I don't have an Apple Watch yet, has I was waiting to see what the 2nd generation had to offer. Since I don't really need GPS or waterproof, do you think I should just get Series One?
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.
Series One instead of the new model?
- Thread starter WigWag Workshop
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I too am considering the series 1 over the series 2. I originally was waiting for the Second Apple Watch, but it appears that the first Apple Watch did not have a bunch of problems. By the time I settled on getting an Apple Watch, it was getting real close to win the new one would come out. I don't feel like the new features of the S2 are necessary to me. I'm tired of my Fitbit not charging right. Also, people say they have swam with their S1 without issue.
Yes. Crazy good deal with the new CPU/GPU - if you don't need GPS, and if you don't swim.
I am not considering it. The extras the series 2 introduced help with the performance quite a bit. Especially because a lot of stuff is not really super fast, but actually pre-loaded. I rather get the most out of that little bugger, than end up next year with an even more slugging watch.
To be honest, I kinda expected the 2nd gen to be a bit more impressive, but i guess we can at least leave the phone at home for most things now.
To be honest, I kinda expected the 2nd gen to be a bit more impressive, but i guess we can at least leave the phone at home for most things now.
After I posted that, the thread had new posts, mentioning series 1.. I completely forgot about series 1 over the original watch! I feel like a dork now. MAH BAD
Series 1 for me. I don't Run and don't swim so the only thing I will get for $130au is a brighter screen. Will save the bucks for a nice dinner or a couple of other bands.
I wouldn't go that far
What they SHOULD have done is at least mention they discontinued the gold series. I just saved up my 15,000 euro... just kidding, I'd never pay that for a watch 
I pre-ordered a series 1. I have almost no need for the GPS, and the screen on "series 0" has always been plenty bright for me.
I would have ordered series 2 still, if not for the extra bloat caused by the GPS that I don't even need. "series 0" is already too big IMHO, now they are bloating it more.. wrong direction Apple, get with the program.
I would have ordered series 2 still, if not for the extra bloat caused by the GPS that I don't even need. "series 0" is already too big IMHO, now they are bloating it more.. wrong direction Apple, get with the program.
Nope, they are definitely not the same size. Shame on Apple for hiding those details.
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-watch-series-2-vs-apple-watch-series-1-2016-specs-comparison/
10.5mm vs 11.4mm depth.
30g vs 34.3h weight.
Series 2 is an overweight bloated monster.
It was reported the casing difference is literally 1 Millimeter thicker due to the larger battery to support the S2 Chip/GPS, which equals out to be the same battery life as Gen 1, which the thickness would be barely noticeable to the user.
Added thickness is not related to S2 chip because series one has same chip and same size as original Apple Watch.
My post was not as clear as it should have been. The larger battery increased the casing thickness by one millimeter in order to support required power for the S2 Chip/GPS; thus, allowing the thickness to increase subtly, where it would be almost undetected by first sight.
It hasn't been confirmed specially what size it is, but Macrumors posted an article with a company using a micrometer measuring the over all depth of the battery, confirming it is larger by scale, to what variant? We don't know as of yet.
I remember reading that. For some reason I have memory of the series one AND 2 being thstc1mm thicker than the original AW. Must have some signals crossed.