Quit saying the Apple Watch is thick. It is normal for a watch.

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Kendo, Sep 9, 2014.

  1. Kendo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    #1
    On paper I admit it seems thick. When you look at it in photos it seems thick. But what you don't realize is that the watch on your wrist right now is also the same thickness. It is NORMAL for a watch to be this thick more often than not. Everything from a Rolex to a G-Shock to a Kenneth Cole to an Omega is the same thickness. You just don't notice it.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Velin, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014

    Velin macrumors 65816

    Velin

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    Hearst Castle
    #2
    No. Your examples are absurd. For contrast, here's JLC's ultrathin -- a mechanical watch, no less. The workmanship is simply stunning, and yes, I own one.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The back of their Master Control, which is just a little bit bigger, gold version:

    [​IMG]

    A real master watch company, making a fantastic watch that is accurate and wearable, without having to strap a brick to your arm.

    Here's one of Omega's latest, the DeVille:

    [​IMG]

    Two classics, the Calatrava and the ALS Saxonia, side-by-side:

    [​IMG]

    These are classic watches, a forever watch. Buy one of these and you'll have a timepiece forever, these are handed down through generations. These are watches which, with a little servicing, can last many lifetimes.

    Apple watch is a chunky POS that will be thrown away.
     
  3. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #3
    Based on the guy who showed it off, I don't actually think it looks all that thick.

    Watch the keynote when he's demoing it - its about as thick as his finger.....

    Betting it's thinner than the Moto360. I'm sure there will be some hands on that will show us though.
     
  4. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #4
    It looks like the biggest difference, compared to the Moto 360, is that the Apple Watch has the strap attachments in the middle of the case, whereas the Moto has the straps at the bottom of the case, so the Moto seems to sit a lot taller.
     
  5. Kendo thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    #5
    I almost laughed out loud when you call my example absurd (examples of everyday watches) but in order to counter, you provided a phone called the JLC Ultra Thin, a watch that was designed with thinness in mind.
     
  6. Velin, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014

    Velin macrumors 65816

    Velin

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    Hearst Castle
    #6
    Took me time to upload my other examples. Most Omegas aren't that thick. The Calatrava and the ALS are true classics. And "everyday" watches are your Citizens, Seikos, etc.

    Rolex DeepSea simply is not representative. None of the photos you posted are "everyday" watches. And people who wear their DeepSea or some other purposefully obnoxious chubstrap look stupid. Just like phablet lovers.

    [​IMG]

    Am I a watch snob? Nope. I think even Timex makes some nice pieces. Do I own a nice mechanical piece? Yes. Do I shake my head at these losers wearing tires on their arms, and phablets on their ears? Definitely. This "look at me" culture of absurd ostentation should be ridiculed and ostracized into oblivion.

    None of your examples will change the fact Apple released an iPod touch with a strap.
     
  7. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #7
    Right - I could post pictures of my skagen, but it really isn't your typical watch.

    People are thinking about smartwatches in general all wrong. Similar to how people originally though of tablets and smartphones before the iPhone and iPad came along.

    We'll see where we are in a few years. It only took the iPad 4 years to completely change the tablet industry.
     
  8. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #8
    Most automatic watches are in the 10-13mm range in thickness. I'd say 9mm or less would be considered thin, and over 13mm would be considered thick.

    FWIW, Omega's cal 8500 movement has made some of their watches a couple of millimeters thicker than they used to be.
     
  9. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #9
    Keep your own biased bullcrap to yourself. You don't like this stuff, don't post on it. We're here to discuss not bash other people for their choice in timepiece or phone size.

    Human beings....:rolleyes:
     
  10. baryon macrumors 68040

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #10
    The first iPad was very thick, heavy and bulky with a huge bezel. When I picked it up for the first time my first thought was about how damn heavy the thing was. Then they slimmed it down release after release.

    Surely the Apple Watch will also become slimmer quickly before settling for an optimal size.

    I'm thinking that a smaller device doesn't consume that much less than a larger one, yet can only hold a much smaller battery. That's why the iPad has a great battery life, while the iPhone doesn't, and that's why the iPhone Plus has a much better battery life than the normal iPhone, because it has far more space yet isn't a lot more power hungry.
     
  11. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #11
    Doesn't look like the Apple Watch is much more than 10-13mm.....looking at it with iPhones next to it in some of the press pics....hard to tell from a picture though. Need to see one on my own wrist to decide.

    Everyone is different as to what they want to wear on their wrist. I think Apple's done a great job making it highly customizable.
     
  12. rritterson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Location:
    DC USA
    #12
    Posts like this make me understand why Apple is hiring so many people who have previously worked for luxury brands. I had no idea there were "watch people" (for lack of a better phrase) out there, just like classic car people.
     
  13. tl01 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    I am totally fine with the shape and the thickness. I think a round watch isn't necessary... Round watches are necessary when you have hands that have to go around in a circle but I think that you can use the space more effectively with a square rather than a circle. I will be buying one!

    ----------

    Agreed! I think the different band options and sizes are great! Something for everyone!
     
  14. Patriot24 macrumors 68030

    Patriot24

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #14
    Says the guy with a $7,000 watch and the avatar of a woman's breasts.

    Clearly neither of those have anything to do with status or people noticing you in any way.

    :rolleyes:
     
  15. Velin macrumors 65816

    Velin

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    Hearst Castle
    #15
    The watch is very understated. Very. Its simple design and execution is why I have it.

    Not understated.
     
  16. markyr17 macrumors 65816

    markyr17

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    #16
    Ok so I won't say it's too thick.

    But I will say it's ugly. Oh, and thick.
     
  17. phrozend, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014

    phrozend macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    #17
    There is no doubt in hell that the main role of an expensive watch is to function as a status symbol. Design, practicalities, execution - all secondary reasons. Just like an expensive car. Just like an expensive suit. That doesn't mean you didn't put a lot of consideration into your choice of watch. I would never judge anyone for wearing an expensive watch or any other item for that matter. However - I think your rational for wearing the watch is ...untrue. Especially after your little dig at people and their phablets. (note: I'm not a phablet owner.)

    Conscious or not, you're a part of the "look at me"-culture you refer to negatively. Me too btw. If it was simply about the design or even just getting a good quality watch, you could buy a knockoff. But you're interested in the brand. Maybe the history of the company. The legacy. You wear it on your wrist. You're proud of it. Maybe you don't flaunter it around in the sense that you don't bring it up in every conversation - although I find this to be highly unlikely since it was the first thing you mentioned here. You're excused since the topic is exactly about watches.

    Anyways: Just because you and your watch express something subtle compared to, let's say, someone wearing a blinged out, over-sized Beats headset, it doesn't mean you're not flaunting it. It just means you're smug about it. Nothing wrong with that.
     
  18. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #18
    I completely agree. We're all guilty of this in one way or another. I've owned Rolex in the past, and currently still own some other expensive watches, and it's optimistic to call them anything other than Veblen goods that are status symbols. I think the craftsmanship is interesting and nice to look at, but they are certainly ostentatious.

    For me, I've going the opposite direction recently. I sold off my Rolex and Porsche last year, and I'm thinking about selling the rest of my good watches soon. Not because of the Apple Watch or anything. Just a bit of a state of mind shift. I do like that the Apple Watch is functional, and it can be a bit more anonymous than a Rolex or whatever.
     
  19. Squid7085 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #19
    From what I can tell you do have a point. The Fossil watch I have worn for years appears to be of similar thickness, I think it is the other dimensions that really exaggerate the thickness.
     
  20. Oridus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    #20

    I think you've missed the differentials between a classic wristwatch and a smart watch. Smart watches are not designed to be simple timepieces, and because of that reason, will have a bit more thickness. You keep your timepieces for time, and i'll keep a smart watch for everything else. Deal?
     
  21. firewood macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #21
    Neither are men's classic watches. They (anything much over $50) are jewelry that have some incidental but necessary functionality for plausible deniability. Some people fool themselves over this.

    Anyway, the Apple watch appears to be thicker than my dress watch, but thinner than my diving watch.
     
  22. stonyboys macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    #22
    Didn't want to quote your giant post up there but that's what I'm replying to.

    Your examples are just as absurd as the OP's. You are comparing a watch that doesn't even have the simplest of watch features like a chronograph or a day-date calendar... To a smartwatch that you can use as a phone, a gps, a wallet and much more? How in the *** do you think that it's a proper comparison?

    My daily is a tissot prc200, and it's pretty thick for a quartz watch. But I don't even notice it on my arm when I wear it. If this thing is anywhere near the same size then I think it will be just as unnoticeable.
     
  23. sebastian... macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    #23
    Nope. These are much thinner, even the bigger one, and they probably have a huge rechargeable battery inside for solar power. Not to mention the 5 engines (motors) in the metal/red one.
     

    Attached Files:

  24. quackers82 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    #24
    Those watches in those pictures reminded me exactly why i haven't worn a watch for the last 15 years, they are REALLY UGLY things. I really want an Apple Watch now, i want something on my wrist, and the Apple Watch looks so smart.
     
  25. Kariya macrumors 68000

    Kariya

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    #25
    You certainly sound like an elitist snob though.
     

Share This Page