399 for the 42mm, I'd be buying that one rather than paying $599 for the sport (in that scenario). For version one, price is my #1 factor for buying.
  14. Lucifer666 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 20, 2014
    Aluminum adjusts to body temp much quicker therefore it's superior? (just guessing...sorry) :eek:
    In the watch world, steel is traditionally more swank (which=B.S.)

    I think your paying for the glass. Maybe it's mixed up.
  15. profmatt macrumors 68000


    Mar 7, 2015
    I think Apple have been clever here.

    I really like the look of the aluminium watch. But, unless you pay extra, you can only get the plastic bands. Even if you do pay extra there's no guarantee the expensive bands will match the aluminium. A lot of prople want the silver aluminium with a black band ... but of course you can't have that without paying extra. And if you're paying extra, well you might as well trade up to the stainless steel.

    Just in case they haven't hooked you they throw in talk of sapphire and ceramic. No-one really knows what advantages these confer, but they must be better, not least because they cost more.

    Finally, they give the aluminium straps dorky colours to stress the fact that the Sport is very much the kiddy watch.

    Oh! I nearly forgot! Throw in talk of galvanised corrosion to scare people into avoiding getting stainless steel straps with the aluminium body.

Share This Page

14 March 15, 2015