Second thoughts about Aluminum...

[caelius]

I've been using my SG Series0 Sports Watch since the day it came out and except for some little scratches on the screen (that concrete wall got a bit too close to my wrist...) it still looks pristine. And I'm as clumsy as it gets.

That being said, I absolutely love the deep black of the SBSS version; it looks just much more badass than the relatively bright Aluminium of the SG watch. Don't care for a professional or classy look as I'm usually dressed in cargo pants and t-shirts, but damn, that shiny black and the shiny screen is so sexy.

Long story short: If you don't abuse the watch too much, you'll be fine with either one. It isn't nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. But after all it's something you'll be looking at a lot, so looks is the most important factor here IMO.

 

[newellj]

I know what you mean.

I bought SBSS, SS and then SBSS for generations 1, 2 and 3 respectively. I thought I'd wear each for two years at least - but as soon as the next cool model came out I bought that too. Mistake #1.

Mistake #2 was thinking I'd alternately wear SS and SBSS to mix it up a bit. In reality, I mostly wore the fast new one. Auto-switching between watches was/is buggy - Another disincentive. So the older watches just sat around and depreciated.

But - through all that - I did figure out I prefer black watches.

So for Series 4 I went with $430 space grey and stuck a black metal band on it. Saved $330 and another $80 on the AppleCare I'd want for a $750 watch. So far:

• Not missing the weight (metal bracelet makes up for it)
• Not missing the appearance (space grey looks surprisingly good with the black metal link)
• Not missing the cellular (I never activated it on my SBSS Series 3)
• Not missing the sapphire (It was never necessary for me anyway)
• Not missing the 16Gb storage or ceramic back (because all the Series 4's have them now. Woot!)

I do like having an extra $410.

No AppleCare of course, but no worries. I've never claimed against AppleCare anyway. If I do break it, I'll use the savings to buy another watch . If I don't break it then next years Series 5 is already paid for

Another trade-off that doesn't get mentioned often is the noticeably higher reflection level from the sapphire crystal. A lot of people have to dial up the display brightness setting relative to the ion glass display.

I have owned both and I think the choice mostly comes down to personal preference.
[doublepost=1539380746][/doublepost]

Long story short: If you don't abuse the watch too much, you'll be fine with either one. It isn't nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. But after all it's something you'll be looking at a lot, so looks is the most important factor here IMO.

A good summary, and consistent with my experience with both.

 

[Pez555]

I’ve ordered the SS. I just can’t bring myself to order the aluminium knowing it has an inferior screen.

 

[newellj]

I’ve ordered the SS. I just can’t bring myself to order the aluminium knowing it has an inferior screen.

It doesn't have an inferior screen. It is much less reflective, so easier to see in a lot of light - that's a plus for the ion glass version. It is more susceptible to scratching, but that may not be a big deal. My wife (who is not very careful about her personal gear) and I (who am very careful about my personal gear, but bump into things a LOT) both had S3 watches for a year, and the displays were perfect when we turned them in a couple of weeks ago. And remember that the sapphire crystal is really just a thin layer on top of the complex display laminate, and that it's more susceptible to shattering than ion glass.

Bear in mind also that you could come out ahead economically, depending on how long you keep the watch and how often you have display accidents. Aluminum + AC is a good bit cheaper than SS without AC, even if you have one "claim," and this year Apple only gave S3 SS owners $25 more than S3 aluminum owners for trade-in (and if you had the watch for a year and had no AC claims, you'd get half the AC cost back, too).

Buy whichever one you feel you can afford and think looks better. The SS watches are really nice, but there is nothing at all wrong with choosing aluminum.

 

[JonoNZ]

I’ve ordered the SS. I just can’t bring myself to order the aluminium knowing it has an inferior screen.

I’ve recently upgraded from a S3 SG Aluminium to a S4 SB Stainless, there is no way the screen on the aluminium models is inferior. In fact I find the screen in the SS model a little bit harder to see as it seems to have a lot more reflections/glare on it.

 

[Pez555]

It doesn't have an inferior screen. It is much less reflective, so easier to see in a lot of light - that's a plus for the ion glass version. It is more susceptible to scratching, but that may not be a big deal. My wife (who is not very careful about her personal gear) and I (who am very careful about my personal gear, but bump into things a LOT) both had S3 watches for a year, and the displays were perfect when we turned them in a couple of weeks ago. And remember that the sapphire crystal is really just a thin layer on top of the complex display laminate, and that it's more susceptible to shattering than ion glass.

Bear in mind also that you could come out ahead economically, depending on how long you keep the watch and how often you have display accidents. Aluminum + AC is a good bit cheaper than SS without AC, even if you have one "claim," and this year Apple only gave S3 SS owners $25 more than S3 aluminum owners for trade-in (and if you had the watch for a year and had no AC claims, you'd get half the AC cost back, too).

Buy whichever one you feel you can afford and think looks better. The SS watches are really nice, but there is nothing at all wrong with choosing aluminum.

I’ve recently upgraded from a S3 SG Aluminium to a S4 SB Stainless, there is no way the screen on the aluminium models is inferior. In fact I find the screen in the SS model a little bit harder to see as it seems to have a lot more reflections/glare on it.

I have the S0 SS which I have had for 3.5 years. Zero scratches on screen. My friend who has had the aluminium for less than 6 months has lots of micro scratches on the screen.

 

[44267547]

I’ve recently upgraded from a S3 SG Aluminium to a S4 SB Stainless, there is no way the screen on the aluminium models is inferior. In fact I find the screen in the SS model a little bit harder to see as it seems to have a lot more reflections/glare on it.

True. It’s due to the Sapphire coating that is creating the reflection/glare that you’re referring to. It was more notable on the first GEN watch when it was only 450 nits of brightness, but it’s seemingly is not _that_ much of an issue now, mainly because the brightness was increased to 1000 Nits starting with the Series 2.

 

[madgalaxy]

This time around I went with the aluminum. I had SS SB Series 0 and Series 3 and could not justify the costs. The resale/trade in value is trash, especially on the SS. I had little use for LTE and this time around the ONLY difference between aluminum and SS is the case and glass materials.

I am enjoying my GPS aluminum. It is light, the screen is brighter, the vibration is better and most importantly I feel it is a good value. Everyone values things differently and I am glad Apple offers the watch at varies price points.

 

[newellj]

This time around I went with the aluminum. I had SS SB Series 0 and Series 3 and could not justify the costs. The resale/trade in value is trash, especially on the SS. I had little use for LTE and this time around the ONLY difference between aluminum and SS is the case and glass materials.

I am enjoying my GPS aluminum. It is light, the screen is brighter, the vibration is better and most importantly I feel it is a good value. Everyone values things differently and I am glad Apple offers the watch at varies price points.

Oh, another thing - the aluminum Watch stays a lot cooler during charging. Not a big deal over one or two years, probably, but for those people who keep the thing for five years it could be noticeable.
[doublepost=1539391912][/doublepost]

I have the S0 SS which I have had for 3.5 years. Zero scratches on screen. My friend who has had the aluminium for less than 6 months has lots of micro scratches on the screen.

That may only prove that your friend is careless, or works in construction. If my wife and I can use aluminum watches for a year with no scratches, anyone can do that.

 

[Pez555]

Oh, another thing - the aluminum Watch stays a lot cooler during charging. Not a big deal over one or two years, probably, but for those people who keep the thing for five years it could be noticeable.
[doublepost=1539391912][/doublepost]

That may only prove that your friend is careless, or works in construction. If my wife and I can use aluminum watches for a year with no scratches, anyone can do that.

No, it only proves that the aluminium is the inferior product, because even if he was careless, if he had the SS, he wouldn’t have any scratches on the screen at all. There is a reason why the aluminium is cheaper.

 

[Mikeeee]

It sure is to some of us.

Sapphire glass way more resistant to scratches and doesn’t require any screen protection to protect it.

Stainless Steel design more durable and resistant to dents and or scratches.

Crown & button feels more premium.

Watch looks classy, find the aluminum model looks and feels cheap. Kind of like a toy.

To each their own, to me the SS model is a no brainer and worth every single penny more that it costs.

I don’t have to baby my SS Series 3 at all. If I bang it on the table, counter, on the way out the door or even against a tree or other objects - no problem. With the aluminum that may very well be a problem It is fine if you baby it or get super lucky but the screen is easily scratched and the body is not nearly as durable in terms of real life scenarios. I know 5 people with aluminum models, one looks brand new and the other 4 show clear signs of use. I’ve yet to see a SS model that doesn’t look brand new. Especially the Space Black. Super super durable. The regular SS can be buffed so any superficial or micro scratches are no problem.

Get the SS! It’s worth the extra coin. Especially if you plan to keep it a few years and even if you plan to sell it - the resale values in private sales online are very good. At least in Canada.

My 10 month old SS Series 3 (perfect condition) was just sold online for 50% of what I paid. Compared to many others that was considered an average or above average deal from the seller’s perspective. Not sure how that equates to “resale values in private sales online are very good”? I’m in Canada.

 

[caelius]

No, it only proves that the aluminium is the inferior product, because even if he was careless, if he had the SS, he wouldn’t have any scratches on the screen at all. There is a reason why the aluminium is cheaper.

On the other hand, the SS screen is way more brittle and shatters a lot easier, ie when falling down on pavement.

It isn't inferior at all, it just has different advantages and disadvantages. To me it sounds like you're trying to justify the extra spending...

 

[Pez555]

On the other hand, the SS screen is way more brittle and shatters a lot easier, ie when falling down on pavement.

It isn't inferior at all, it just has different advantages and disadvantages. To me it sounds like you're trying to justify the extra spending...

Not at all, I’d always buy the SS, I have the SS S0. Would just hate to look down at my watch and see scratches on the screen. The aluminium definitely has an inferior screen in terms of scratch resistance.

 

[44267547]

On the other hand, the SS screen is way more brittle and shatters a lot easier, ie when falling down on pavement.

I always see this argument. No matter if it’s the sport watch or the stainless watch, if it falls off your wrist, both watches have the disadvantage that the screen will crack or break. It really doesn’t matter between both of them, every drop is based off angle and impact. I would be more concerned about scratches on the sport watch then I Would the watch actually falling off my wrist.

 

[Pez555]

I always see this argument. No matter if it’s the sport watch or the stainless watch, if it falls off your wrist, both watches have the disadvantage that the screen will crack or break. It really doesn’t matter between both of them, every drop is based off angle and impact. I would be more concerned about scratches on the sport watch then I Would the watch actually falling off my wrist.

Agreed.

I’d rather know that I can bash the watch around a bit/knock it into things without the fear of scratching the screen than (if I had the aluminium) be constantly aware of my surroundings and be fearful of what it comes into contact with.

 

[newellj]

No, it only proves that the aluminium is the inferior product, because even if he was careless, if he had the SS, he wouldn’t have any scratches on the screen at all. There is a reason why the aluminium is cheaper.

One case proves all? Massive logic error. And if aluminum is so inferior why does SS take a hit that's so much larger on resale value?

 

[44267547]

And if aluminum is so inferior

It is in comparison to the stainless in terms of materials. When you factor in the actual components used with stainless versus aluminum, and sapphire versus Ion glass, there are clear distinctions for separation.

why does SS take a hit that's so much larger on resale value?

Keep in mind, most [Non-Tech]consumers *don’t* even know that the stainless includes a sapphire display, they just see the mark up because it’s a ‘nicer looking watch’, which equally isn’t as important to some buyers. When I sold my previous (six) stainless Apple Watches locally, not one buyer had any idea that the stainless model included a sapphire display, they only thought it was just a ‘nicer metal casing’. The aluminum is the more viable option because it’s the most affordable, that’s why you see the popularity even with third party retailers stocking the aluminum model well over the stainless. Its geared towards what is the ‘Most affordable option.’

 

[tromboneaholic]

My first Apple Watch was a Series 1 I bought when it came out 2 years ago.

I knew I would only have it for a year or two at most. Aluminum made sense at the time. I didn't need to worry about durability

When I traded it in, I took photos of the Watch, front and back. There were no scratches on the casing or glass. If I had been wearing it for 5 to 10 years, it would have been beaten pretty badly I'm sure.

For Series 4, I realized I will probably have this one for 2 years as well. Even though I'd like to have a shiny stainless watch that echoes my caseless iPhone X, the price difference was too hard for me to justify considering how well my last Watch held up.

The pace of improvements from one generation to the next has been fast enough, that I'd rather upgrade the watch more often for the tech, that buy materials that are more durable.

I imagine the product will have matured enough in a couple of years that I will be looking at buying a stainless and sapphire watch that I know I can wear for 5 years.

 

[44267547]

The pace of improvements from one generation to the next has been fast enough, that I'd rather upgrade the watch more often for the tech, that buy materials that are more durable..

This is sensible and I also imagine this is what a large portion of consumers want to do, but let’s also factor that some simply can’t afford the stainless Apple Watch model. I can justify the aesthetics and the sapphire display, which is of importance to me, but for others, a $750 44 millimeter Apple Watch is clearly out of their price point range, when they can opt for an aluminum for significantly less and still have the same watchOS experience. That’s what it really comes down to, is that you’re choosing the materials in terms of price point, even though these watches perform remotely the same.

Just being in public, and I spend five days a week in the gym, I rarely _ever_ see the stainless model, It’s primarily the aluminum, also, remember now that third-party retailers are carrying the aluminum since Apples expanded the horizon with partnerships, that opens up options to stores like Target, Macy’s, where the Apple Watch is widely available versus where the stainless you generally have to order it or direct through an Apple store .

 

[Pez555]

One case proves all? Massive logic error. And if aluminum is so inferior why does SS take a hit that's so much larger on resale value?

My argument from the start is that the aluminium is inferior due to scratch resistance, are you disputing that?
[doublepost=1539435881][/doublepost]

One case proves all? Massive logic error. And if aluminum is so inferior why does SS take a hit that's so much larger on resale value?

So you are saying there are more scratches evident on the sapphire displays than the aluminium displays? Not sure what you mean by logic error?

 

[newellj]

It is in comparison to the stainless in terms of materials. When you factor in the actual components used with stainless versus aluminum, and sapphire versus Ion glass, there are clear distinctions for separation.



Keep in mind, most [Non-Tech]consumers *don’t* even know that the stainless includes a sapphire display, they just see the mark up because it’s a ‘nicer looking watch’, which equally isn’t as important to some buyers. When I sold my previous (six) stainless Apple Watches locally, not one buyer had any idea that the stainless model included a sapphire display, they only thought it was just a ‘nicer metal casing’. The aluminum is the more viable option because it’s the most affordable, that’s why you see the popularity even with third party retailers stocking the aluminum model well over the stainless. Its geared towards what is the ‘Most affordable option.’

Those observations are broadly true of the Watch, and tech devices generally, especially mobile devices. Cost relative to resale value is not an irrelevant factor, though, if you plan to upgrade the device relatively frequently. I bought an aluminum S3 last year - that wasn't a bad economic decision because I traded it last month for an S4. (The S3 was in perfect condition, too.). I bought a SS S4 this year. I expect that I will trade it a year from now for a S5; if I do, I'm probably going to take a multi-hundred dollar hit. But in the meantime I'm enjoying a great watch that is also a very good looking watch. I do think that's one area where the SS watches really kill the aluminum watches - they just look better. I think that's enough.
[doublepost=1539437073][/doublepost]

The pace of improvements from one generation to the next has been fast enough, that I'd rather upgrade the watch more often for the tech, that buy materials that are more durable.

Bingo. Or at least understand that if you buy the SS and upgrade annually, or maybe even every second year, you are choosing to pay a higher price. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either.

My argument from the start is that the aluminium is inferior due to scratch resistance, are you disputing that?

The display, correct, not the case? We know that ion glass scratches more easily. We don't know that for buyers as a whole that this is a problem. Reading here, you'd think there was an epidemic of display disasters - the people who post here are a microscopic sample of all owners.

BTW, we also know that sapphire scratches, just not as easily. And you're discounting the much more reflective surface of the sapphire display.

What I really don't understand is why people need to justify their purchases to other people. Buy what you like and have confidence in your choice without worrying about needing to compare.

 

[Pez555]

The display, correct, not the case? We know that ion glass scratches more easily.

Right thank you for proving my point. The ion glass is inferior as it is less scratch resistant.

I never said anything about the case so I don’t know why you’re bringing that into the conversation. Seems more like you are trying to justify why aluminium is just as good as the stainless steel models, we all know it isn’t. It’s cheaper for a reason; cheaper materials, less premium.

 

[ZipZap]

I know what you mean.

I bought SBSS, SS and then SBSS for generations 1, 2 and 3 respectively. I thought I'd wear each for two years at least - but as soon as the next cool model came out I bought that too. Mistake #1.

Mistake #2 was thinking I'd alternately wear SS and SBSS to mix it up a bit. In reality, I mostly wore the fast new one. Auto-switching between watches was/is buggy - Another disincentive. So the older watches just sat around and depreciated.

But - through all that - I did figure out I prefer black watches.

So for Series 4 I went with $430 space grey and stuck a black metal band on it. Saved $330 and another $80 on the AppleCare I'd want for a $750 watch. So far:

• Not missing the weight (metal bracelet makes up for it)
• Not missing the appearance (space grey looks surprisingly good with the black metal link)
• Not missing the cellular (I never activated it on my SBSS Series 3)
• Not missing the sapphire (It was never necessary for me anyway)
• Not missing the 16Gb storage or ceramic back (because all the Series 4's have them now. Woot!)

I do like having an extra $410.

No AppleCare of course, but no worries. I've never claimed against AppleCare anyway. If I do break it, I'll use the savings to buy another watch . If I don't break it then next years Series 5 is already paid for

Where did $330 come from? You did more than just go from SS to AL I suspect.

 

[caelius]

Smartwatch-Snobism. Lol.
Seriously, buy whatever makes you feel good. I, for my part, simply orderer both and will compare them side-by-side and then make my own decision (or keep both, who knows)...

I'm a terribly clumsy person and only managed to get one small scratch into my Aluminium Watch in nearly three years of usage. It really is a non-issue except when you're deliberately abusing that thing - in which case you'll ruin the SS too.

And by the way: it's a fact that sapphire glass is way more prone to shattering. In that regard, it simply is inferior compared to the relativly soft ION.

 

[PhillyGuy72]

May your arm never gently brush up against a brick or concrete wall. Godspeed

And this did happen about a week and 1/2 ago coming out of the store - LUCKILY I did have a screen protector on it. NO damage to face of body.

But after this, I really didn't feel like worrying about deep scratches on the body, especially the face potentially happening at any given second, slapping a "bumper" on it makes the watch look like a toy IMO. Plus I'm a klutz, it seems if I am TOO careful with the watch, then the risk of bumping it rises for some reason. Anyway, I did - finally - find a SS in New Jersey back on Monday and picked it up. Returned the aluminum on Day 15 (Apple accepted the return) Plus after seeing the silver stainless steel in many photos on here, it's the model I wanted - it just looks nice...but it was darn near hard to find, the wait ordering online was pushing mid Nov..

Yeah I realize devalue is there, the micro scratches in time. I don't plan to upgrade the watch next year or 2020. If this holds up like my S1 black Stainless steel, which luckily I've kept in mint condition..then I'm fine with it.