So happy I went SS over Aluminum - after wanting Aluminum since announced

[slpslee1]

After trying them on, I love the stainless with the Milanese band, and that will be my purchase for the next generation. That said, I had already preordered an aluminum/green band, and I'll be entirely happy with it till next year. I couldn't really fathom what all I could use the watch for until I went and played with it. After I did, I just hated to walk out of the store without one.

How shall I say this... I'm a youth-challenged female. I had not one, but two, cute young Apple guys assisting me, and we had a ball playing with the demo watches while I was trying on the bands. I've never had much use for Siri on any of my other devices, but she's very useful and a lot of fun on the watch, and Glances are a kick.

I'm thinking if you have any Apple watch on your wrist come the end of the month or early May, you're going to draw a crowd regardless of watch case, so you might as well sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[vigilant]

Battery technology has been slow to change, but chip technology has advanced. By next year, Apple should be able to use Samsung's 14nm or TSMC's 16nm process for making chips, vs. the 28nm or 22nm process they are likely using now. That should help in 2 ways: 1) the chip itself will use less power, and 2) the chip will be smaller, allowing Apple to put a slightly larger battery inside.

I agree, and thats my concern. Battery technology hasn't really changed. The Macbook is now basically stacking batteries to make sure that theres enough in there.

The S1 isn't only limited by the manufacturing process, it's limited by the fact it's sealed in resin. If we assume that the Apple Watch is using a modified A5 in a SIP then theres more then just modified A5 in there. The A5 originally shipped using 45nm, and ended at 32nm. Taking what is essentially the board of an iPod Touch and shrinking it down to that size I'd imagine adds a significant amount of complexity that would probably slow down the shrinking of the die.

The benefits of shrinking the die would lead to either better performance or more batteries. I imagine that Apple would probably use the terraced battery method to get slightly more battery so it could last longer. Again this implies that if they think the size is fine for the time being and the battery life is the chief complaint, then they'll rev the chip not for performance increases, but to get more battery.

Obviously we are all speculating. My initial thought is that once native applications are available the need to "race to sleep" will be far more important then speed. A processor running on an A5 chip hammering out 312x390 resolution for simplified tasks isn't exactly going to tax a processor the same way that the original iPhone 4s or iPad 2 stressed it when running Pages or something.

I'm enthusiastically waiting to see what happens next :-D

 

[BeyondtheTech]

Even with a 4/24-5/8 arrival date, I'm starting to get buyer's remorse for getting the "aluminium," but I don't want to fall to the back of the line in June to get the stainless steel.

Perhaps there could be a thread to set up local swaps (plus cash difference, of course) between buyers who received their units, but want to shift to different models? What other recourse is there for recipients? Although unlikely due to inventory constraints, do you think there will be stock at the Apple Store to perform an exchange? Maybe others will be performing returns and that will be their "stock?"