I think it's more about expecting what is being provided in other watches. Like it or not you can't just hide behind the moniker of 'it's a tech watch, it doesn't have to meet the same expectations', when other watches provide full sapphire protection.
I’m not sure about your comparison here, because you’re indicating that the Apple Watch doesn’t use full sapphire, but then you make a claim that *other* watches provide ‘full sapphire’ protection? What watches are you talking about? More specifically, what
tech watches are you aware of that provide full sapphire displays? And please, do not use mechanical watches as a comparison, because we are on a tech forum, hence the moniker behind tech. If you list any tech watches that you are aware of that use a
full sapphire display that have been {tested and proven}, link the evidence so we can all seen what other tech Watches use ‘full’ sapphire displays.
I don't share the sentiment that it's a tech watch so it's allowed to have lower quality. I do fully understand that the life-cycle of the device will be at best 3-4 years since the internals will degrade and especially after updates. I do however, wish it had the full durability of a genuine sapphire display in case a serious incident does occur during it's life cycle, however long..
I honestly think you’re being overly dismissive of the Apple Watch in a lot of ways intentionally, more or less I think just for the sake of arguing semantics just in reply to his this specific thread because you were challenged. The Apple Watch sapphire display I think is proven to be more than durable enough for the majority of consumers, and there are _hundreds_ of posts on here for those who have upgraded that are more than content with their decision strictly just because of the sapphire display alone, which includes my extensive experience. To me, that speaks milestones over just arguing what lower quality is considered.
With that said, I also don't think the anecdotal evidence of 'people have been happy with the sapphire durability' applies when I don't think it's common that you would find someone who has upgraded directly from the regular sport model to the sapphire model and found increased durability. I think the point is more accurately rejected than used as evidence to the debate at hand..
Reference the bolded, how did you derive to that notion? I mean, unless you have a large sample of people around you that own the sport model and stainless Apple Watch that provide you direct opinions, the Internet is really the _only_ source that you have that you can verify what people are saying about their upgrade from the aluminum to the stainless. If you research through this forum, there are pages of threads about those who have upgraded strictly because they were not happy with the Ion –X Glass to the sapphire. Again, I think you’re looking for reasons to Shun the Sapphire display for whatever reasons, but yet we have evidence all around us, including in this very thread of those who have been more than happy with the Sapphire display regardless of what ‘mixture’ Apple uses.
The only mystery here is did apple's mix of sapphire cause increased smash/break protection, and that is assuredly unknown. The rest appears to simply be apple cheaping out.
There is Nothing cheap about the Apple Watch or the sapphire display or the stainless casing, this is just a discussion that will never be relevant outside a tech form because consumers don’t take these little artifacts that you’re pointing out to be a reality in their purchase. They simply want the aesthetics, the fluidity of watchOS and the sapphire display that they are aware of for the added protection, which indeed it does.
