Stainless vs Aluminum - Why buy SS?

[Srbell67]

I just got my s3 space black...
I replaced my s3 nike aluminum....

Im loving the weight of stainless... It feels more premium...
Aluminum is too light for me.
And i like that glossy finish

Yes and those are the two major reasons why people who get SS usually stick w them each time. You kind of get spoiled by the heft and look. Luxury problems...lol

 

[Otflyer]

Yes and those are the two major reasons why people who get SS usually stick w them each time. You kind of get spoiled by the heft and look. Luxury problems...lol

Exactly. I had the series 0 SS for 2.5 yrs. Bought a series 3 aluminum. The next day I took it back and exchanged for series 3 SS.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

People with any concept of money factor in the cost over the lifetime of a purchase, not just the initial purchase price. When you make a value decision that is the metric you go with.

If you control budget at a company and make a purchase that is a depreciating asset (like an Apple Watch) monthly tends to be the metric you think in as it will hit your budget that way.

It’s up to you how you view the cost of something. If you’re going to buy something on a credit card and spread the cost into monthly payments then the cost can be viewed the way you say. If you buy a product in one lump sum then the division of costing per month will be irrelevant and forgotten about pretty soon after purchase. My personal purchases are treated very differently to the budgets I control at work for instance. It’s up to you how you justify it really. Stainless isn’t an option to me due to the fact I don’t think it’s worth nearly double the price. You evidently have your reasons and perhaps treat watches rougher over the course of their life.

 

[tgara]

I went from an aluminum S0 to a Stainless S3. For me, the stainless is more my speed.

When I bought my aluminum S0 back in 2015, I knew it was my "starter" Apple Watch because the watch was new and I was not sure how I would like it. Turns out I liked it a lot, but I wanted something more substantial and luxurious than the aluminum model. I had been wearing a stainless steel Omega Seamaster for many years, so I wanted an Apple Watch along those lines. So, I got the Stainless Series 3 last fall after they came out, and paired it with a Juuk steel band. The Juuk bands really raise the Apple Watch to luxury level, they are that good. I now have the Apple Watch I wanted all along!

 

[newellj]

The aluminum is prone to chipping and the screen will scratch. A screen protector on a watch is incredibly tacky and based on all reports I have seen on them (on the watch) they will fall off because of the constant pulling at the edges.

I have an s0ss and an s3ss. After two years of absolutely abusing the S0 (yard work, working on cars, hiking, etc) and a quick polish on the stainless it looks identical to the brand new S3. Zero scratches on the screen.

I tried an s3 aluminum and it picked up scratches on the screen after three days and I pampered that thing since it was new. I returned it.

So in a round about way my wife and I did the same experiement. I tried an aluminum for three days and we both decided her next upgrade had to be stainless, aluminum wasn’t an option.

Now, if they come up with a sapphire/aluminum option that would be interesting.

Aluminum doesn't "chip." And sapphire glass is more resistant to scratches, but more prone to shattering. And here's a report that a screen protector can stay put for at least three months, if properly applied.
[doublepost=1515529122][/doublepost]

The cheaper price means it’s replaceable every 2-3 years to me and the lightweight feel is nice for exercising.

[doublepost=1515305840][/doublepost]The price difference amortized over 2-3 years is irrelevant. 5-8 dollars a month is nothing.

Except nobody factors the Apple Watch cost per month, they factor the total cost of what the Apple Watch is at the time of the purchase. It's a piece a tech, not an investment of anything like a vehicle...

Reasonable people can come to different conclusions but to me an AW has a service life of two to three years at the outside. If you *like* the look or weight or features of the SSAW, go for it. I figure it has uncertain and fairly minimal residual value after three years in any case and would rather spend less rather than more on the purchase. (Notice that I didn't say "invest" - there's no way an AW purchase is an investment, unless, I suppose, you think it may actually save your life or something like that.)

 

[44267547]

People with any concept of money factor in the cost over the lifetime of a purchase, not just the initial purchase price. When you make a value decision that is the metric you go with.

Let's stay on the Topic the Apple Watch, not finances in general. You can spin your narrative anyway you want, nobody justifies the price tag based off what what the monthly breakdown is for an Apple Watch unless it's financed, or it's an iPhone that they are subsidizing or something inherently more expensive. In the sense of the Apple Watch, they factor the price as a whole.

the saphire is less prone to shattering than the glass.

False. Sapphire is very prone to shattering if it's dropped because of the hardness.

The Ion-X Glass can also shatter, but it's less likely due to the different materials used and it doesn't nearly have a hardness that sapphire does.

This Article explains it nicely discussing the Apple Watch:

https://watchaware.com/post/12564/sapphire-isnt-as-durable-as-you-think

 

[macTW]

Who would buy a SS? That's your question? Someone who values things differently than you? You have your opinions and things that make a decision one way or the other for you. Good. Enjoy it. Be happy in what you have. But no need to start a whole thread on who would buy a SS? As if whoever would is so dumb, according to your personal value system. There are plenty who have. Apple sells a lot of them. That doesn't make them all a shade dumber than you. Please.

He asked for an answer. Not a moronic rant.

 

[barjam]

Let's stay on the Topic the Apple Watch, not finances in general. You can spin your narrative anyway you want, nobody justifies the price tag based off what what the monthly breakdown is for an Apple Watch unless it's financed, or it's an iPhone that they are subsidizing or something inherently more expensive. In the sense of the Apple Watch, they factor the price as a whole.

Everyone I know thinks of purchases in terms of lifetime of the asset. To extrapolate this out if you had two options for an item that lasts 10 years, one costs 300, the other 500 and brings with that more features or higher quality you would be more likely to purchase the 500 dollar item. If the lifetime of the purchase was only a month you would weigh your options differently.

Folks I know tend seek out the best value and not necessarily the cheapest option though. People of means tend to buy a high quality thing that will last vs replacing items over and over with the cheapest option. On an Apple Watch with a set technical lifetime of two to three years I concede this doesn't really play out but the mindset that would bring someone to buy the higher quality option and think of that purchase over the lifetime of the purchase are still in play.

For you, the money isn't worth it. Thats perfectly fine. I tried to go with the discount option and found that the quality of the screen just wasn't acceptable as I scratched the thing in three days of ownership. Not worrying about scratching the screen over 2-3 years of ownership was worth 220 to me (or pennies a day).

 

[Shanghaichica]

It’s up to you how you view the cost of something. If you’re going to buy something on a credit card and spread the cost into monthly payments then the cost can be viewed the way you say. If you buy a product in one lump sum then the division of costing per month will be irrelevant and forgotten about pretty soon after purchase. My personal purchases are treated very differently to the budgets I control at work for instance. It’s up to you how you justify it really. Stainless isn’t an option to me due to the fact I don’t think it’s worth nearly double the price. You evidently have your reasons and perhaps treat watches rougher over the course of their life.

If the SS model had some added features other than the way it looks and being more durable then I would have considered it again this time. However I just don’t think it’s worth it for a device that gets old very quickly.

I purchased an aluminium Apple Watch (series 0) on launch day in 2015. I upgraded to the SS version in August 2015 because I preferred the way it looked and it was more durable as I had some scratches on my aluminium Watch by that time.

By January/feb of 2017 the battery life was quite bad and the Watch had slowed down quite a bit. It was still good enough for notifications, Apple Pay and activity tracking but I found things such as using it to control audio playback when using my airpods quite cumbersome as it was slow. The SS was also scratched. Yes I do have a cod cape cloth which I used once to buff out the scratches but after that I couldn’t be bothered to polish it as much as would be required. When I say poor battery life, I would take the Watch off the charger at say 7 am and by 3 pm it would have gone into low power mode because the battery was virtually dead. I’ve never used it to do workouts. I’m a nurse and sometimes I do 14 hour shifts. If I took the Watch off the charger at say 4.30 am by 4 pm the Watch would be in low power mode. At work I don’t have my phone on the ward so the Watch was on airplane mode and I had theatre mode turned on to save battery. So even with those power saving methods it wouldn’t even last me to the end of my shift (7 am to 9 pm).

So after less than two years the Watch had slowed down, had poor battery life and was worn. When I purchased my Apple Watch series 0 I just went for the aluminium model. For something which is going to slow down and be outdated in less than two years I didn’t think it was worth it to spend an extra £200 to get the SS model. Not to mention that the price of the SS model has significantly increased in the UK after brexit.
[doublepost=1515581109][/doublepost]

Everyone I know thinks of purchases in terms of lifetime of the asset. To extrapolate this out if you had two options for an item that lasts 10 years, one costs 300, the other 500 and brings with that more features or higher quality you would be more likely to purchase the 500 dollar item. If the lifetime of the purchase was only a month you would weigh your options differently.

Folks I know tend seek out the best value and not necessarily the cheapest option though. People of means tend to buy a high quality thing that will last vs replacing items over and over with the cheapest option. On an Apple Watch with a set technical lifetime of two to three years I concede this doesn't really play out but the mindset that would bring someone to buy the higher quality option and think of that purchase over the lifetime of the purchase are still in play.

For you, the money isn't worth it. Thats perfectly fine. I tried to go with the discount option and found that the quality of the screen just wasn't acceptable as I scratched the thing in three days of ownership. Not worrying about scratching the screen over 2-3 years of ownership was worth 220 to me (or pennies a day).

Based on my time with the series 0 the Watch was already sub optimal after less than 2 years so it’s not worth it to me. However each to their own.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

If the SS model had some added features other than the way it looks and being more durable then I would have considered it again this time. However I just don’t think it’s worth it for a device that gets old very quickly.

I purchased an aluminium Apple Watch (series 0) on launch day in 2015. I upgraded to the SS version in August 2015 because I preferred the way it looked and it was more durable as I had some scratches on my aluminium Watch by that time.

By January/feb of 2017 the battery life was quite bad and the Watch had slowed down quite a bit. It was still good enough for notifications, Apple Pay and activity tracking but I found things such as using it to control audio playback when using my airpods quite cumbersome as it was slow. The SS was also scratched. Yes I do have a cod cape cloth which I used once to buff out the scratches but after that I couldn’t be bothered to polish it as much as would be required. When I say poor battery life, I would take the Watch off the charger at say 7 am and by 3 pm it would have gone into low power mode because the battery was virtually dead. I’ve never used it to do workouts. I’m a nurse and sometimes I do 14 hour shifts. If I took the Watch off the charger at say 4.30 am by 4 pm the Watch would be in low power mode. At work I don’t have my phone on the ward so the Watch was on airplane mode and I had theatre mode turned on to save battery. So even with those power saving methods it wouldn’t even last me to the end of my shift (7 am to 9 pm).

So after less than two years the Watch had slowed down, had poor battery life and was worn. When I purchased my Apple Watch series 0 I just went for the aluminium model. For something which is going to slow down and be outdated in less than two years I didn’t think it was worth it to spend an extra £200 to get the SS model. Not to mention that the price of the SS model has significantly increased in the UK after brexit.

I own quite a few wrist watches and most of them are stainless as it’s pretty much an industry standard. Quite why Apple have decided it’s a premium material that deserves to be double the price of the Aluminium is puzzling but not at all surprising. Considering Aluminium is often more expensive than stainless in raw form makes it even more confusing. People often suggest that stainless is harder to machine than aluminium but that makes zero difference in practice. Machining times between the two materials are near enough identical albeit with slightly different programming methods. You just use faster or slower feedrates depending.

If the price was slightly more I’d probably consider it but £599 compared to £329 is an absurd difference for me. My aluminium AW will be obsolete in a drawer in 18 months so I’d rather save the cash personally.

 

[Shanghaichica]

If the SS model had some added features other than the way it looks and being more durable then I would have considered it again this time. However I just don’t think it’s worth it for a device that gets old very quickly.

I purchased an aluminium Apple Watch (series 0) on launch day in 2015. I upgraded to the SS version in August 2015 because I preferred the way it looked and it was more durable as I had some scratches on my aluminium Watch by that time.

By January/feb of 2017 the battery life was quite bad and the Watch had slowed down quite a bit. It was still good enough for notifications, Apple Pay and activity tracking but I found things such as using it to control audio playback when using my airpods quite cumbersome as it was slow. The SS was also scratched. Yes I do have a cod cape cloth which I used once to buff out the scratches but after that I couldn’t be bothered to polish it as much as would be required. When I say poor battery life, I would take the Watch off the charger at say 7 am and by 3 pm it would have gone into low power mode because the battery was virtually dead. I’ve never used it to do workouts. I’m a nurse and sometimes I do 14 hour shifts. If I took the Watch off the charger at say 4.30 am by 4 pm the Watch would be in low power mode. At work I don’t have my phone on the ward so the Watch was on airplane mode and I had theatre mode turned on to save battery. So even with those power saving methods it wouldn’t even last me to the end of my shift (7 am to 9 pm).

So after less than two years the Watch had slowed down, had poor battery life and was worn. When I purchased my Apple Watch series 0 I just went for the aluminium model. For something which is going to slow down and be outdated in less than two years I didn’t think it was worth it to spend an extra £200 to get the SS model. Not to mention that the price of the SS model has significantly increased in the UK after brexit.
[doublepost=1515581109][/doublepost]
Based on my time with the series 0 the Watch was already sub optimal after less than 2 years so it’s not worth it to me. However each to their own.

That was supposed to say when I bought my series 3 Apple Watch.

 

[koolmagicguy]

Everyone I know thinks of purchases in terms of lifetime of the asset. To extrapolate this out if you had two options for an item that lasts 10 years, one costs 300, the other 500 and brings with that more features or higher quality you would be more likely to purchase the 500 dollar item. If the lifetime of the purchase was only a month you would weigh your options differently.

Folks I know tend seek out the best value and not necessarily the cheapest option though. People of means tend to buy a high quality thing that will last vs replacing items over and over with the cheapest option. On an Apple Watch with a set technical lifetime of two to three years I concede this doesn't really play out but the mindset that would bring someone to buy the higher quality option and think of that purchase over the lifetime of the purchase are still in play.

For you, the money isn't worth it. Thats perfectly fine. I tried to go with the discount option and found that the quality of the screen just wasn't acceptable as I scratched the thing in three days of ownership. Not worrying about scratching the screen over 2-3 years of ownership was worth 220 to me (or pennies a day).

We’re you able to return it with a scratched screen?

 

[barjam]

I own quite a few wrist watches and most of them are stainless as it’s pretty much an industry standard. Quite why Apple have decided it’s a premium material that deserves to be double the price of the Aluminium is puzzling but not at all surprising. Considering Aluminium is often more expensive than stainless in raw form makes it even more confusing. People often suggest that stainless is harder to machine than aluminium but that makes zero difference in practice. Machining times between the two materials are near enough identical albeit with slightly different programming methods. You just use faster or slower feedrates depending.

If the price was slightly more I’d probably consider it but £599 compared to £329 is an absurd difference for me. My aluminium AW will be obsolete in a drawer in 18 months so I’d rather save the cash personally.

It really isn't about the stainless for me it is about the saphire screen. The stainless is just a nice benefit since it looks nicer than the entry level watch.

I don't want to look down and see a scratched up screen every time I want to know what the time is
[doublepost=1515702476][/doublepost]

If the SS model had some added features other than the way it looks and being more durable then I would have considered it again this time. However I just don’t think it’s worth it for a device that gets old very quickly.

I purchased an aluminium Apple Watch (series 0) on launch day in 2015. I upgraded to the SS version in August 2015 because I preferred the way it looked and it was more durable as I had some scratches on my aluminium Watch by that time.

By January/feb of 2017 the battery life was quite bad and the Watch had slowed down quite a bit....

You might want to get your watch looked at, my S0 actually got faster over that same amount of time with software improvements. Sure, it was always slow and third party apps were never quite fast enough but it was overall a faster device then at launch. It is trending slower again with new releases now but I still think it feels faster than at launch.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

Yes and those are the two major reasons why people who get SS usually stick w them each time. You kind of get spoiled by the heft and look. Luxury problems...lol

My main reason is that aluminum ia a soft metal and if you hit it the screen may pup out

 

[newellj]

My main reason is that aluminum ia a soft metal and if you hit it the screen may pup out

But if you smack the SS the sapphire glass can shatter. Different people will call this one different ways. I did the math in my head (watch cost, expected ownership period, cost of repairs, cost of AC+) and bought an aluminum Nike+ and AppleCare+. YMMV.

 

[barjam]

But if you smack the SS the sapphire glass can shatter. Different people will call this one different ways. I did the math in my head (watch cost, expected ownership period, cost of repairs, cost of AC+) and bought an aluminum Nike+ and AppleCare+. YMMV.

And so can glass, the delta between where the saphire will shatter and the glass will shatter is tiny. With Apple care if you crack the saphire you are covered. *when* you scratch the aluminum watch (glass or body) you are out of luck as it is considered cosmetic.

 

[Mikeeee]

And so can glass, the delta between where the saphire will shatter and the glass will shatter is tiny. With Apple care if you crack the saphire you are covered. *when* you scratch the aluminum watch (glass or body) you are out of luck as it is considered cosmetic.

Seems illogical. People who scratch the glass who aren't covered turn the scratch into shattering and they are all of a sudden covered.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

It really isn't about the stainless for me it is about the saphire screen. The stainless is just a nice benefit since it looks nicer than the entry level watch.

I don't want to look down and see a scratched up screen every time I want to know what the time is

You said previously you put your watches through quite a bit of abuse so that’s understandable. My AW sits up a shirt sleeve a few days a week and gets used for exercise so doesn’t get much chance to get scratched. If I do any serious DIY I put on my old Casio. I preferred the gold to stainless so we all make our choices for different reasons.

 

[barjam]

You said previously you put your watches through quite a bit of abuse so that’s understandable. My AW sits up a shirt sleeve a few days a week and gets used for exercise so doesn’t get much chance to get scratched. If I do any serious DIY I put on my old Casio. I preferred the gold to stainless so we all make our choices for different reasons.

I scratched the aluminum 3 I was trying after three days by accidently brushing up against a painted sheetrock wall... attempt failed, they just aren’t tough enough for my tastes!

 

[Mikeeee]

I scratched a Nike + after 5 days by bumping into a door. That was enough of a test for me and I immediately switched to SS.

 

[44267547]

You said previously you put your watches through quite a bit of abuse so that’s understandable. My AW sits up a shirt sleeve a few days a week and gets used for exercise so doesn’t get much chance to get scratched. If I do any serious DIY I put on my old Casio. I preferred the gold to stainless so we all make our choices for different reasons.

Same here. If I know if I'm doing any type of labor, for example; cleaning my car. I don't wear my Apple Watch for reasons as such. I usually wear an old sport watch or no watch at all. I don't want take the risk of damaging watch against the car or vice versa.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I scratched the aluminum 3 I was trying after three days by accidently brushing up against a painted sheetrock wall... attempt failed, they just aren’t tough enough for my tastes!

Mines had a few brushes with painted walls. Especially down the back of the TV when swapping hdmi leads. Perhaps I’ve been lucky but I don’t expect the watch to remain pristine . They certainly aren’t fragile.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

But if you smack the SS the sapphire glass can shatter. Different people will call this one different ways. I did the math in my head (watch cost, expected ownership period, cost of repairs, cost of AC+) and bought an aluminum Nike+ and AppleCare+. YMMV.

You Have a point due to short life of the AW (I am going to buy a new every year) for me, I will take the Aluminum just because of price factor,
my main use of the AW will be for the health APP so I will need and recommend elderly people to do the same

 

[Nell]

My aluminium watch still looks like new unless you look really, really closely. Certainly in over 2.5 years it hasn’t sustained any damage that makes it look bad or has any affect on it functionally.

I chose stainless steel for S3 but only because I fancied a change.

 

[Otflyer]

You Have a point due to short life of the AW (I am going to buy a new every year) for me, I will take the Aluminum just because of price factor,
my main use of the AW will be for the health APP so I will need and recommend elderly people to do the same

Why should elderly buy aluminum? I’m elderly (71) and have the SS S3 watch.