Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Check out the back of the Manatee:

Image

Sapphire Glass, 33m thick, $2,500 or so...
Hope Apple can do better with the bezels on the iWatch than the iPhone 6.

Thing I don't get - if they're using Sapphire glass, how can they also have a fleixble display?, unless it's like a fuelband Manatee size mashup?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6733.jpg
    IMG_6733.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 136
  • Screen Shot 2014-09-08 at 23.51.53.png
    Screen Shot 2014-09-08 at 23.51.53.png
    489.1 KB · Views: 82
So the iWatch is gonna be a thick square block like every other smart watch on the market for the last 3 years...

...exept the Moto 360, that one actually looks really nice.

Image

I agree. If its a square watch, then all the hype is for nothing. Apple could've changed the whole watch industry, but if its a square then its all a bit boring.
 
I agree. If its a square watch, then all the hype is for nothing. Apple could've changed the whole watch industry, but if its a square then its all a bit boring.

Well, look at the bright side... If Tim Cook can't, then at least Steve Jobs did.
 
most sport luxury watches are between 41-44. 46 is not excepcional but is big, although it could be trendy easily

You have your numbers way off.

Most watches, dress watches are 38mm. The gentlemen's Pateks and the likes.
The Rolex Datejust is 36-38mm.

Most "toolwatches" are 40mm.

The entire Rolex SS line (with the exception of the newest EXPII).
The Submariner, The SeaDweller, the GMT Master, the Daytona
Omega's Speedmaster, Omega Seamaster are also 40mm.

This is the tried and true formula for over 60 years. 40mm is usually reserved for deep diver's watch and masculine Chronographs.

44mm was introduced in the 1990s by Panerai and picked up by the Hollywood A-List action stars. 44mm is large. Panerai pretty much pioneered the "oversize" market at 44mm.

47mm is an outlier size. The super big Panerais.

The Moto 360 is an outlier size at 46mm. It is definitely not in the norm. It has been compared to the Braun and Movados due to their simple, modernist look. Those watches are 38mm.

The Moto360 is no masculine watch. It can't go 4,000 feet underwater. It doesn't have 3-G anti-gravity and shock resistance used by air and naval tactical forces. Yet, it is in the size of those masculine tool watches.
It size is merely due to the fact it couldn't be engineered smaller.
 
As a Triathlete, I am secretly hoping that the fitness part of this watch is something very big that would even allow me to use it as my watch of use in my training sessions and race days.

Something like this: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/running/forerunner-910xt/prod90671.html

Use a barometric altimeter to give me accurate elevation changes and the grade.
Even if it is waterproof actually so it allowed me to use it (like a triathlon watch should) in my swimming session

Oh Apple, if this watch actually could be a way to change the way we view fitness watches (sadly a lot of fitness watches still look like something I would get in the 90's) and allowed me to train with it then it would be big for me. Plus add in the general every day things you could add to it (payments, using it with my phone, and more) this watch would be a very big thing...
 
fortysomegeek - is there a normal/min/max for watch thickness? Is the Moto 260 an outlier on the chunky thickness side?
Twigman - a similar sensor for the barometric pressure was of order of accuracy in terms of knowing which floor you might be on? http://www.bosch-sensortec.com/de/homepage/products_3/environmental_sensors_1/bmp280/bmp280 has a similar sensor 0
Relative accuracy ±1 m, but absolute accuracy ±8ish metres.
CoreMotion has floor and altitude as far as I recall so they can do it to that accuracy likely.
If they're doing fitness and the watch, maybe they could take on fitness watches - like they took on SatNavs.
 
Last edited:
This just goes to show how difficult it is to design a watch that everyone will like. In many mid-to-high end watch circles, Hublot, Panerai and the Royal Oak Offshore are three of the cheesiest, giant choices out there. I wouldn't wear one if it was given to me. The regular Royal Oak is a classic, though.

Either way, no reason to make digital smart watches look like classic analogue watches. That big Moto 360 looks ridiculous, and, while a smaller, circular design might look ok, a rectangle makes more sense, functionally.

Most sport luxury watches that size are overbuilt for deep sea diving. A gentleman's watch is still usually in the 36mm-40mm range.

I can't think of a best seller luxury sport watch apart from the daytona which still is sold under 41mm (the rolex subs and similars used to but the new crown guard adds 1mm so they are now 41mm)

I suppose you are referring to some minority "in your house" snob watch circles because these are three of the most iconic actual sport watches, the offshore being around succesfully since 1993, the big bang have won quite every possible design award for a sport watch and a panerai luminor having one of the most timeless designs out there.

Maybe you think the AP royal oak 15400/15300 or the patek nautilus are sport watches but they are not really, they are just steel/metallic of more durable conception watches.

I'm myself a watch collector from a lange und sohne to panerai going throw seiko if you want and patek because I'm not biased, I'm not a stupid snob who is going to say a patek calatrava is a "connoisseur watch" which is much better than a hublot big bang just because I'm going to sound much more sofisticated that way. They are just different watches like a rolls royce phantom and a lamborghini aventador are different cars. Even if you say me the big bang or panerais do not use a inhouse movement, which actually they have now if you want (or we can argue about the real nature of that movements like the p9000 which probably is a jlc based movement actually, but whatever), there are plenty of pure-snob-loved watches that did not have in house movements.

Summarizing, do not be a snob, it does not make you more sophisticated.

I'm sorry to tell you that nowadays anything below 40mm, not to say 36mm, being neither vintage nor very classic is basically a ladies watch.

----------

You have your numbers way off.

Most watches, dress watches are 38mm. The gentlemen's Pateks and the likes.
The Rolex Datejust is 36-38mm.

Most "toolwatches" are 40mm.

The entire Rolex SS line (with the exception of the newest EXPII).
The Submariner, The SeaDweller, the GMT Master, the Daytona
Omega's Speedmaster, Omega Seamaster are also 40mm.

This is the tried and true formula for over 60 years. 40mm is usually reserved for deep diver's watch and masculine Chronographs.

44mm was introduced in the 1990s by Panerai and picked up by the Hollywood A-List action stars. 44mm is large. Panerai pretty much pioneered the "oversize" market at 44mm.

47mm is an outlier size. The super big Panerais.

The Moto 360 is an outlier size at 46mm. It is definitely not in the norm. It has been compared to the Braun and Movados due to their simple, modernist look. Those watches are 38mm.

The Moto360 is no masculine watch. It can't go 4,000 feet underwater. It doesn't have 3-G anti-gravity and shock resistance used by air and naval tactical forces. Yet, it is in the size of those masculine tool watches.
It size is merely due to the fact it couldn't be engineered smaller.

You are not very into actual Rolex I'm afraid since all the iconic models using the submariner style case are indeed 41mm watches due to the new crown guard, not 40mm, that's why the case have changed for example from the 16610 to the 116610 and it's very obvious. The daytona keeps smaller BUT when you talk about the new 116600 there is the popular 116660 alternative which is 44mm. And, BTW, this is the biggest complaint to Rolex from most modern design lovers, their small sizes.

AND these (rolex) are the smallest popular sport watches nowadays, because omega is using 42mm as the small size for both the expensive seamasters (PO) and the speedmaster. Not to mention Blancpain and so on

A 36-38mm datejust is just a retired man, call it "the last time I thought about watches were the 80s", or a ladies watch.

Welcome to 2014
 
Last edited:
fortysomegeek - is there a normal/min/max for watch thickness? Is the Moto 260 an outlier on the chunky thickness side?

At 11.5 mm, it is fairly thin for an automatic watch but thick for a quartz.
Since the 360 is not an mechanical watch, you must judge the 360 against a Quartz watch.

Then you have quartz which can be crazy thin. As low as 5mm.

The thickness is dependent on the movement.

Dress watches with "mechanical movement" are 11 - 15mm.
The Submariner is 13mm
The Datejust are 11mm.
Some of the high-end dress pieces are as low as 8.5
Panerais are 17mm thick.
 
I think i've solved it

REGARDING THE PICS OF THE RECTANGLE HOUSING AND THE CIRCULAR OBJECT

Some of you say that you think the circular object is a component for the rectangle housing.
I think that it is not. The reasons are, that for one thing a user here pointed out why make a rectangle housing only to make a circular cut out for sensors, etc.
Though I do believe that wireless charging requires circular coil.
But a circular coil, not cut out. The coil does not need to be in contact with the skin.
More importantly though g I think that both pics are different sizes.
I think that the Iwatch will come in 2 sizes, one large and 1 small. The large one will be rectangle because it will allow for bigger screens, for those who either have big wrists or don't mind the rectangle screen.
The smaller one will be circular for those with smaller wrists or who want a circular watch.
Thus in 2 watches you can cater for at least 4 different people without having at least 4 watches.
I may be wrong, but if I were Apple then that's what I would do. Perhaps the circular watch would have less features and be cheaper. The larger one could be premium model with all the bells and whistles on.
There were reports that the Iwatch would come in multiple price points. I don't know if that report was credible but it fits with my theory.
 
I'm sorry, but why am I now smirking thinking about all these people who made the statement 'wait and see what Apple bring out - it'll be the best you see!" In response to smart watches from LG and Samsung. Fat ugly iwatches, big bezeled phones with ugly rears (which people are now saying they like now the reality has set in!) ... what has become of Apple and their 'design philosophy'?
 
You are not very into actual Rolex I'm afraid since all the iconic models using the submariner style case are indeed 41mm watches due to the new crown guard, not 40mm, that's why the case have changed for example from the 16610 to the 116610.

AND these (rolex) are the smallest popular sport watches nowadays, because omega is using 42mm as the small size for both the expensive seamasters (PO) and the speedmaster.

Welcome to 2014

I have a Submariner 16610LV, a 16800. I have three GMT Masters 1675, 16710, and the Ceramic. I also have a Seamaster and multiple speedmasters. The Explorer II (I believe the Deep Sea as well) are indeed 42mm and that is the exception.

The Omegas are indeed measured at 41mm.

But the Rolex are always 40mm based on the spec, my owners manual, and the specifications issued by Rolex.

http://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m116610ln-0001.html

14o1ft.png
 
I have a Submariner 16610LV, a 16800. I have three GMT Masters 1675, 16710, and the Ceramic. I also have a Seamaster and multiple speedmasters. The Explorer II (I believe the Deep Sea as well) are indeed 42mm and that is the exception.

The Omegas are indeed measured at 41mm.

But the Rolex are always 40mm based on the spec, my owners manual, and the specifications issued by Rolex.

http://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m116610ln-0001.html

Image

Measure it yourself (not the aluminium 16610, but the "new" ceramic 116610 114060 or whatever variation), this has been discussed long ago in rolexforums

The seamaster planet ocean is a 43,5 - 45,5 mm watch if you want and the speedmaster dark side of the moon is 44,25 mm. The small sapphire/sapphire speedmaster pro is 42mm

Believe me, I'm a die hard Rolex fan
 
Ars Technica summed the Moto 360 perfectly in the title of their review: "Beautiful outside, ugly inside".

Well that surely beats ugly on the outside, beautiful on the inside doesn't it (which seems to be very much the case here!) Sorry, but as much as people procrastinate, I'm not having an ugly lump on my wrist instead of nice watch ... whatever features it may have!!!!
 
I can't think of a luxury sport watch apart from the daytona which still is sold under 41mm (the rolex subs and similars used to but the new crown guard adds 1mm so they are now 41mm)

I suppose you are referring to some minority "in your house" snob watch circles because these are three of the most iconic actual sport watches, the offshore being around succesfully since 1993, the big bang have won quite every possible design award for a sport watch and a panerai luminor having one of the most timeless designs out there.

Maybe you think the AP royal oak 15400/15300 or the patek nautilus are sport watches but they are not really, they are just steel/metallic of more durable conception watches.

I'm myself a watch collector from a lange und sohne to panerai going throw seiko and patek but I'm not a stupid snob who is going to say a patek calatrava is a "connoisseur watch" which is much better than a hublot big bang just because I'm going to sound much more sofisticated that way. They are just different watches like a rolls royce phantom and a lamborghini aventador are different cars. Even if you say me the big bang or panerais do not use a inhouse movement, which actually they have now if you want, there are plenty of pure-snob-loved watches that did not have in house movements.

Summarizing, do not be a snob, it does not make you more sophisticated.

I'm sorry to tell you that nowadays anything below 40mm, not to say 36mm, being neither vintage nor very classic is basically a ladies watch.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to buy a Calatrava. There are zillions of lesser priced current watches 40mm or less that I'd choose over something like a Big Bang: DateJust, Aqua Terra, Ingenieur, etc. Heck, even a Hamilton Khaki. Plus, many of the over 41mm watches still have small dials relative to the case, so it doesn't wear as large, and if the crown guards are included in the measurement, it can skew things quite a bit. The 41mm Sub wears small. The Moto 360 is nearly all "dial," and it looks ridiculous on any wrist shot I've seen.

I guess this is the overall point. Everyone has different taste, and some are more ostentatious than others. Hummers were popular at one time, too, and they went well with some of these larger watches.
 
Measure it yourself (not the aluminium 16610, but the "new" ceramic 116610 114060 or whatever), this has been discussed long ago in rolexforums

The seamaster planet ocean is a 43,5 - 45,5 mm watch if you want and the speedmaster dark side of the moon is 44,25 mm. The small sapphire/sapphire speedmaster pro is 42mm

That may have been the case with the Omegas. I haven't been looking at sport watches the past 3 years. I'm more into the dress stuff now.

I did know Omega was upsizing but I didn't think they'd go Panerai size on the Speedmaster. The original Speedmaster Pro . The classic is still 40-41mm depending on the resource.

The point still stands that 46mm is ridiculous.
 
I'm not saying that everyone needs to buy a Calatrava. There are zillions of lesser priced current watches 40mm or less that I'd choose over something like a Big Bang: DateJust, Aqua Terra, Ingenieur, etc. Heck, even a Hamilton Khaki. Plus, many of the over 41mm watches still have small dials relative to the case, so it doesn't wear as large, and if the crown guards are included in the measurement, it can skew things quite a bit. The 41mm Sub wears small. The Moto 360 is nearly all "dial," and it looks ridiculous on any wrist shot I've seen.

I guess this is the overall point. Everyone has different taste.

I of course accept everyone has different tastes, it's just that I'm bored of the "hublot (whatever "new concept" watch) is not a watch enthusiast choice because it's worse than ____ (typical choice)". There are no better or worse choices when someone knows what he's buying, but the fact is, again, that nowadays anything below 40mm is considered small, no matter if you don't like this.
 
That may have been the case with the Omegas. I haven't been looking at sport watches the past 3 years. I'm more into the dress stuff now.

I did know Omega was upsizing but I didn't think they'd go Panerai size on the Speedmaster. The original Speedmaster Pro . The classic is still 40-41mm depending on the resource.

The point still stands that 46mm is ridiculous.

Omega's recent upsizing is one of the most contentious topics talked about on Omega forums. Same with Rolex.
 
That may have been the case with the Omegas. I haven't been looking at sport watches the past 3 years. I'm more into the dress stuff now.

I did know Omega was upsizing but I didn't think they'd go Panerai size on the Speedmaster. The original Speedmaster Pro . The classic is still 40-41mm depending on the resource.

The point still stands that 46mm is ridiculous.

I wouldn't be so sure that if you understand ridiculous as out of the norm, the 360 is ridiculous. IWC yacht club, there you go, 45,44mm. Omegas? 44mm or so are becoming normal, seriously, 42mm are being considered small. Panerais of course, 42 small 44 normal 47 big (egiziano apart).

Rolex with their sizes is the iPhone 4'' of watches, basically.

The fact is that personally the Panerai I own, for example, is a not frequent 42mm model and I myself like 40-42mm watches on me, like I like smaller iphones, both probably because I'm not gigantic so I think the big ones look ridiculous on me (out of proportion). But that does not change the actual trend
 
Last edited:
I of course accept everyone has different tastes, it's just that I'm bored of the "hublot (whatever "new concept" watch) is not a watch enthusiast choice because it's worse than ____ (typical choice)". There are no better or worse choices when someone knows what he's buying, but the fact is, again, that nowadays anything below 40mm is considered small, no matter if you don't like this.

I didn't mean to imply you aren't a watch enthusiast because you like the Big Bang.

I agree that most sport watches below 40mm is considered small, these days, for better or worse, but there are zillions of current non-dive or non-chrono watches that are 40mm and smaller.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, cause diameter can be misleading. The Moto 360's bezel is so thin that the watch seems to wear much larger than a 46mm diver with a thick bezel.
 
Are some of these like the Moto going large out of constraints (fit in enough battery, can't miniaturize enough yet) rather than style reasons?
 
I wouldn't be so sure that if you understand ridiculous as out of the norm, the 360 is ridiculous. IWC yacht club, there you go, 45,44mm. Omegas? 44mm are becoming normal, seriously, 42mm are being considered small. Panerais of course, 42 small 44 normal 47 big (egiziano apart).

Rolex with their sizes is the iPhone 4'' of watches, basically

I'll stick to the classics. That just my style. I prefer my Royal Navy vintage Seamaster 300 over my 2005 Seamaster. I prefer the original Speedmaster Pros used on the moon w/ its hesalite crystals over a 44. I prefer the original Rolex SS line as that is what I grew up with. Same with my IWC Mark XV at 38mm. I have a 4mm Panerai and it is big.If I can find a Rolex 5517 or a Newman Daytona, I'd take those over any current Rolex. My latest Ceramic GMT 2 is the last of the tool watches I got.

Some people just prefer the classics and the majority of the classics are 40mm. I don't consider the newer Omega Planet Ocean a heritage model.

Back to the 360. It is ridiculous because it suppose to emulate a dress watch instead of a tactical tool watch.
What dress watch (non diver/non chrono/non heritage wanna-be retro) is over 44mm?

My next watch will probably be a IWC 3714 Portuguese and I think it is way big for a dress watch at 40.5mm
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but as much as people procrastinate, I'm not having an ugly lump on my wrist instead of nice watch ... whatever features it may have!!!!

For a lot of people though (including me) what it brings to the table when it comes to functionality that I might find useful on a daily basis is a lot more important than looks alone.

If I wanted something on my arm with the primary purpose of looking pretty I would have worn a nice wrist watch the last 10+ years. But I haven't, because something that just shows the time is really of no interest to me as long as I have a cell phone in my pocket.

I think a lot of the guys and gals here that wish for something that can rival exclusive wristwatches in pure looks is in for a very nasty surprise. Hi-tech functionality is a vital key point in the total package, and this is something that 'regular' watch makers do not have to take into account (except getting the watch to show the right time).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.