Should they have just sold a 40mm for gen 1?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Varth Dader, May 21, 2015.

  1. Varth Dader, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 27, 2015

    Varth Dader macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #1
    In my opinion (worth squat) when I see people wearing their Apple Watches, about 5% have the one that is best size for them, the rest seem to have talked themselves or been talked into settling for the wrong size watch.

    It almost seems to me that, being a new product category for Apple, might it not have been in their best interest to release <b>only</b> a 40mm watch to start with?

    This would be a tad larger on the thin wristed folks and a tad smaller on the big wristed folks, but...

    It would be iconic.
    Less preorder customer angst.
    Less need for try-ons.
    Less inventory/production hassles.
    Quicker to manufacture.
    Easier to drive down component costs.
    Less returns and gray market dealings.

    As in a "you can have it in any color you like as long as its black" Henry Ford type of thing...

    Then, in gen 2, branch out to 38mm 40mm and 42mm
    Then with Gen 3 fade out the 40mm.

    It's all water under the unbuilt bridge now, lol.
     
  2. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #2
    But in THEIR opinion they got the right size, and whose opinion matters more?

    IF Apple had only offered the one size, the boo birds would have come out in force whining about the lack of choice.
     
  3. ParishYoung macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, South West UK
    #3
    Then they couldn't sell you "the most personal device they've ever made"
     
  4. Varth Dader, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015

    Varth Dader thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #4
    As I said, my opinion is squat. I'm not shitlording their decision.

    Plenty of iconic watches have shipped in one size at least at first. I am more focusing on if it would have been less of a cluster**** production-wise (and I realize strictly speaking no one has gotten their watches "late" yet).

    Not even criticizing Apple, just a what-if scenario to discuss pros and cons thereof.

    ----------

    The iconic Omega "moonwatch" was 39.7mm, I think, so that seems like 40mm would not be far off from that. Acceptable for Omega is good enough for me.
     
  5. Subdiv macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    Fair question, OP. I've thought about this myself. I mentioned in another thread today that a 40mm size would work well for those who have struggled with a choice between 38 and 42 (including yours truly.)

    My guess is they didn't want to scare off people with smaller wrists by going with just one size. From some of the pics I've seen on these forums, the 38 can sometimes look like a 42 on thinner arms...
     
  6. AtheistP3ace macrumors 6502a

    AtheistP3ace

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Location:
    Philly
    #6
    Hmm, it is a good question. I struggled with the size too. Went with 38mm, Definitely planning on going in for a try on session before Gen2 to see if I want to upgrade to the 42mm.

    But my, admittedly awkward, attempt to hold my iPhone 6 Plus up to my wrist and see the sizes through the Apple Store App made me feel like 42 was too big for my wrist. I am not unhappy with my 38 by any means but I do wonder if I could go bigger.
     
  7. ParishYoung, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015

    ParishYoung macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, South West UK
    #7
    Isn't their selling point exclusivity? I

    You've made some great arguments for a single size. I'm just not convinced that it would disrupt the market the way Apple likes to. Maybe even have the two sizes we have wont either.

    ----------

    They totally should've used the camera and enabled the watches as overlays so you could see it on your wrist through your phone.
     
  8. Varth Dader thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #8
    Apple's is too, no? Affordable luxury. Show the high-end, let them buy the low-end.

    Apple always had good-better-best showcasing for their price points. (Goldilocks)

    This time, Apple mixed-in the "cheap" watches into the middle. They show better-good-best, kind of a psychological bracketing of the low end with the higher end watches. I thought that was quite telling. They know most will gravitate to the good/better (in terms of volume) but everyone will feel included in the luxury aspect of it.
     
  9. sdallnct2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    #9
    I think Apple was very purposeful in making a "smaller" size that would attract women. I realize 38mm is a good size for some men (likely me, but I went w/42mm).

    Apple really wanted more than the geeks and the "this is new so I must get it" crowd. And even more than the Apple fan. So they did this w/size, color, cost and a feature set that should have something most would like to have.
     
  10. anez macrumors 6502

    anez

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    Ireland
    #10
    My wrist is barely 5.5"/135mm. I don't know that I would have bought a 40mm Watch, and I would certainly have not pre-ordered one.

    I think a lot of other people would have waited to see if it worked for them or not, and their first day of sales would have been a lot slower. Then again, if the Watches had been available for try on before orders opened, that would have solved that problem, at least.

    Apple made a lot of... interesting choices when it came to this launch, but I don't think offering two sizes was one of them.
     
  11. Varth Dader, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015

    Varth Dader thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #11
    Ah, but if it had been 39.7mm? lol. Definite psychological difference. (?)

    We can only wonder. In the "Apple sells a single size watch" universe, we would all have one by now plus millions of others would. (In my theory)

    Also would have preferred the watch sell in its own box with no strap. Just sell the watch, buy the strap separately. None of this "some watches are shipping now, other watches with different bands are not yet" silliness.
     
  12. anez macrumors 6502

    anez

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    Ireland
    #12
    Considering I have a decent collection of non-smartwatches with the largest being 38mm, the $99.99c effect wouldn't have mattered to me. I can't say for sure I wouldn't have bought the Watch, but I can definitely say that I've given watch sizes a lot of consideration over the years, and 38mm is the largest I've ever felt comfortable wearing, even when I've loved the look of larger watches.

    For what it's worth, though, I fully agree about the single strap approach. Sell both models with a black Sport band, and make everything else optional. It might not be the most personal device ever made, but it might get the device to people's person a lot faster.
     
  13. MartyCan macrumors 65816

    MartyCan

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Location:
    Near Toronto, ON
    #13
    I've seen lRge watches on small wrists and vice versa.

    My answer to your larger question is no. Both sizes are valid. Up to the wearer which they prefer.
     
  14. Varth Dader thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #14
    Sure. Again, I don't debate anyone's right to ultimately subjectively think one is better for them.

    I do think in a perfect world, where everyone could try on beforehand, it would be different somewhat. Less "screw it, I'll keep this one since it took forever just to get it" or "I don't want to bother returning/selling it, it'll grow on me", etc.

    It's an interesting problem for Apple, knowing people will buy being so highly uninformed and likely return or resell to such a degree.

    They should have done ads that doubled as cut-out sizing guides in magazines.
     
  15. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #15
    They needed the 38/42 split it was the right thing to do looking through the pictures thread it's clear people have made a mistake going for the 42
     
  16. trek360 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    #16
    I think 38mm is a good balance to capture smaller wrist sizes. Now that they have done 38 there are people who will have an easier time accepting a 40mm watch option on the next go around. But as long as apple sticks to the rectangular case shape it'll be hard to upsize a whole lot.
     
  17. Tycho24 Suspended

    Tycho24

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #17
    No.
    More choice is better.

    Sure.... eventually having 40mm in ADDITION would be cool.
    Never thought I'd hear someone argue for less choice though.
     
  18. Janana macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2013
    #18
    I really wanted the 42 mm but my wrist is 127mm therefor ended up ordering the 38mm because the bands on the 42 would have been too big. I was actually thinking buying the 42 and punching a hole to make the band fit but because it wraps around the inside it would have probably covered the sensor on the back. On the 38 The band is on the 2nd to last hole but when I work out I end up having to tighten it when it starts slipping from the sweat. if they made smaller bands for 42 that would have been great.
     
  19. IJBrekke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    #19
    I went to a try-on session with a buddy who's significantly shorter and thinner than I am. He tried the 38, me the 42. They looked exactly the same proportionally side by side, but when we swapped they looked comically wrong.

    Having two sizes is the correct and necessary choice.
     
  20. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #20
    It's almost like you've played this game before!
     
  21. mattopotamus macrumors G5

    mattopotamus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #21
    As someone who owns the 38mm and loves it, it is still clear they thought men would get the 42mm and women the 38mm (or very few men with small wrist). I am not trying to start a debate, but that was their intentions. The modern buckle only being sold with the 38mm and the leather loop with the 42mm supports this thought.

    This is also why we are seeing the 80/20 split in sales. That is probably close to the ratio of men to women ordering the watch if not greater in the favor of men.
     
  22. Varth Dader thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #22
    It's quite Apple-like if you look at history :) Variations come afterwards.

    ----------

    The official sizing guide shows "most women" and "most men" areas on the size spectrum.
     
  23. xraydoc macrumors 604

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #23
    My wife would never have wanted a 40mm or bigger watch. The fact that the 38mm is so small is what attracted her to it.
     
  24. Shanghaichica macrumors 603

    Shanghaichica

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Precisely this!!! I've been looking at the android wear watches for the past few years but I never bought one because they were all too big, too bulky and too masculine. Apple were the only company to make a watch that appealed to me as a female. The 38 mm is the perfect size for me.
     
  25. Newtons Apple Suspended

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #25
    The OP was right about his opinion :p

    There is no "wrong size" !

    To each his/her own:)
     

Share This Page