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.
Best comment of the day!
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.
Quit saying the Apple Watch is thick. It is normal for a watch.
- Thread starter Kendo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Best comment of the day!
That's your opinion. My guess is that it won't be thrown away. But that's just a guess.
You like watches that are (a) are expensive, and (b) don't provide you with any additional functionality you don't need or want, and (c) Look like classic, time-worn timepieces. Going by your boobs avatar, you have more than a diminutive interest in what people think of outward appearances.
The Apple Watch is for an entirely different subset of watch buyers, period. In point of fact, it's marketed more for tech lovers than watch buyers. Ergo, looking down on the Apple Watch - or by extension, the buyers of the product itself - doesn't really demonstrate anything other than your own opinion, of which 99.9% are all made invalid by their very nature - which begins to sound like snobbery. I'm not calling anyone any names, just pointing out something that's rather obvious. It's akin to "digital racism."
Apple didn't create the Watch, price it at $350, make it "smart" and interactive, and intend to compete with Rolex - or any other brand you, as a buyer, are more inclined to buy.
Now - don't get me wrong, I have no intentions of buying it and in all honesty if price were equal would rather have a Rolex 16610, but the point about judging buyers based on needs or wants remains. Buyers buy what buyers want. Judgers judge by what judgers want.
Last edited:
watch definitely looked a bit thick to me - could probably get a bit banged up with everyday use.Those are ridiculous examples.
My watch is just a few millimeters thick, I wouldn't want anything thicker. Smartwatch or not.
----------
[/COLOR]
It really just depends on whether one is used to automatic watches or not. The six automatics I've owned in the past have been 10.5mm, 11mm, 12mm, 12mm, 12mm, and 13mm thick, and only one of those was even a dive watch. Dive watches can get much thicker, like the OP mentioned.
It would be great if the Apple Watch was super thin, but it isn't possible, yet, and the 12mm-13mm approximate thickness isn't usual for many automatic watch wearers.
[/COLOR]
It really just depends on whether one is used to automatic watches or not. The six automatics I've owned in the past have been 10.5mm, 11mm, 12mm, 12mm, 12mm, and 13mm thick, and only one of those was even a dive watch. Dive watches can get much thicker, like the OP mentioned.
It would be great if the Apple Watch was super thin, but it isn't possible, yet, and the 12mm-13mm approximate thickness isn't usual for many automatic watch wearers.
I find all of those sizes to be too thick for something to wear on your wrist daily. Regardless of whether or not other watches are that thick.
My opinion.
Oh, I'm not saying you're opinion isn't valid. Just saying that it's a relatively average thickness in the world of automatic watches. Quartz and digital watches tend to be thinner, but automatics from the likes of Seiko, Hamilton, Rolex, Omega, etc. all tend to be a bit thick.
My biggest concern is that the watch is too thick. I'm not sure if it is, but I have small wrists, so I'm probably gonna have to get the small version.
I think the watch is fairly elegant looking. The best thing about it is probably the straps to be honest.
I think the watch is fairly elegant looking. The best thing about it is probably the straps to be honest.
The first generation is thick and ugly, as many of Apple's first gen products have been in the past. Give them a few years to refine it and improve the design and feature set and it will be worth purchasing. I'm definitely passing on this version though.
Last edited:
I am one of those that wear big watches. I like them for me. I don't buy for other people to see. It represents my personality. If someone likes it and tells me, yay.. if they don't.. I don't care. Some people don't like it.. that's not my problem, tho I'm not sure why they feel the need to point it out.
So... for me this watch is not too big.
So... for me this watch is not too big.
It's one thing to compare thin watches to the Watch, it's another to compare a watch with features that the Watch can match; for example, a chronograph. That itself will add all the thickness you're claiming that watches don't have these days.
You are showing watching which are luxury between $10,000 and $30,000
Here are the watches Apple is inspired by
Zenith Academy which retails for 200,000$
Jean Dunand Palace rated as the best watch in the world at $400,000
La Tradition Fusee Tourbillon at $300,000
I don't think you know about watches if you hold being bulgy and thick as a negative against watch
anyone who thinks this is ugly needs their eyes checked
That Patek in the pic above is only in the 35mm-38mm in diameter range (depending on the exact model,) which goes to show just how small even the 42mm Apple Watch is. Sure, it's a little thick, but I think it looks a little thicker than it is, because the watch is smaller than people realize.
Earlier this year there was a watch being developed which had a lot of sensors on the bottom (including water sensor for sweating) as well as heart rate and such. That was the MyBasis. It was sold to Intel. Its starting price was at about $200. It was able to tell you about your normal activities but was not able to track you through your tougher workouts. It was VERY thick. This one does all that and more and it looks considerably thinner.
Last edited:
Well you did pick out some nice photos of the Apple Watch. Simply put, it looks too thick, as currently constituted. If they can slim it down and increase battery life, maybe Apple will have something.
It looks all right to me. The thickness is probably no more than my Garmin Forerunner 110, and will have far more functionality. If it can do what my Garmin does, then I might consider getting one. I guess it will depend on what it is able to do without having the phone nearby. It would defeat the purpose of having the watch if I had to carry my phone with me while running. I've never bothered to get one of those cases that allow you to strap your iPhone to your arm. Seems too cumbersome to me. I don't need music when I am running, just something that can accurately tell me how far and how fast I have run. For non-running things, it could be convenient to refer to the watch rather than having to dig my phone out of my pocket every time a notification comes through.
It's about the same thickness as the newest Submariner, give or take a millimeter, which isn't insane or anything.
Eh. I'm not a fan of this first gen watch. But concerning "class," some people may say the same about Seiko watches. But Seikos are amazing watches -- accurate, reliable, will last decades. Also, Seiko makes the Grand Seiko, which sells for thousands of dollars each and their quartz and spring drive versions are among the most accurate wristwatches on the planet. If the performance is there, that can overcome quite a bit.
Apple needs to cut the bulk in half, get a better battery, and maybe squeeze in GPS. Do those things, double the price. Then they may have a compelling electronic wrist device.
The Apple Watch is in the 12.5mm-13mm range. I don't understand why you've complaining about the thickness of the Apple Watch, when you wear a Submariner that is similarly thick. My Seiko SKX007 was 13mm, and my Aqua Terra is 11mm thick (the newer version is 13mm.) 13mm should be fine, since there has to be a battery somewhere.
The only thing I worry about is whether the Apple Watch squarish-round-rect corners will catch on the sleeve cuff of my nicer fitted shirts, whereas a rounder or thinner watch would not catch and thus slide under the cuff more easily.