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
Someone with common since.
It's a shame how some of these people think. I'm sure many of them feel that the Nissan Sentra should have been a time machine and ran on filtered water by now.
My rough measurement for the thickness of Apple Watch is 11.72mm
It's not super thick for a watch
Looks like its on the higher end of average. Doesn't bother me at all.
http://www.todaysiphone.com/2014/09/apple-watch-dimensions-analyzed/
http://www.todaysiphone.com/2014/09/apple-watch-dimensions-analyzed/
Groundbreaking news:
The Apple watch is not thick, when compared to other mechanical watches that are also the same or similar thickness.
I think we all know the Apple watch is as thick as it is, as it needs to be that thick to fit in what Apple wanted to fit in with the tech they had to hand, when they started planning the device, which was probably a year+ ago.
Mechanical watches are mostly, all make thick for style reasons, not because they have to be that thick.
We all know we HATE thick generally, Apple hates thick.
With every generation of every Apple product they have worked really hard to make their devices thinner and thinner.
I have no reason to doubt this will be exactly the same journey the Apple watch will take. Perhaps in 5 years time, it will be down to perhaps half it's current thickness, and we will all go, ohhh wow, amazing.
The issue is going to be WHAT will we consider, as time goes on to be an acceptable battery life?
We have pretty much accepted that a Phone will last a day with normal usage, perhaps 2 days if you hardly use it at all.
That's just established itself as an accepted amount.
Perhaps the same timeframe will also be expected of a watch, or perhaps the watch will be expected to have a longer life.
Apple, will as always juggle the thinness of the device, and keep the battery life to the same acceptable amount, whatever that turns out to be in time.
I would also expect, over time the Apple watch, like the iPad, become more independent a device than it is right now.
People would obviously like it to be able to do more without the phone being carried at the same time. And that will come also in time I'm sure.
It just takes time
Think of this as iPhone1 and think how that's changed and how far we have come.
It just takes time
I would guess, it may even take till v3 to see a BIG change in design.
If they put so much time and effort into this design, they may want to run with it, mostly the same for a second year, and improve the internals, battery life, perhaps reduce the black bezel area around the actual display, which is quite large really for the size, and get the pixels out nearer the frame as there is no need for the bezel unlike an iPhone or iPad.
So perhaps a upgrade/tweak for the 1st refresh, and save the LARGE change for v3.
The Apple watch is not thick, when compared to other mechanical watches that are also the same or similar thickness.
I think we all know the Apple watch is as thick as it is, as it needs to be that thick to fit in what Apple wanted to fit in with the tech they had to hand, when they started planning the device, which was probably a year+ ago.
Mechanical watches are mostly, all make thick for style reasons, not because they have to be that thick.
We all know we HATE thick generally, Apple hates thick.
With every generation of every Apple product they have worked really hard to make their devices thinner and thinner.
I have no reason to doubt this will be exactly the same journey the Apple watch will take. Perhaps in 5 years time, it will be down to perhaps half it's current thickness, and we will all go, ohhh wow, amazing.
The issue is going to be WHAT will we consider, as time goes on to be an acceptable battery life?
We have pretty much accepted that a Phone will last a day with normal usage, perhaps 2 days if you hardly use it at all.
That's just established itself as an accepted amount.
Perhaps the same timeframe will also be expected of a watch, or perhaps the watch will be expected to have a longer life.
Apple, will as always juggle the thinness of the device, and keep the battery life to the same acceptable amount, whatever that turns out to be in time.
I would also expect, over time the Apple watch, like the iPad, become more independent a device than it is right now.
People would obviously like it to be able to do more without the phone being carried at the same time. And that will come also in time I'm sure.
It just takes time
Think of this as iPhone1 and think how that's changed and how far we have come.
It just takes time
I would guess, it may even take till v3 to see a BIG change in design.
If they put so much time and effort into this design, they may want to run with it, mostly the same for a second year, and improve the internals, battery life, perhaps reduce the black bezel area around the actual display, which is quite large really for the size, and get the pixels out nearer the frame as there is no need for the bezel unlike an iPhone or iPad.
So perhaps a upgrade/tweak for the 1st refresh, and save the LARGE change for v3.
Apple watch looks like the perfect thickness. I like them and will pick up watch edition one...
In regards to thickness, I have two Oris Divers that are >18mm thick. They're tanks with 2000m and 1000m (respective) water resistance. I'll never, ever dive that deep, but the watches are beasts and will last a lifetime...
In regards to thickness, I have two Oris Divers that are >18mm thick. They're tanks with 2000m and 1000m (respective) water resistance. I'll never, ever dive that deep, but the watches are beasts and will last a lifetime...
I think it's a good thickness too. I've never seen the appeal of ultra thin watches. I have a Panerai that's 18mm, and a G Shock that's even thicker.
So to clarify please for future reference:
If the Apple Watch had been say 2 or 3mm thinner, you are saying it would not of been the perfect size, and you would of been posting here, saying it should of been thicker?
I think it currently is the perfect size. It's the same thickness as a Rolex Submariner, which to me is surprising, and a Submariner hardly an extreme example. They are quite small compared to other watches. I'd encourage people to look at other watches that are 13mm thick and compare, because I don't think anyone has.
Ok, well, I hope you won't be too disappointed in year to come if Apple make it thinner.
Diagrams
Did a bunch of diagrams to analyze the dimensions of the Apple Watch here.
http://www.gavinjensen.com/design/2014/9/13/what-are-the-dimensions-of-the-new-apple-watch
Did a bunch of diagrams to analyze the dimensions of the Apple Watch here.
http://www.gavinjensen.com/design/2014/9/13/what-are-the-dimensions-of-the-new-apple-watch
oh stop it.
apple watch is $350.
I have a Patek Calatrava too but so what?
Patek Calatrava costs more than $30K.
It should never be compared to the Apple Watch.
No it is not thick at all.
Omega Planet Ocean (left) and Rolex Sea Dweller (right)
both around 14.5mm
Rolex GMT Master 2
12.5mm
PAM 111
15mm thick
Vacheron Constantin Overseas Date: ? mm
Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Diver 15703ST: 13.90mm
Breitling Navitimer B01
17mm thick
RM11
16mm thick
Patek Philippe Sky Moon Tourbillon
16.25mm
Forgive me for this ****** picture but these are my watches: Patek Calatrava 5127 and Rolex GMT Master
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/09/11/thumbnail/ragy5amy.jpg
Top: ~12.5mm
Bottom: ~8mm
But that's a dress watch.
Maybe you like think watches but that's a personal preference.
Apple Watch is not thick.
Omega Planet Ocean (left) and Rolex Sea Dweller (right)
both around 14.5mm
Rolex GMT Master 2
12.5mm
PAM 111
15mm thick
Vacheron Constantin Overseas Date: ? mm
Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Diver 15703ST: 13.90mm
Breitling Navitimer B01
17mm thick
RM11
16mm thick
Patek Philippe Sky Moon Tourbillon
16.25mm
Forgive me for this ****** picture but these are my watches: Patek Calatrava 5127 and Rolex GMT Master
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/09/11/thumbnail/ragy5amy.jpg
Top: ~12.5mm
Bottom: ~8mm
But that's a dress watch.
Maybe you like think watches but that's a personal preference.
Apple Watch is not thick.
Last edited:
I cannot get over the stupid, moronic, crazy, bizarre attempts at logic in this thread.
The Original Poster using weird theories to try and justify something.
Let's TRY and be sensible shall we, if that's possible.
The Apple watch is as thin/thick as they could make it given what they placed inside the device.
Let's get some facts out of the way shall we:
1: They would of loved to have made it thicker, even down to 1mm
2: They would of loved to have packed every item inside it and make it last for a month on a charge.
Neither of those things were possible.
They could of made it 1mm and it did almost nothing other than tell the time and be a calculator and perhaps read your pulse.
They could of packed everything inside it and made it 30mm thick
They did not wish to do either, so they came up with a compromise.
They did tests, asked many people and felt the current thickness was as thick as they could just about Get Away With without being a laughing stock.
As tech moves forward they will be able to do both.
They will be able to make it thinner without compromising it's function/batter life.
They will be able to add more items inside without making it larger.
Please.... Stop using idiotic logic to defend a compromise.
A mechanical watch has no reason to be thick to function, other than it has DELIBERATELY been made thick for style/fashion.
The Apple watch has not been made that thick because they liked it that thick. It's because it Has To Be, in order to do what it currently does.
Sheesh.
That's like me saying, hey, I'm only 30 stone, and I'm not fat.
Look at these other photo's of fat people, all ranging 30 to 35 stone. Look I'm totally normal.
No. I've just gone out looking for fat photo's to try and support my bizarre reasoning.
You have used incorrect logic.
If you wanted to TRY and use current watches as a a sort of guide to how thick a watch should be, then you would have to randomly sample say a few 1000 mens and womens watches, then find an average.
That would not give you anything really worthwhile, but at least would be a little more plausible than simply searching for fat things to prove a point.
The Apple watch is Fatter/Thicker than Apple want it to be.
The Apple watch is Fatter/Thicker than MOST people want it to be.
The current Apple watch is Fatter/Thicker now than it will be in years to come.
Sure YOU personally may like a THICK watch in general.
Most people don't. Apple don't.
The Original Poster using weird theories to try and justify something.
Let's TRY and be sensible shall we, if that's possible.
The Apple watch is as thin/thick as they could make it given what they placed inside the device.
Let's get some facts out of the way shall we:
1: They would of loved to have made it thicker, even down to 1mm
2: They would of loved to have packed every item inside it and make it last for a month on a charge.
Neither of those things were possible.
They could of made it 1mm and it did almost nothing other than tell the time and be a calculator and perhaps read your pulse.
They could of packed everything inside it and made it 30mm thick
They did not wish to do either, so they came up with a compromise.
They did tests, asked many people and felt the current thickness was as thick as they could just about Get Away With without being a laughing stock.
As tech moves forward they will be able to do both.
They will be able to make it thinner without compromising it's function/batter life.
They will be able to add more items inside without making it larger.
Please.... Stop using idiotic logic to defend a compromise.
A mechanical watch has no reason to be thick to function, other than it has DELIBERATELY been made thick for style/fashion.
The Apple watch has not been made that thick because they liked it that thick. It's because it Has To Be, in order to do what it currently does.
Sheesh.
That's like me saying, hey, I'm only 30 stone, and I'm not fat.
Look at these other photo's of fat people, all ranging 30 to 35 stone. Look I'm totally normal.
No. I've just gone out looking for fat photo's to try and support my bizarre reasoning.
You have used incorrect logic.
If you wanted to TRY and use current watches as a a sort of guide to how thick a watch should be, then you would have to randomly sample say a few 1000 mens and womens watches, then find an average.
That would not give you anything really worthwhile, but at least would be a little more plausible than simply searching for fat things to prove a point.
The Apple watch is Fatter/Thicker than Apple want it to be.
The Apple watch is Fatter/Thicker than MOST people want it to be.
The current Apple watch is Fatter/Thicker now than it will be in years to come.
Sure YOU personally may like a THICK watch in general.
Most people don't. Apple don't.
For the record.
I "LIKE" The Apple Watch.
They have, I'd say done the most complete work on the whole SmartWatch package that anyone has done so far.
Most brands have just made something that does something, and let people see what they think of it.
I don't think it's probably the most advanced looking of any phone out there.
I think Apple had set things in stone some time back and as this is moving so fast, screen wise, that NOW they would be able to do it a little differently.
And I have no doubt they do have improved concepts on the drawing board right now for the next versions.
Myself, the biggest change I would like to see is it being a more independent device that does not rely on the iPhone so much.
In fact, I would like to see the Apple Watch work with iPhone, Android and Windows phones also.
Perhaps in time this will change?
Right now, it could rightly be called "just" an iPhone accessory.
It deserves to be so much more.
But version 1 is not even on sale yet.
So let's see what happens over the next X or XX years.
I'm certain a LOT will change, both from Apple and from others.
Samsung will continue to Advance.
Microsoft are supposed to be bringing out a watch that will work across all three platforms, which is a big plus.
I don't expect long term Apple will want to keep their watch as just an "iPhone accessory"
So as I say, I like it. I think it's the most completer product right now.
But one thing is for sure, it's going to change a lot
And get thinner
I "LIKE" The Apple Watch.
They have, I'd say done the most complete work on the whole SmartWatch package that anyone has done so far.
Most brands have just made something that does something, and let people see what they think of it.
I don't think it's probably the most advanced looking of any phone out there.
I think Apple had set things in stone some time back and as this is moving so fast, screen wise, that NOW they would be able to do it a little differently.
And I have no doubt they do have improved concepts on the drawing board right now for the next versions.
Myself, the biggest change I would like to see is it being a more independent device that does not rely on the iPhone so much.
In fact, I would like to see the Apple Watch work with iPhone, Android and Windows phones also.
Perhaps in time this will change?
Right now, it could rightly be called "just" an iPhone accessory.
It deserves to be so much more.
But version 1 is not even on sale yet.
So let's see what happens over the next X or XX years.
I'm certain a LOT will change, both from Apple and from others.
Samsung will continue to Advance.
Microsoft are supposed to be bringing out a watch that will work across all three platforms, which is a big plus.
I don't expect long term Apple will want to keep their watch as just an "iPhone accessory"
So as I say, I like it. I think it's the most completer product right now.
But one thing is for sure, it's going to change a lot
And get thinner
I don't think an Apple Watch will be thrown away as quickly as you think. If they come out with another watch, it's possible that this one will still work and still be useable.
Here's the difference. A watch is fashion first, functionality second. Smartwatches are functionality first, fashion second.
I know that people that collect fine watches are not the masses, they are the exception to the norm.
The average person owns many watches over their lifetime. How many people have their very first watch.
I'm not suggesting that people won't still buy these super expensive fine watches, HOWEVER, there will be a percentage of wealthy people that will buy a Gold AppleWatch and there will be companies like Falcon that will add a Diamond and make the price in the millions. They are doing that with iPhone 6's as Falcon offers a $50 Million version for those with more money than they know what to do with.
I understand your snobbiness in comparing an AppleWatch with one of your expensive pieces of jewelry, but I guarantee you that there are lots of people out there with tons of money that don't collect expensive watches and would very much enjoy a more functional time piece that Apple makes that's at least a high quality case/finish that actually might last them a fairly long period of time. When it becomes out of date, then they can recycle it, just like other electronic gadgets.
You are putting fashion over functionality and others that will buy the AppleWatch put functionality over fashion, but at least it's not the cheaper less fashionable Samsung or other smart watches that are made out of cheaper grade materials.
Is that the 38mm or the 42mm watch that you diagrammed? It's 38mm across and 42mm in height.
And nobody buys those watches because they are out of fashion.
----------
X2
(But I don't own a Calatrava)....
Also, those are single purpose watches...
Don't look good in a t shirt at the bar on the summer.
I agree with you but people do buy those watches above (totally absurd comparisons with the $350 apple watch) and they are definitely not out of fashion
I agree with you but people do buy those watches above (totally absurd comparisons with the $350 apple watch) and they are definitely not out of fashion
The classics never go out of fashion
What I was trying to say is that those aren't dictated by fashion. Hard do explain even more as English is not my first language.
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.
sorry for my useless post, but HAHA!
so that's what you say in front of the mirror every morning? thanks for sharing.