Series 1 watch in stainless steel

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Mbdj, Nov 11, 2016.

  1. Mbdj macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    #1
    why is the stainless steel only available on the series 2
     
  2. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #2
    The Series 1 is an entry level product.
     
  3. Mbdj thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    #3
    --- Post Merged, Nov 11, 2016 ---
    --- Post Merged, Nov 11, 2016 ---
    It should be made available for buyers that don't need gps or waterproofing
     
  4. KrisLord macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Location:
    Northumberland, UK
    #4
    The price difference between 1 and 2 isn't huge in the aluminium models, so if you're willing to pay more for a different casing, you also get the other fancy bits of series 2 included.
     
  5. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #5
    Agreed. I could care less about the water-proofing, GPS, brighter screen, ect. I prefer the stainless over the aluminum for many reasons.

    I actually purchased a second Apple Watch Stainless Gen 1 from Best Buy for half off with the leather band. It was an absolute purchase for that price. Love the Gen 1 Watch. Physically, it's the same as the Gen 2,
    Slightly thinner As well.
     
  6. teralpar macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    #6
    I also took advantage of Best Buy's sale and purchased my Gen 1 SS w/black modern buckle for $500 off a couple of weeks ago. I love the look of it but there's no way I would have paid $749 for the S2 version! The S0 is perfect for my needs, I don't need the extras that the S2 offers since I am not a runner (GPS) and I don't swim (waterproof).
     
  7. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #7
    Compared to S0, the S2 has a bit more to offer than just GPS and waterproofing:
    • Brighter display (1000 nits vs 450 nits).
    • Ceramic back also on aluminum watch.
    • Bigger battery (+ ~30% capacity).
    • Noticeably more "oomph" (UI, apps):
      • Better user experience.
      • More reserves for coming OS updates.
    • Internal design in part more repair-friendly (acc. to iFixit), e.g. ZIF connectors.
     
  8. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #8
    I agree with on the additional points you made regarding the Series 2 Apple Watch. However, when someone's going to factor spending $600.00 for the Watch that's essentially the same as the first generation Apple Watch,GPS and waterproofing is not enough. Especially when physically it's the exact same watch. Features you listed are appreciated, but not necessarily selling points for the typical consumer.
     
  9. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #9
    On the other hand I would not expect the typical customer to read, let alone post on MR ;-)
     
  10. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #10
    That's correct. The typical consumer typically only understands what the Apple Watch has the offer based off of a commercial or word-of-mouth. Not in-depth specifics from an enthusiastic tech website.
     
  11. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #11
    I think that the typical customer is educated enough, though, to understand that a second-gen product would be a solid improvement over any 1st gen product. That's probably why Apple pointed it out by the new naming scheme. Perhaps the typical customer would ask the friendly geek/nerd from the neighbourhood for advice, who actually reads on MR.

    That's why I posted my complements - the people around here should at least be aware of all the differences, being opinion leaders for their friends and family. The Series 2 is a significant update to Series 0. The gap is already visible and will widen with watchOS 4 onwards.

    It's absolutely fine to decide to go for a Series 0 now to save money. It's just that the decision should be a properly educated one! Things like the dissolving composite back on Series 0 (and perhaps 1 as well), the already struggling hardware running at it's limits on S0, the smaller battery (-> degradation!) or the significant improve on screen brightness are all things to consider well prior to purchasing.

    I evaluated it for myself and came to the conclusion that I'd neither buy a Series 0 now nor would i recommend it to my family or friends. Series 0 must be considered as some kind of pilot device, Series 1 is a slightly improved variant that still faces some of the problems of S0 and only Series 2 is the real "first product" that's ready for prime time. If someone understands this limitations and is willing to accept those, all is fine.

    But a non-tech-savvy, typical customer falling for Apple's poor marketing in this area and believing that the improvements would be limited to GPS and water-proofing, will unfortunately be in for an unpleasant surprise some time in the future, perhaps already with watchOS4 coming out next year.

    Everything only my opinion, of course :)
     
  12. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #12
    There is a few concerns I have with your post.

    I think The first generation Apple Watch has a long life ahead of it yet. At least through watchOS 4 is capable. There Really isn't anything watchOS 3 that offers that the first generation watch can't handle. As Far as your claim regarding the composite back degrading, I think is sporadic at best. I own five Apple Watches, some of them being the first generation Apple Watch, which none have experienced those issues. Not saying the decomposing composite back isn't evident, I just haven't seen it being widespread or depending on the usage of the watch from the person wearing it.

    Struggling hardware? How Exactly is the hardware struggling? I mean, set aside from the composite back you mentioned. The watch itself, the Sapphire screen, the casing and battery have all been exceptional with my experiences with the first Generation Watch. Again, everybody's mileage will vary. And in the first generation Apple Watch, there are ways to conserve the battery by reducing the screen brightness, turning off hey Siri, and disabling the heart rate monitor.

    If someone's going to purchase the Series 1/Series 2 Apple Watch, the screen brightness isn't really a seller. It's a feature that can be appreciated, but it's not a selling point for someone upgrade and spend the money on a premium product. The real features for the Series 2 is the GPS and water resistance. And for those who are not aware, the Series 2 offers a 30% larger battery.

    Then again, the GPS and water resistance really isn't even that much of a seller to upgrade, unless you really are going to use those features. The speed of the Apple Watch Series1/Series 2 isn't really that much of a huge impact or difference over the first Apple Watch. It's Noticeable, but not extensive.

    Series one only offers the upgraded processor. Otherwise it's exactly the same as the first generation Apple Watch. It doesn't even include the water resistance, screen brightness or larger battery.

    The Apple Watch first generation will take the hit when the third generation Apple Watch will launch in March 2018 respectively. Once the third generation Apple Watch launches, it will likely include a much improved processor and other health related sensors that the first generation Apple Watch would not be able to conduct. But until then, I see no reason why it cannot last until then. Who knows, Apple track record with their devices, premium hardware, usually last longer than most expect. But I think it's too early to tell, being the Apple Watch is still relatively new and evolving.
     
  13. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #13
    Apologies for being unprecise. Having switched to a Series 2 a couple of days ago, my impression is that the CPU/GPU combo in S0 is struggling to provide the user experience it does, where the S2 is doing it rather casually. It's the small things like that little micro-stutters while using the UI or the long sync or pairing times, which you only really notice after having used an S2 as comparison.

    I think it depends on individual preference. Under daylight, the difference is noticeable. And even in closed rooms the display seems to look sharper and more vividly. Caveat emptor: Subjective impression. Biggest impact probably on the sapphire-covered displays of the stainless steel versions (which are usually considered most as S0 purchase nowadays).

    That'd be exactly my concern: It's already noticeable!

    New technology usually tends to grow more complex while evolving. I would consider an AW a "new technology" in the form that it belongs to the first wave of mass-compatible wearables. Thus I'd expect the UI/watchOS to grow more complex as well.

    If the speed difference is noticeable already for the still low-complex UI/watchOS, I interpret this as hardware (CPU/GPU) on S0 running at its limits. Now imagine more demanding things coming up in watchOS 4, like e.g. new watch faces, new complications or Siri becoming available offline (at least for mundane tasks). Leave alone new factory apps (e.g. health-related) or less-optimized 3rs-party apps.

    With an S0 you will most probably be unable to use all of the new features in their full glory, where an S2 will do just fine (historical precedences: iPhone 2G -> 3G, 4 -> 4S or iPad 1 -> iPad 2).

    Not sure Apple will take that long again for the next revision to launch. This rumor claims a next revision for the 2nd half of 2017 (due to a switch to Micro-LED technology) and a one-year cycle would not be that unusual, especially for something being marketed as fashion item.

    At least watchOS 4 is a given for next year, I think. That would already be the 3rd major OS upgrade for S0. To me, the chances for it running on the S0 without significant speed penalties and/or missing features is rather low. That may still be acceptable to some (like iOS 7 on iPhone 4), but probably not to the majority of owners.

    Especially the typical customer that purchases an S0 now because they've become so (comparably) inexpensive. In less than one year he gets offered an OS update and simply installs it, only to find out that it worsens the user experience significantly - and Apple not allowing a downgrade anymore to the more performant watchOS 3. He would be upset, and rightfully so.
     
  14. Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #14
    The bottom line is this. THe first Generation is more than suitable to last through Watch OS 4. The Series 1/Series 2 speeds are nothing to brag about. Yes, they have faster load times/updates, but it really depends how the user utilizes the Watch.

    In terms of spending or recommending the Series 1/2 over the first Generation Watch is soley based on two things, GPS and Water resistance. The same form factor isn't worth upgrading because of a processor if you don't appreciate those factors. Essentially, it's the same Watch with a few upgrades. Is it worth it? Only the person who upgrades can make that decision.

    I own both and the processing speeds are noticeable, but it's not a highlight. There is nothing monumental about the Series 1/Series 2 over the Gen one. Apple definitely has invested in marketing the water resistance rating over anything.

    The real leap will be in the Gen 3 Watch. Larger battery, more health sensors, large screen, possible round variant, band changes, Ram/processor, etc.

    Any speculation over the first Gen Watch is anecdotal. For now, Watch OS 3.1 has been reported largely positive how well the First Gen Watch has paired.
     
  15. Archer1440 macrumors 6502

    Archer1440

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    I have to agree- just two days ago I acquired an S2. This morning I put the S0 on and the experience was so poor by comparison it was shocking. The S0 might be fine for someone who hasn't experienced the S2, but one you have, there is no going back.
     
  16. Relentless Power, Dec 24, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2016

    Relentless Power macrumors G5

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #16
    I own both models. And I have to say that there is definitely a difference in speed for loading times and updates. But the speeds weren't really noticeable beyond that, pending if you have third-party applications and how you use usual third-party applications. For myself, I primarily just have the Apple Watch stock as is, and perhaps I have adjusted, but I the tests I have used side by side were minimal in opening applications, multitasking, ect.

    I think every Apple Watch user uses the Watches capabilities differently, certain functions and applications will take advantage of the S2 processor. If you continue to read through all the forums on here, most of said the S2 processor isn't really anything in terms of anything monumental. I do agree that the S2 processor will assist in managing power efficiency, especially for managing battery consumption, where the processor on the first Gen Watch will have to work harder with a slower processor.
     

Share This Page